Hubbry Logo
Joint injectionJoint injectionMain
Open search
Joint injection
Community hub
Joint injection
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Joint injection
Joint injection
Joint injection
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Joint injection
Ultrasound-guided hip joint injection: A skin mark is made to mark the optimal point of entry for the needle.[1]
SpecialtyOrthopedics

In medicine, a joint injection (intra-articular injection) is a procedure used in the treatment of inflammatory joint conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, gout, tendinitis, bursitis, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome,[2] and occasionally osteoarthritis.[3][4] A hypodermic needle is injected into the affected joint where it delivers a dose of any one of many anti-inflammatory agents, the most common of which are corticosteroids. Hyaluronic acid, because of its high viscosity, is sometimes used to replace bursa fluids.[4] The technique may be used to also withdraw excess fluid from the joint.[3]

Efficacy in osteoarthritis

[edit]

In osteoarthritis, joint injection of glucocorticoids (such as hydrocortisone) leads to short term pain relief that may last between a few weeks and a few months.[5] Injections of hyaluronic acid have not produced improvement compared to placebo for knee arthritis,[6][7] but did increase risk of further pain.[6] In ankle osteoarthritis, evidence is unclear.[8] The effectiveness of injections of platelet-rich plasma is unclear; there are suggestions that such injections improve function but not pain, and are associated with increased risk.[vague][9][10]

A 2015 Cochrane review found that intra-articular corticosteroid injections of the knee did not benefit quality of life and had no effect on knee joint space; clinical effects one to six weeks after injection could not be determined clearly due to poor study quality.[11] Another 2015 study reported negative effects of intra-articular corticosteroid injections at higher doses,[12] and a 2017 trial showed reduction in cartilage thickness with intra-articular triamcinolone every 12 weeks for 2 years compared to placebo.[13] A 2018 study found that intra-articular triamcinolone is associated with an increase in intraocular pressure.[14]

Ultrasound-guided

[edit]

Usual standards for musculoskeletal interventional procedures apply, including review of prior imaging, informed consent, and appropriate local anesthesia. A high-frequency (>10 MHz) linear array transducer is recommended, though lower-frequency curvilinear probes may be needed to visualize deep structures in larger patients. A preliminary diagnostic ultrasound, including color Doppler of the target area, is necessary to assess adjacent neurovascular structures.[1][15]

Injections should be performed with adherence to aseptic technique although this varies between institutions and radiologists attributable to resources, training, perceived risk and experience.[16] In a survey of 250 health professionals in the United Kingdom, 43.5% believed infection rates were < 1/1000 following intra-articular injections, 33.0% perceived rates were < 1/100, and 2.6% perceived the risk as negligible.[1] Sterile preparation of the entire injection field, including adjacent skin where the gel and probe are applied, is recommended. Areas of superficial infection such as cellulitis or abscess should be avoided to prevent deeper spread.[1]

After planning a safe route of access, a line parallel to the long axis of the transducer is drawn on the skin adjacent to the end of transducer where the needle will be introduced. Once the patient's skin is sterilized and initial needle entry is made adjacent to the mark, the probe can be returned quickly to the same location and orientation by aligning to the skin mark. The needle is directed toward the intended target by a freehand technique. The needle size, length and type should be selected based on the site, depth and patient's body habitus. 22–24G needles are sufficed for most injections.[1]

As an example, ultrasound-guided hip joint injection[17] can be considered when symptoms persist despite initial treatment options such as activity modification, analgesia and physical therapy.[1]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Joint injection

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A joint injection is a minimally invasive medical procedure in which a healthcare provider uses a needle to deliver , such as a or , directly into the synovial space of a to reduce pain, inflammation, swelling, and stiffness. This targeted approach provides temporary relief, with durations varying by agent: corticosteroids typically lasting from a few weeks to several months, and injections up to 6-12 months or longer. It is commonly performed on joints like the , , or . Joint injections are primarily indicated for inflammatory and degenerative conditions, including , , , , and tendinitis, where conservative treatments like oral medications or physical therapy have proven insufficient. The two most common types are corticosteroid injections, which mimic the body's anti-inflammatory hormones to quickly decrease swelling and pain (with effects often noticeable within 24-48 hours), and hyaluronic acid injections (viscosupplementation), which act as a to the , particularly in after failure of pain relievers. Other variants, such as (PRP) or , aim to promote tissue healing but are less standardized and often not covered by insurance. The procedure is typically outpatient, lasting 15-30 minutes including preparation and recovery, and may involve joint aspiration (removal of excess fluid) beforehand for diagnostic purposes or added relief. To ensure accuracy, especially in deeper joints, imaging guidance like ultrasound or fluoroscopy is frequently used alongside a local anesthetic to minimize discomfort during needle insertion. Benefits include improved mobility and delayed need for surgery, though corticosteroid injections should be used judiciously as recent studies as of 2025 indicate they may accelerate osteoarthritis progression and repeated use can weaken cartilage. Risks, while rare, encompass infection, temporary pain flare, elevated blood sugar in diabetics, skin thinning, or tendon weakening; patients on blood thinners may need to pause them prior.

Overview

Definition and Purpose

Joint injection is a minimally invasive medical procedure involving the direct administration of therapeutic agents, such as corticosteroids or viscosupplements, into the synovial cavity of a to alleviate , enhance , or facilitate diagnostic . This targeted delivery allows for high concentrations of medication at the site of , bypassing systemic circulation to minimize side effects elsewhere in the body. The primary purposes of joint injections are both therapeutic and diagnostic. Therapeutically, they aim to reduce and improve function in conditions involving or degeneration, such as , by modulating local immune responses and restoring joint mechanics. Diagnostically, the procedure can confirm whether a specific is the source of by providing temporary following the injection of a local anesthetic. Joint injections primarily target synovial joints, which are the most common type of diarthrodial joints in the , including major structures like the , , and . These joints are characterized by a that produces , a viscous that reduces between articular during movement, absorbs shock, and delivers nutrients to avascular tissues. Disruptions in composition or volume, as seen in degenerative diseases, can exacerbate joint damage, making intra-articular interventions particularly relevant. Epidemiologically, joint injections are frequently employed in managing (OA), the most prevalent degenerative joint disease, which affects an estimated 606.5 million people globally as of recent 2025 analyses, reflecting a 136% increase in prevalence since 1990 due to aging populations and rising rates. This widespread burden underscores the procedure's role in addressing a condition that impairs mobility for millions annually.

