Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 1337  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission




 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 1162-1167  

Effect of intra-articular injection of corticosteroid in the patients with osteoarthritis of the knee – A hospital-based cross-sectional study


1 Department of Orthopedic, Belagavi, Karnataka, India
2 PARAS HMRI Hospital, Mumbai, India
3 Clinical Researcher, IQVIA, Mumbai, India
4 TPCTs Terna Dental College, Navi Mumbai, India
5 Sunshine Hospital, Hyderabad, India
6 Clinical Research Officer, CDSA (THSTI), New Delhi, India

Date of Submission31-Mar-2021
Date of Decision25-Apr-2021
Date of Acceptance01-May-2021
Date of Web Publication10-Nov-2021

Correspondence Address:
Richa Singhal
C 66, Prashant Vihar Rohini, Delhi - 110 085
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_301_21

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the peripheral joints is frequently related with physical disability and decline in health-related quality of life, deciphering into a significant burden on people and humankind. Although IA corticosteroid injections are being in clinical use, their long-term effects on knee OA are least studied and documented. Hence, the study was done with the aim of assessing the effect of intra-articular (IA) injection of corticosteroid in patients with OA of the knee. Methods: This prospective observational study was conducted over a period of 6 months between 40 years and 75 years with Grade I and II OA of the knee admitted under the Department of Orthopaedics, Tertiary Care Hospital, Belgaum. Patients' affected knee was injected with 80 mg of triamcinolone after the examination, and follow-ups had done at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. The standard pro forma used were Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Results: The mean age of the participants was 58.96 ± 9.58, ranging from 40 to 75 years, with a slightly higher proportion of females. The proportion of Grade 1 and Grade II OA was 24% and 76%, respectively, and 54.7% had right-sided involvement. The difference between pre Rx: Pre intervention VAS score VAS score and follow-up periods at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months was statistically significant with respect to VAS scale, KOOS scale, and WOMAC scale (P < 0.001). Conclusion: there was no major adverse effect of corticosteroid injections, and it showed significant improvement in patients. There is a need to conduct large-scale well-controlled clinical trials with an appropriate control group, to be able to document the relative efficacy and safety of IA steroid injection.

Keywords: Corticosteroid, osteoarthritis, steroid injection


How to cite this article:
Kikkuri RR, Kashyap V, Upadhay A, Kumar V, Reddy KS, Singhal R. Effect of intra-articular injection of corticosteroid in the patients with osteoarthritis of the knee – A hospital-based cross-sectional study. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2021;13, Suppl S2:1162-7

How to cite this URL:
Kikkuri RR, Kashyap V, Upadhay A, Kumar V, Reddy KS, Singhal R. Effect of intra-articular injection of corticosteroid in the patients with osteoarthritis of the knee – A hospital-based cross-sectional study. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Aug 13];13, Suppl S2:1162-7. Available from: https://www.jpbsonline.org/text.asp?2021/13/6/1162/330078




   Introduction Top


Osteoarthritis (OA) of the peripheral joints is frequently related with physical disability and decline in health-related quality of life (QOL), deciphering into a significant burden on people and humankind.[1],[2] Although OA affects all joints, the most frequently encountered joints are the hip, knee, and hand. From the past few years to the present, there has been a sharp increase in both the prevalence and incidence of OA. This is mainly accredited to growing prevalence of obesity and to the elderly population.[3],[4] In contrast, there has been an increased incidence of OA among active young adults.[3],[5] In India, the most commonly occurring joint disorder is OA with a prevalence of 22%–39%, making it the second most commonly encountered rheumatological disorder.[6] Among the genders, women are more frequently affected than men; however, the occurrence sharply increases with aging. The symptoms of OA are evident in nearly half of women >65 years of age, while majority of them show radiologic evidence in >65 years of age.[7] Mobility impairment, especially in women, is mainly caused by OA of knee.

The 10th leading cause of nonfatal burden is estimated to be OA. The management of OA mainly aims to control pain, reviving and preserving the mobility and joint function, thus enhancing one's QOL with no scope for retrogressing the OA process. At present, OA is treated with pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches. These can be offered alone or in combination. The nonpharmacological management consists of patient counseling, with occupational or physical therapy being a prime component of OA treatment. Numerous drugs are available to treat OA, and these include acetaminophen, nonspecific nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and COX-2-specific inhibitors.