Types of Agents Used

Joint injections commonly employ corticosteroids as the primary pharmacological agents for rapid anti-inflammatory effects. These synthetic glucocorticoids, such as and acetate, work by inhibiting , which suppresses the synthesis of prostaglandins and other inflammatory mediators, thereby reducing joint inflammation and pain. , often used in form for prolonged release, is particularly favored for peripheral joint applications due to its efficacy in controlling local flares. The therapeutic duration typically ranges from several weeks to months, with triamcinolone hexacetonide providing effects up to several months in controlled studies. Viscosupplements, primarily (HA) derivatives, serve as non-pharmacological agents to restore lubrication in degenerative conditions like . These viscoelastic substances mimic the natural by providing shock absorption and reducing friction between articular surfaces, while also exhibiting chondroprotective effects through enhanced synthesis and reduced . Common formulations include high-molecular-weight HA, administered via intra-articular injection to improve function and delay disease progression. Dosing regimens vary, with single high-dose injections (e.g., 60 mg in 2 mL) offering comparable to multiple low-dose series (e.g., three 30 mg injections) over 6 months, though single injections may simplify treatment. Among other biologics, (PRP) is derived from autologous blood through to concentrate platelets, yielding a suspension rich in growth factors like PDGF and TGF-β that promote tissue regeneration and modulate . PRP injections stimulate healing in damaged cartilage and synovium, potentially attenuating symptoms and improving joint homeostasis. type A, injected intra-articularly or into periarticular muscles, addresses spasticity-related joint pain by blocking release at the , leading to temporary muscle relaxation and reduced nociceptive input. This results in significant pain relief in spastic limbs, with effects mediated by decreased muscle tone and possible inhibition of function. Emerging agents as of 2025 include (AAV) vectors for and (MSC) suspensions, both aimed at long-term joint repair. AAV vectors deliver therapeutic genes intra-articularly to target chondrocytes and synoviocytes, modulating inflammatory pathways (e.g., via IL-10 expression) and promoting regeneration while overcoming joint delivery barriers like synovial clearance. MSC suspensions, often from or , exert paracrine effects through secreted factors that enhance tissue repair and reduce inflammation, with preliminary trials showing promise in via and restoration. These approaches remain investigational, focusing on disease modification rather than symptomatic relief.
Agent TypeOnset of EfficacyDuration of EffectJoint Compatibility
Corticosteroids (e.g., triamcinolone)Rapid (days)Weeks to monthsMost synovial joints (e.g., knee, shoulder, hip)
Viscosupplements (HA derivatives)Gradual (1-4 weeks)3-6 months or longerPrimarily knee and hip; limited in small joints
PRP1-4 weeks6-12 monthsKnee, shoulder, ankle; versatile for degenerative joints
Botulinum Toxin ARapid (days)3-6 monthsSpastic joints (e.g., elbow, knee in post-stroke)

Indications and Contraindications

Medical Indications

Joint injections are primarily indicated for the management of inflammatory and degenerative joint conditions where conservative treatments have failed to provide adequate relief. These include acute flares of , , and other inflammatory arthritides, as well as crystalline arthropathies such as gouty arthritis. In degenerative conditions like , injections target persistent pain and effusion in weight-bearing joints such as the and . Diagnostic applications of joint injections involve the use of local anesthetics to differentiate intra-articular from extra-articular sources of pain, aiding in the identification of the precise pathology contributing to symptoms. This approach is particularly useful in ambiguous cases of or where the joint's role in the pain generator needs confirmation. Adjunctive roles for joint injections encompass scenarios such as post-traumatic joint effusions, where aspiration and injection reduce swelling and restore function, as well as involving adjacent joint structures. Evidence-based criteria for joint injections emphasize their use following the failure of initial conservative measures, including oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and , as outlined in guidelines from organizations such as the (AAFP) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). Joint-specific indications include glenohumeral injections for conditions such as shoulder osteoarthritis and adhesive capsulitis, as well as injections for inflammatory associated with spondyloarthropathies.

Contraindications and Precautions

Joint injections, particularly those involving corticosteroids, carry specific absolute contraindications that preclude their use to prevent serious complications. These include active joint infection such as , bacteremia or , and overlying skin infection or at the injection site. Relative contraindications warrant careful risk-benefit assessment before proceeding. Anticoagulant therapy, such as with , increases bleeding risk and is considered relative unless the bleeding potential is high. or to injected agents like corticosteroids also falls into this category, as does recent joint surgery, which may compromise healing. Other relative factors include prosthetic joints and ; acute fractures are an absolute contraindication. Poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, due to risks of and infection, is a relative contraindication requiring monitoring. Several precautions are essential to mitigate risks during joint injections. is classified as category C for corticosteroids, requiring evaluation of benefits versus potential fetal effects, though a single intra-articular dose is generally not contraindicated. Immunosuppressed patients face elevated risks, necessitating heightened vigilance. For repeated injections, limit to no more than 3-4 glucocorticoid doses per joint annually to prevent damage and other long-term effects. Screening protocols help identify contraindications and ensure safety. Laboratory tests such as (CBC) to detect and glucose levels for diabetic control are recommended prior to injection. , including X-rays, should rule out fractures or abnormalities. is mandatory, discussing risks like and . In special populations, joint injections require tailored approaches. Pediatrics involves limited use due to concerns over growth effects and higher procedural risks, often reserved for confirmed inflammatory conditions. For the elderly, monitor closely for systemic effects such as adrenal suppression or , given age-related vulnerabilities.

Procedure

Preparation and Patient Selection

Patient assessment prior to joint injection begins with a thorough review of the patient's to identify indications such as inflammatory or degenerative conditions and to screen for contraindications like active or . A comprehensive follows, focusing on , tenderness, , and stability to confirm the and localize the target . studies, including X-rays to evaluate space narrowing or MRI for assessment, are recommended to support the clinical findings and rule out structural abnormalities. Selection criteria for joint injection emphasize patients who have not responded adequately to conservative therapies, such as , nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or analgesics. Functional status is evaluated, particularly in cases using tools like the Western and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) score to gauge , , and physical function, ensuring the procedure is appropriate for those with moderate to severe impairment. Pre-procedure steps include obtaining after discussing the procedure's benefits, risks, and alternatives, along with verifying to ensure patient stability. The skin is prepared with antiseptic solutions like or alcohol, and the patient is positioned for optimal access, such as for injections to minimize vasovagal reactions. An equipment checklist typically comprises 22- to 25-gauge needles for injection, 1- to 10-mL syringes, and local anesthetics like 1% lidocaine for skin numbing to enhance comfort. For complex cases involving multiple joints or underlying systemic conditions, a multidisciplinary approach incorporating rheumatologists or orthopedists is recommended to optimize patient outcomes.

Step-by-Step Injection Process

The step-by-step injection process for intra-articular injections begins with sterile draping of the target area to maintain aseptic conditions, using sterile gloves, fenestrated drapes, and antiseptic preparation such as or wipes applied in a from the center outward. is then infiltrated into the subcutaneous tissues overlying the entry site with a 25- to 30-gauge needle and 1% lidocaine (1-3 mL), creating a wheal to minimize discomfort during deeper needle advancement. A larger needle, typically 22- to 25-gauge and 1.5- to 3.5-inches long depending on the and body habitus, is selected for the procedure, with the stylet in place initially to prevent coring of tissue. Joint-specific approaches utilize anatomical landmarks for needle guidance. For the , the suprapatellar approach involves positioning the patient with the extended or flexed to 30 degrees; the needle is inserted 1 cm lateral to the superior border, directed posteriorly and inferomedially at a 15- to 45-degree angle toward the patellar midpoint, advancing to a depth of 2-4 cm until a loss of resistance indicates intra-articular placement. In the , the posterior approach positions the patient sitting or prone with the arm in neutral ; the needle enters 1-2 cm inferior and medial to the posterolateral corner, angled 10-15 degrees cephalad and 20-30 degrees anteriorly, targeting the glenohumeral joint space at a depth of 3-5 cm to contact the humeral head. For the hip, the anterior approach places the patient with slight internal (10 degrees); the needle is inserted at the superolateral femoral head-neck junction, perpendicular to the skin or at a 10-15 degree posterior tilt, advancing 4-6 cm to reach the . If is present, aspiration precedes injection to relieve intra-articular pressure and allow fluid analysis for crystals, , or other ; an 18- to 20-gauge needle attached to a 20- to 60-mL is used, with gentle negative pressure applied while stabilizing the , and a may secure the needle hub during syringe exchange to maintain sterility. The therapeutic agent is then injected slowly at a rate of 1-2 mL per second to prevent capsular distension or rupture, with typical volumes limited to 5-10 mL for the , 5-8 mL for the , and 3-6 mL for the to avoid excessive pressure; intra-articular placement is confirmed by a characteristic "give" or loss of resistance upon entering the space and easy flow without . Documentation of the procedure includes recording the exact volume and type of agent injected, needle gauge and length used, any aspiration performed with characteristics noted, patient tolerance (e.g., levels during insertion and injection), and confirmation of intra-articular positioning based on tactile feedback. Variations in these steps may incorporate guidance for enhanced precision, as detailed in specialized techniques.

Post-Procedure Management

Following a injection, patients are advised to rest the affected for 24-48 hours to allow initial recovery and minimize the risk of local tissue irritation. This includes avoiding strenuous activities or heavy use of the joint, such as lifting or high-impact exercises, while permitting routine daily movements like walking unless otherwise specified by the provider. should be applied to the injection site for 15 minutes at a time, up to once or twice per hour as needed, to reduce pain and swelling; heating pads or hot compresses are contraindicated during this period. Additionally, patients should be observed for at least 30 minutes post-procedure for signs of or allergic reactions to the agents used. Follow-up care typically involves maintaining a to track symptoms over the initial days to weeks, recording levels, function, and any adverse effects on a scale such as 0-10. A visit is recommended at 1-2 weeks to evaluate the initial response, adjust , and address any concerns. Repeat injections, if indicated based on prior benefit, should be spaced at least 3 months apart, with a general limit of 3-4 per year in the same to avoid cumulative risks. Response to the injection is commonly assessed using metrics such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for , where a reduction greater than 50% from baseline is considered a successful outcome. This threshold helps clinicians determine efficacy and guide decisions on further interventions. Rehabilitation begins with gentle starting as early as day 2 post-injection, focusing on range-of-motion exercises and low-impact activities to maintain joint function and prevent stiffness. This approach supports sustained benefits from the injection while avoiding overload. For long-term management, particularly in patients receiving repeated injections, annual joint imaging such as or MRI is recommended to monitor for potential overuse effects like cartilage degradation or structural changes. Patients should also remain vigilant for complications such as , as detailed in relevant risk discussions.