Although these drugs have shown proven results, few of them possess serious adverse effects.

Other treatment approaches for OA include nonsurgical intervention such as injectable compounds and viscosupplements that imitate synovial fluid or surgical interventions. These treatment options are considered when medical management of OA fails.[8] Over the past few years, intra-articular (IA) corticosteroid injections have been in use to control pain and inflammation in OA.[9] However, from two recent studies, the predictors of response could not be recognized.[10] The American College of Rheumatology practice guidelines suggest the IA corticosteroid injections as part of standard treatment to OA of knee.[11] However, its use is questioned as these in long-term use facilitate joint destruction and atrophy of tissue.[12] However, in vitro and in vivo experimental studies have shown decreased structural changes with IA corticosteroid injections.[13],[14] Although IA corticosteroid injections are being in clinical use, their long-term effects on knee OA is least studied and documented. Further, there is a lack of literature on the functional impact of IA steroid injections assessed with validated tools such as Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) and Western Ontario.[15] At present, there is no anatomical or structural assessment of which is presently practicable in OA, as proposed by several researchers. Finally, no structural or anatomical evaluation, which is now feasible in OA, as suggested by many investigators,[16] has not yet been made to rightly address the query of whether steroid injection persuades joint structure damage. Hence, the study was done with the aim of assessing the effect of IA injection of corticosteroid in patients with OA of the knee.

Aim/purpose of the research

The study was done with the aim of assessing the effect of IA injection of corticosteroid in patients with OA of the knee.


   Methods Top


Study site

This study was conducted in the Department of Orthopaedics at Tertiary Care Hospital, Belgaum.

Study population

Adult patients of age between 40 years and 75 years with Grade I and II OA knee admitted under the Department of Orthopaedics of the study site were considered as the study population.

Study design

The current study was a prospective observational study.

Sample size

The sample size was calculated assuming the expected mean preoperative WOMAC score to be 67.6 and postoperative WOMAC score to be 61.3 with respected standard deviations of 13.4 and 12.5, as per a study by Buyuk et al.[17] The other parameters considered for sample size calculation were 80% power of the study and 5% two-sided alpha error. The sample size was calculated to be able to document the differences between the two-paired means using SPSS version 25.0 statistical package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois). As per the calculation, the required sample size was 67 individuals. To account for loss to follow-up of 10%, another seven individuals were added to the sample, making the total required minimum sample size to be 74 individuals. The final analysis included 75 individuals.

Sampling method

Convenient sampling was used.

Study duration

The data collection for the study was done from January 2017 to December 2017 for a period of 1 year.

Inclusion criteria

  1. Patients aged between 40 and 75 years
  2. Grade 1 and Grade 2 OA of the knee (according to Kellgren-Lawrence classification).


Exclusion criteria

  1. Bleeding disorders
  2. Septic arthritis or osteomyelitis
  3. Rheumatoid arthritis
  4. Recent febrile illness
  5. Diabetes mellitus
  6. Cellulitis
  7. Corticosteroid or hyaluronic acid injection of the knee within 1 month.


Ethical considerations

Approval from the human ethics committee from the institution was obtained (Ref: MDC/DOME/46, Date: October 17, 2016). All the study participants had given informed consent, and participants willing to sign the informed consent were included in the study.

The study was approved by the institutional human ethics committee, informed written consent was obtained from all the study participants, and only those participants willing to sign the informed consent were included in the study.

Data collection tools

All the relevant parameters were documented in a structured study pro forma along with tools such as the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and WOMAC score.