Guidance Methods

Landmark-Based Techniques

Landmark-based techniques for joint injections rely on palpation of anatomical landmarks to guide needle placement without real-time imaging, emphasizing identification of bony prominences and joint spaces to access superficial effectively. These methods adhere to strict sterile protocols, including skin preparation with antiseptics and use of sterile drapes, gloves, and needles to minimize risk, while confirming intra-articular placement through aspiration of or low-resistance injectate flow. Common examples include the , where the superolateral approach involves palpating the superior edge of the and inserting a 22-gauge needle at a 90-degree angle toward the femoral condyle in a patient with the knee slightly flexed; the , targeting the radiocapitellar via the "soft spot" triangle formed by the , radial head, and lateral in a prone or seated position with 90-degree flexion; and the ankle, using an anterior tibiotalar approach by marking the line medial to the tibialis anterior and directing a 25-gauge needle posteriorly between the and talus in a patient with neutral positioning. These techniques offer advantages such as procedural simplicity, requiring no specialized equipment or facilities, which reduces costs and enables broader accessibility in settings. Studies report accuracy rates of 70-90% for injections using methods, with superolateral and lateral midpatellar approaches achieving up to 87% success in confirming intra-articular placement via post-injection . Limitations include higher miss rates, particularly in obese patients where obscures landmarks or in deeper joints like the , where alone yields lower precision compared to superficial sites; for instance, accuracy varies widely from 37.5% to 100%, and ankle rates range from 63% to 93%, influenced by patient anatomy and operator experience. Training for landmark-based injections necessitates hands-on simulation using anatomical models or cadavers to develop proficiency in and needle trajectory, as supervised practice is essential to achieve consistent accuracy and safety.

Ultrasound-Guided Injections

Ultrasound-guided joint injections employ real-time sonographic to facilitate precise needle placement within the synovial space, minimizing the risk of extra-articular deposition. These procedures typically utilize high-frequency linear-array transducers operating at frequencies of 6-15 MHz, which provide high-resolution dynamic visualization of the needle, , and surrounding structures such as tendons and neurovascular bundles. This approach is particularly advantageous for superficial to moderately deep joints, allowing operators to adjust the needle trajectory in real time based on anatomical variations. The technique involves strategic positioning tailored to the target , followed by an in-plane needle insertion to maintain continuous visualization. For the , the is placed longitudinally over the suprapatellar recess with the patient and knee slightly flexed, enabling identification of the and patellar margins; a 22- to 25-gauge needle is then advanced from lateral to medial under direct sonographic guidance. Intra-articular positioning is confirmed by observing the hypoechoic expansion of the space as the injectate—such as corticosteroids or —is administered, ensuring even distribution without resistance. Similar principles apply to other joints, with orientation adjusted for optimal access, such as an oblique axial view for the shoulder's posterior glenohumeral recess or a transverse view along the for the . Ultrasound guidance demonstrates superior applicability for deeper or anatomically complex joints like the and , where blind landmark-based techniques often yield lower accuracy. Meta-analyses indicate success rates exceeding 95% for intra-articular placement in these joints, compared to 60-75% with non-imaging methods; for instance, injections achieve near-100% accuracy under , significantly outperforming landmark approaches. Essential equipment includes portable units for bedside use, acoustic coupling gel to optimize image quality, and sterile probe covers to maintain during the procedure. The is relatively short, with proficiency typically attained after 20-30 supervised injections, as accuracy improves markedly—from around 60% initially to over 90%—with practice on standardized models or cadavers. Evidence supports ultrasound guidance as a safer alternative to blind injections, with reduced complication rates such as inadvertent vascular puncture or due to enhanced precision—accuracy reaches 96% for injections versus 77% blindly. In outpatient settings, this method proves cost-effective, associated with up to a 58% reduction in annual per- costs through fewer repeat procedures and improved therapeutic outcomes. While landmark techniques remain viable for superficial joints like the in resource-limited environments, guidance is preferred for its reliability across diverse anatomies.

Fluoroscopic and Other Imaging Guidance

Fluoroscopy is a real-time imaging technique widely used to guide injections, particularly in settings where precise visualization of bony landmarks is essential. The procedure employs a mobile C-arm fluoroscope, which allows for and adjustment to align the beam with the target , facilitating accurate needle trajectory planning by superimposing the needle path over anatomical structures. Contrast dye, typically iodinated, is injected through the needle to confirm intra-articular placement by observing its spread within the space under continuous fluoroscopic monitoring. This method is particularly suited for spine-adjacent joints, such as s in cases of facet syndrome and sacroiliac joints, where overlapping bony anatomy can complicate access. The technique involves careful needle advancement under coaxial fluoroscopic guidance, where the beam is oriented to make the needle appear as a single dot on the image, minimizing errors and ensuring the planned trajectory avoids vital structures. Accuracy rates for fluoroscopically guided injections exceed 98% in targeted applications like sacroiliac and procedures, with studies reporting up to 100% intra-articular success when contrast confirmation is used. For epidural extensions in spinal joint interventions, fluoroscopy enables safe needle placement into the adjacent to affected joints, enhancing precision in . Radiation exposure is minimized through pulsed fluoroscopy and collimation, adhering to the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle, with typical effective doses below 1 mSv per procedure, such as 0.10 mSv for injections. Other imaging modalities complement for more challenging cases. Computed tomography (CT) guidance is preferred for joints with complex three-dimensional anatomy, such as the subtalar or sacroiliac joints post-fracture, providing multiplanar views for precise trajectory planning in procedural suites. (MRI) guidance, while offering superior contrast, is rarely employed due to its high , prolonged procedure times, and technical challenges with ferromagnetic needles, limiting its use to select or highly specialized settings. These advanced methods are typically performed by radiologists or trained interventional specialists to ensure compliance with regulations and optimize outcomes.

Efficacy and Evidence

Efficacy in Osteoarthritis

Intra-articular corticosteroid injections are widely used for managing in , particularly in the and , offering short-term relief typically lasting 4 to 12 weeks. Guidelines such as those from the AAOS recommend corticosteroid injections for short-term symptom control in shoulder osteoarthritis when other conservative treatments fail. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials demonstrate clinically meaningful reductions in , with Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores decreasing by approximately 20-30% compared to baseline or during this period. However, indicates limited long-term benefits beyond 3 months, and repeated injections raise concerns about potential degradation; a 2025 study suggests injections may accelerate joint space narrowing and structural progression (e.g., damage) compared to controls or , though impact on need for replacement surgery remains mixed in moderate cases. Viscosupplementation, involving intra-articular injections, provides moderate evidence of efficacy for knee osteoarthritis, with pain relief and functional improvements often sustained for 6 to 12 months in responders. The U.S. approved products for this indication in 1997, based on early trials showing symptom alleviation through viscosupplementation of . Despite this, clinical guidelines, such as those from the ACR (2020) and AAOS (2021), highlight variable patient responses, recommend against routine use, with meta-analyses reporting only small overall pain reductions versus (effect sizes around 0.2-0.3 on standardized scales) and inconsistent long-term benefits across disease severities; a 2025 study suggests HA may reduce OA progression compared to corticosteroids. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections represent an emerging biologic therapy for , with randomized controlled trials from 2020 to 2025 demonstrating superior durability of pain relief and functional gains compared to corticosteroids or , particularly in mild to moderate cases. These studies, including network meta-analyses, show PRP achieving sustained improvements in symptoms up to 12 months post-injection, with standardized mean differences in pain scores favoring PRP over controls by 0.5 or greater at 6 months. Efficacy appears most pronounced in early-stage , where PRP may promote tissue repair and reduce more effectively than traditional agents. Several factors influence the efficacy of joint injections in . Disease stage, as measured by joint space narrowing on radiographs, is critical; injections yield better outcomes in mild to moderate (Kellgren-Lawrence grades 1-3) than in advanced stages with severe loss. age under 65 years correlates with greater response rates, likely due to preserved regenerative capacity and lower burden. Additionally, multiple injections (e.g., 2-3 spaced 4-6 weeks apart) often outperform single doses for PRP and , enhancing duration of relief without proportionally increasing risks. Common outcome measures for assessing injection efficacy include the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) for pain, stiffness, and function, and the Short Form-36 () for health-related . In trials, active injections typically improve WOMAC total scores by 15-25% more than sham or at 3-6 months, with SF-36 physical component scores showing similar gains in mobility and vitality. Comparisons to sham injections confirm these benefits exceed effects, particularly for corticosteroids and PRP in short- to medium-term follow-up.

Efficacy in Other Conditions

Joint injections, particularly with corticosteroids, play a key role in managing flares of (RA), especially in cases of monoarticular or oligoarticular involvement. The 2021 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines conditionally recommend intra-articular glucocorticoids alongside disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for patients not achieving target disease activity, emphasizing their utility in rapid flare control while systemic therapies are optimized. Clinical studies demonstrate remission rates of 40-50% at 4-12 weeks following injection, with sustained joint-specific improvements in up to 50% of cases at 3 months, though effects are typically transient without ongoing DMARD support. In other inflammatory conditions, joint injections provide targeted relief and diagnostic insights. For acute flares, intra-articular glucocorticoids offer highly effective symptom resolution, often comparable to oral steroids or NSAIDs, with rapid pain reduction when combined with for systemic control. In , injections of corticosteroids yield significant pain and functional improvements, maintained in many patients for 5-6 months, supporting their role in managing axial involvement. Additionally, in undifferentiated , injections serve a dual diagnostic and therapeutic purpose; a positive response to corticosteroids can help differentiate inflammatory from non-inflammatory etiologies, guiding further classification and treatment. For post-traumatic joint effusions, particularly in athletes, injections facilitate quicker resolution of swelling and inflammation, enabling return to activity within 1-2 days post-injection after brief rest, thereby shortening recovery timelines compared to conservative management alone. Intra-articular biologics, such as , show promise in refractory cases unresponsive to conventional therapies. Pilot trials report substantial improvements in Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28), with reductions from baseline scores of approximately 6.4 to 2.6 within weeks, achieving remission (DAS28 <2.6) in most treated patients at 4 weeks. These responses highlight biologics' potential for localized TNF inhibition, though evidence remains limited to small studies. Overall, while efficacious in these conditions, evidence for joint injections is less robust than for osteoarthritis, with shorter durations of benefit and a clear need for integration with systemic therapies to prevent disease progression.

Risks and Complications

Common Side Effects

Joint injections, particularly those involving corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid, commonly lead to mild, self-limiting local reactions at the injection site. The most frequent is a post-injection pain flare, characterized by increased pain, swelling, and irritation that typically peaks within 24 to 48 hours and resolves within 2 to 5 days. This flare occurs in approximately 20% to 35% of patients, depending on the joint and agent used, and is thought to result from a temporary inflammatory response to the injected material. Bruising and localized swelling may also develop due to needle trauma or minor bleeding, affecting up to 10% to 20% of cases and usually subsiding without intervention. For regenerative injections such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP), risks are primarily local and similar to standard injections, including pain, swelling, and bruising at the site, with infection rates below 1%; systemic effects like those from corticosteroids are absent. Mild systemic effects are less common but can occur, especially with corticosteroid injections. Facial flushing, presenting as temporary redness and warmth in the face and upper chest, affects about 40% of patients and lasts 1 to 2 days, attributed to the vasodilatory properties of the steroid. In patients with diabetes, transient hyperglycemia is a notable concern, with blood glucose levels rising within hours to days post-injection and normalizing within 3 to 7 days; this effect is more pronounced in those with poorly controlled diabetes. For hyaluronic acid injections, a specific reaction known as pseudoseptic arthritis can mimic infection through acute inflammation, pain, and effusion, but it is noninfectious and self-resolves in 1 to 2 weeks. This occurs in less than 1% of cases but requires differentiation from true infection via synovial fluid analysis. Overall, fewer than 10% of patients experience side effects severe enough to require medical follow-up, based on recent clinical registries and reviews. Management typically involves reassurance, rest, ice application, and over-the-counter analgesics such as acetaminophen or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to alleviate discomfort during the transient period.

Serious Adverse Events

Patients should seek urgent medical attention after a corticosteroid injection if they experience signs suggestive of infection or serious complications, such as redness spreading widely, significant increase in heat or swelling, fever, pus drainage, pain spreading to the extremity with numbness or weakness, or severe worsening of pain. Serious adverse events from joint injections, though rare, can have significant clinical consequences and require prompt recognition and management. These complications include infections, joint damage, systemic effects, and issues related to imaging guidance, with prevention strategies emphasizing sterile techniques, limited injection frequency, and appropriate patient selection. Legal considerations, such as malpractice risks from procedural misplacement, underscore the importance of adherence to current reporting standards. Infections, particularly septic arthritis, represent a critical risk following intra-articular injections, with an estimated incidence of 0.01-0.03% when sterile protocols are followed. This iatrogenic infection typically arises from skin flora introduction during the procedure and presents with acute signs such as fever, joint erythema, swelling, and severe pain, often within days to weeks post-injection. Diagnosis involves joint aspiration for synovial fluid analysis, including Gram stain, culture, and cell count to confirm bacterial involvement, followed by empirical intravenous antibiotics (e.g., vancomycin plus ceftriaxone) tailored to culture results, with surgical drainage if needed to prevent joint destruction. Prevention relies on strict aseptic technique, including skin preparation with chlorhexidine and use of single-dose vials to minimize contamination. Joint damage from repeated corticosteroid injections, such as for shoulder osteoarthritis, can lead to cartilage atrophy or tendon weakening, particularly when exceeding three to four injections per year in the same joint, as high cumulative doses (>100 mg equivalent) impair function and accelerate progression. Guidelines recommend limiting intra-articular steroids to three to four per year to mitigate this risk, with monitoring via if symptoms worsen. , a rarer complication, has been reported in case series following even single intra-articular hip injections, potentially due to vascular compromise from steroid-induced fat or direct , with reported incidences ranging from 0.6% to 20.4% across studies, particularly for hip injections, and more common in high-risk patients like those with preexisting hip . involves conservative measures initially, progressing to core decompression or joint replacement if collapse occurs. Systemic effects from absorbed corticosteroids include adrenal suppression, which can manifest as hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis insufficiency, especially after multiple or high-dose injections, leading to symptoms like , , or during stress. This risk is dose-dependent, with recovery typically occurring within weeks to months, but perioperative stress-dose steroids may be required in affected patients. Tendon rupture, another systemic concern, is associated with peritendinous steroid infiltration, weakening structure and increasing rupture risk (e.g., Achilles or ) within 2 days to 6 weeks post-injection. Prevention includes avoiding direct injections and using guidance for precise placement. Fluoroscopic guidance, while improving accuracy, exposes patients and providers to , with cumulative effects potentially increasing cancer risk over multiple procedures due to DNA damage, though single-session doses are low (typically <5 mGy). Effective dose equivalents for common joint injections range from 0.1 to 1 mSv, comparable to , but repeated exposures in management necessitate ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principles, such as collimation and pulse . Malpractice litigation related to joint injections often stems from misplacement causing neurologic deficits or vascular injury, with facet joint procedures accounting for a notable portion of claims due to improper needle positioning. In 2025, reporting standards under frameworks like the Joint Commission's Sentinel Event Policy mandate immediate disclosure and root-cause for serious events such as infections or permanent damage, promoting transparency and without punitive measures for voluntary reports. Ethical practice involves detailing these risks and adherence to image-guided techniques to reduce liability.

History and Guidelines

Historical Development

The development of joint injection techniques began in the mid-20th century, closely tied to the discovery and application of for inflammatory joint diseases. In 1949, was first administered systemically to patients with () at the , marking a breakthrough in treating joint inflammation, though initial uses were not intra-articular. Pioneering intra-articular injections followed soon after; in 1951, Joseph L. Hollander and colleagues at the reported the efficacy of injections directly into joints of patients, demonstrating rapid symptom relief and establishing the procedure as a for localized joint pain and swelling. This innovation built on the 1948 observation of 's anti-inflammatory effects by Philip S. Hench, who, along with Edward C. Kendall and Tadeus Reichstein, received the in or Medicine in 1950 for their work on adrenal hormones, which laid the foundation for use in . By the mid-1950s, intra-articular injections of like became widespread for and other arthritides, shifting treatment from systemic risks to more precise local administration. The 1970s introduced new agents, with (HA) emerging as a viscosupplement to mimic . Extracted and purified from rooster combs or bacterial starting in the early 1970s, HA was initially explored for ophthalmic and wound applications before intra-articular use for (OA). Procedural standardization advanced during this era, with Hench and other contributing to guidelines on injection techniques, dosage, and monitoring to minimize complications like , influencing early protocols from organizations such as the American Rheumatism Association. Technological guidance evolved in the with , enabling real-time imaging for precise needle placement in complex joints like the sacroiliac or spine, reducing blind injection errors and improving outcomes for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Early reports on guidance for injections date back to 1981, with accelerating in later decades. The 1990s saw regulatory milestones for viscosupplementation; the U.S. (FDA) approved the first HA product, Hyalgan, in 1997 for OA, followed by others like Synvisc in 1997, expanding non-steroidal options amid growing evidence of their role in and relief. guidance gained traction in the 2000s, with surging after 2000 due to portable devices and studies showing superior accuracy over blind methods—utilization in musculoskeletal procedures quadrupled from 2000 to 2009. This shift from palpation-based to image-guided techniques, including early reports from 1981 onward, enhanced safety and efficacy across specialties. The 2010s brought biologic advances like (PRP), derived from autologous blood and concentrated for growth factors to promote tissue repair; intra-articular PRP injections for OA proliferated, with prevalence quadrupling from 2010 to 2020, though lacking specific FDA drug approval as a biologic without standardized regulation. FDA approvals for joint agents continued, including single-injection HA formulations like Synvisc-One in 2009 and additional corticosteroids like extended-release in 2017 for knee OA. Recent regulatory emphasis culminated in 2025 with the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) guidelines on corticosteroid injection safety, recommending minimum intervals of 2–3 weeks to 3 months between injections, cumulative dose limits (e.g., 200 mg/year triamcinolone equivalent), and imaging guidance based on shared decision-making to mitigate risks like damage, reflecting ongoing evolution toward .

Current Clinical Guidelines

Current clinical guidelines from major medical organizations endorse joint injections as an adjunctive therapy for various arthritic conditions, particularly after failure of conservative measures such as and oral analgesics. The (AAFP) and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) in their 2025 guidelines for hip osteoarthritis recommend intra-articular injections moderately for short-term pain relief and functional improvement lasting up to four months, to be used following non-pharmacologic interventions. A general precaution to limit injections to no more than three to four per year per joint to minimize risks like degradation has been advised in prior guidelines. For (RA), the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) emphasize intra-articular therapies primarily for managing acute flares when systemic treatments are insufficient. EULAR's 2021 recommendations, reaffirmed in subsequent updates, position intra-articular injections as a first-line option alongside aspiration for mono- or oligoarticular flares, with frequency capped at three to four injections per year to avoid cumulative side effects. ACR guidelines align with this approach, prioritizing intra-articular glucocorticoids over prolonged systemic steroids in early RA, while noting emerging roles for targeted biologics in refractory cases. Safety protocols in contemporary guidelines prioritize imaging guidance and procedural safeguards. The American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) 2025 guidelines strongly recommend guidance for joint injections due to its superior accuracy, reduced complication rates, and avoidance of compared to landmark-based techniques. is mandated, detailing potential risks such as or post-injection flare, and procedures should involve multidisciplinary teams including rheumatologists or pain specialists for optimal patient selection and follow-up. Insurance coverage policies, such as those from Medicare, impose evidence-based criteria for specific injections like procedures. Medicare's Local Coverage Determination (LCD) L39383 requires documentation of at least 75% pain relief from a prior diagnostic injection for initial assessment, with therapeutic injections needing at least 50% relief, exclusion of other pain sources, and functional impairment, categorizing coverage into tiers based on high-quality evidence from randomized trials. Looking ahead, guidelines highlight integration of joint injections with advanced biologics and biomarker-driven personalization. Emerging recommendations advocate combining intra-articular delivery of biologics, such as anti-TNF agents, with traditional corticosteroids for enhanced flare control in , while biomarkers like synovial fluid cytokines enable tailored dosing to predict response and reduce overtreatment. Precision approaches, including orthobiologics guided by genetic and proteomic markers, are poised to refine management by targeting individual joint pathology.

References

  1. https://www.yalemedicine.org/clinical-keywords/joint-injection
  2. https://rheumatology.org/patients/joint-injections-joint-aspirations
  3. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/cortisone-shots/about/pac-20384794
  4. https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/en/about/newsroom/articles/types-of-injections-that-can-help-with-joint-pain
  5. https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/hyaluronic-acid-injection-route/description/drg-20074557
  6. https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/injection-therapy-for-nonoperative-joint-pain-relief
  7. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2002/0715/p283.html
  8. https://www.massgeneral.org/interventional-radiology/treatments-and-services/joint-injection
  9. https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/abs/10.1148/radiol.233081
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6015522/
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3036520/
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4095029/
  13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK572125/
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10366715/
  15. https://teachmeanatomy.info/the-basics/joints-basic/synovial-joint/
  16. https://www.physio-pedia.com/Synovium_%2526_Synovial_Fluid
  17. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/25002-synovial-membrane
  18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1063458425011276
  19. https://www.rheumatologyadvisor.com/news/global-oa-burden-is-rising-among-middle-aged-adults/
  20. https://ard.eular.org/article/S0003-4967%2824%2940017-4/fulltext
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12113388/
  22. https://www.hopkinsarthritis.org/arthritis-info/rheumatoid-arthritis/ra-treatment/
  23. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18020548/
  24. https://www.jmcp.org/doi/10.18553/jmcp.2018.24.6-a.s2
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1063458425008611
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8567800/
  27. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10880376/
  28. https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-020-03577-8
  29. https://www.hss.edu/health-library/conditions-and-treatments/list/prp-injections
  30. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/platelet-rich-plasma-prp-injection
  31. https://arthritis-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/ar4493
  32. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/strokeaha.110.582197
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12116153/
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392400001469
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12564301/
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590006425008713
  37. https://www.genesispub.org/resource/images/articles/pdf598.pdf
  38. https://www.reprocell.com/blog/current-landscape-of-fda-stem-cell-approvals-and-trials-2023-2025
  39. https://now.aapmr.org/steroids-and-corticosteroids/
  40. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/325370-overview
  41. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/14/8/784
  42. https://www.physio-pedia.com/Viscosupplementation_for_the_treatment_of_osteoarthritis_of_the_knee
  43. https://drrizio.com/2025/07/15/prp-vs-gel-ha-vs-steroid-injection-for-knee-arthritis/
  44. https://www.archives-pmr.org/article/s0003-9993%2813%2901212-4/fulltext
  45. https://www.modernedgeortho.com/blog/viscosupplementation-corticosteroids-prp-how-they-compare
  46. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/17/3/117
  47. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10946168/
  48. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2016.00029/full
  49. https://rapm.bmj.com/content/early/2025/02/26/rapm-2024-105656
  50. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/joint-aspiration-and-injection-in-adults-indications-and-technique
  51. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2023/0800/joint-soft-tissue-injections.html
  52. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559318/
  53. https://www.nysora.com/pain-management/ultrasound-guided-shoulder-joint-and-bursa-injections/
  54. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/103399-overview
  55. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1997643-overview
  56. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8458067/
  57. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36917270/
  58. https://now.aapmr.org/joint-injections-aspiration/
  59. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/treatments/cortisone-shots-steroid-injections
  60. https://www.hopkinsrheumatology.org/2017/02/joint-injections-101/
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10416197/
  62. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1997643-periprocedure
  63. https://www.the-rheumatologist.org/article/chart-new-course-rheumatologist-talks-practicing-orthopedic-environment/
  64. https://ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.16.16243
  65. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1997643-technique
  66. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559023/
  67. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2003/0515/p2147.html
  68. https://www.cedars-sinai.org/health-library/tests-and-procedures/s/sacroiliac-joint-injection.html
  69. https://patient.uwhealth.org/healthfacts/5653
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7362874/
  71. https://www.davisandderosa.com/Injuries-Conditions/Shoulder/FAQs/What-activity-and-exercise-can-I-do-after-a-cortisone-shot-in-my-shoulder/a~5077/article.html
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6119626/
  73. https://clinicalgate.com/peripheral-joint-and-soft-tissue-injection-techniques/
  74. https://musculoskeletalkey.com/knee-injection-techniques-2/
  75. https://www.mdpi.com/2411-5142/8/3/93
  76. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8365196/
  77. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12183444/
  78. https://www.nysora.com/pain-management/ultrasound-guided-knee-injections/
  79. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2025.1700950/full
  80. https://provider.axahealth.co.uk/globalassets/provider-site/pdfs/injection-evidence-reviews/axa-health-evidence-review---hip-intra-articular-injections2.pdf
  81. https://www.nysora.com/pain-management/ultrasound-guided-sacroiliac-joint-injection/
  82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666061X21000377
  83. https://ajronline.org/doi/abs/10.2214/AJR.17.19011
  84. https://ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.15.15779
  85. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK572082/
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3107686/
  87. https://insightsimaging.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13244-021-00982-y
  88. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-44595-5
  89. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24121083/
  90. https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/abs/10.1148/radiol.2018181224
  91. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000992600400203X
  92. https://www.clinicalradiologyonline.net/article/S0009-9260%2804%2900204-1/pdf
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8817818/
  94. https://www.epain.org/journal/view.html?volume=35&number=2&spage=129
  95. https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/globalassets/pdfs/plain-language-summary_glenohumeral-arthritis-2024.pdf
  96. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2019.01007/full
  97. https://esskajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ksa.12057
  98. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4622344/
  99. https://www.bumc.bu.edu/camed/2021/12/01/cortisone-injections-are-safe-and-should-not-be-avoided-because-of-knee-damage-fears/
  100. https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.233081
  101. https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/treatment/viscosupplementation-treatment-for-knee-arthritis/
  102. https://www.bmj.com/content/378/bmj-2022-069722
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10408395/
  104. https://rheumatology.org/osteoarthritis-guideline
  105. https://www.aaos.org/globalassets/quality-and-practice-resources/osteoarthritis-of-the-knee/oak3cpg.pdf
  106. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11874499/
  107. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03635465241246524
  108. https://arthritis-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13075-017-1292-2
  109. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1742706125005562
  110. https://archivesofrheumatology.org/index.php/pub/article/view/1189/2072
  111. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK447548/
  112. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S106345842200838X
  113. https://acrjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acr.24596
  114. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35192592/
  115. https://rmdopen.bmj.com/content/6/1/e000536
  116. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/gout-treatment-of-flares
  117. https://academic.oup.com/rheumap/article/6/2/rkac036/6590666
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10407144/
  119. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0394632015593220
  120. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1721727X1000800108
  121. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9892243/
  122. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5444605/
  123. https://ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.23.30458
  124. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2008/1015/p971.html
  125. https://www.arthritis.org/health-wellness/treatment/treatment-plan/disease-management/joint-injections-for-arthritis-pain
  126. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2023/0900/fpin-ci-steroid-injections-blood-glucose-level.html
  127. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5496704/
  128. https://ard.bmj.com/content/67/12/1790
  129. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5335889/
  130. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2059775421000419
  131. https://journals.healio.com/doi/10.3928/01477447-20250715-01
  132. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11919992/
  133. https://www.healthline.com/health/cortisone-shot
  134. https://www.uptodate.com/contents/joint-aspiration-and-injection-in-adults-complications
  135. https://orthoinfo.aaos.org/en/treatment/cortisone-shot-steroid-injection/
  136. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31538269/
  137. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39562358/
  138. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/86568-treatment
  139. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38117096/
  140. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9800097/
  141. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1237870/
  142. https://ajronline.org/doi/10.2214/AJR.16.16555
  143. https://asra.com/news-publications/asra-newsletter/newsletter-item/asra-news/2019/01/31/radiation-safety-for-the-chronic-pain-physician
  144. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36938213/
  145. https://www.jointcommission.org/en-us/knowledge-library/support-center/standards-interpretation/sentinel-event-policy-and-procedures
  146. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26611547/
  147. https://www.clinexprheumatol.org/article.asp?a=5333
  148. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4402210/
  149. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6603175/
  150. https://academic.oup.com/rheumatology/article/41/5/582/1779020
  151. https://clinicalgate.com/history-of-spine-injections/
  152. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3669638/
  153. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221806295_Dramatically_Increased_Musculoskeletal_Ultrasound_Utilization_From_2000_to_2009_Especially_by_Podiatrists_in_Private_Offices
  154. https://academic.oup.com/rheumatology/article-pdf/43/7/931/9445258/keh004.pdf
  155. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36584347/
  156. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8808930/
  157. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2025/0100/practice-guidelines-hip-osteoarthritis.html
  158. https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2012/0101/p49.html
  159. https://ard.eular.org/article/S0003-4967%2824%2909613-4/fulltext
  160. https://rheumnow.com/news/how-properly-use-steroids-early-ra
  161. https://asra.com/guidelines-articles/guidelines
  162. https://rapm.bmj.com/content/early/2025/02/26/rapm-2024-105656.abstract
  163. https://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/view/lcd.aspx?lcdid=39383&ver=11&
  164. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12467657/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.