Visual Analog Scale

The VAS is generally used for characterizing pain. It is typically presented as a horizontal line on which the patient's pain intensity is represented by a point between the extremes of “no pain at all” and “worst pain imaginable.[18]

Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score

The KOOS questionnaire is an instrument to assess the patient's opinion about their knee and associated problems. KOOS consists of five subscales: pain, other symptoms, Activities of daily Living (ADL), function in sport and recreation (Sport/Rec), and knee-related QOL. KOOS is patient administered, the format is user-friendly, and takes about 10 min to complete.[19]

Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index

WOMAC is a health status questionnaire designed to assess the pain, stiffness, and physical function in patients with hip and/or knee OA. The WOMAC consists of 24 items divided into three subscales.[20]

Methodology

The individuals were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The study was conducted over a period of 6 months. History and examination were recorded as per the pro forma. Patients' affected knee was injected with 80 mg of triamcinolone after the examination, and follow-ups had done at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. The procedure was done under aseptic precautions with antibiotic cover.

Statistical methods

The VAS score, KOOS, and WOMAC were considered as outcome variables. Descriptive analysis: Descriptive analysis was carried out by mean and standard deviation for quantitative variables and frequency and proportion for categorical variables. Data were also represented using appropriate diagrams such as a bar diagram, pie diagram, and box plots. Time changing quantitative parameters (VAS score, factors associated with KOOS, and factors associated with WOMAC) were compared by using one-way repeated measures ANOVA test. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant. SPSS version 25.0 statistical package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois).[21]


   Results Top


A total of 75 people were included in the analysis. The mean age of the participants was 58.96 ± 9.58. The minimum age was 40, and the maximum age was 75 (95% CI: 56.76–61.16). Thirty-five (46.70%) participants were male and 40 (53.30%) were female. In the study population, 18 (24%) people had Grade 1 OA and the remaining 57 (76%) people had Grade 2 OA [Table 1].
Table 1: Characteristics of the study participants

Click here to view


The mean of VAS score at pre-RX, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and at the end of 6 months was noted down. The difference between pre-RX VAS score and follow-up periods at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months was statistically significant (P < 0.001) [Table 2]. All the domains of KOOS were assessed for at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and at the end of 6 months [Table 3], and it was statistically significant (P < 0.001) at each time interval. The mean of pre-RX WOMAC scores was 48.43 ± 3.33, it was 92.92 ± 1.8 at 3 weeks, it was 90.79 ± 3.36 at 6 weeks, it was 80.1 ± 2.49 at 3 months, and it was 55.04 ± 2.36 at the end of 6 months. The difference between pre-RX WOMAC-Total and follow-up periods at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months was statistically significant (P < 0.001) [Table 4].
Table 2: Comparison of mean Visual Analog Scale score at a different time period of the study population (n=75)

Click here to view
Table 3: Comparison of mean Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score at the different time period of the study population (n=75)

Click here to view
Table 4: Comparison of mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index scores at the different time period of the study population (n=75)

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Despite a large number of studies, the safety and efficacy of IA steroids administered among persons with knee OA remain inadequate, which further leads to a gap across clinical guiding principles. The study by Raynauld et al.[20] indicated that the beneficial effects did not last long, and McAlindon et al.[22] have stated that their findings did not support the treatment regimen for patients with symptomatic knee OA. The current study was carried out among 75 patients who were diagnosed with Grade 1 and Grade 2 OA and was aimed at assessing the effect of IA injection of corticosteroid among them. The mean age of the participants in our study was found to be 58.96 ± 9.58 years. The mean VAS score prior to diagnosis was found to be 5.06 ± 0.4, and the mean values at 2 weeks, 6 months, 3 months, and the end of 6 months were found to be 2.49 ± 0.47, 3.14 ± 0.33, 3.68 ± 0.39, and 4.57 ± 0.36, respectively, and the difference between the mean scores was found to be statistically significant (P < 0.001); these VAS results were in line with the findings by Askari et al.[23] Similar trends in the VAS during the subsequent follow-ups were reported by Jones and Doherty[10] and Pyne et al.[24] Chansoria et al.[25] also have similar results showing the VAS scores, before intervention (8.9 ± 1.3) and at 1 month (2.8 ± 1.1), 3 months (3.4 ± 1.3), and 6 months (5.1 ± 1.4), respectively. The average KOOS pain score before the intervention was found to be 46.66 ± 4.94 and at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months were reported to be 91 ± 3.02, 90.3 ± 3.94, 77.63 ± 3.93, and 48.07 ± 5.46, respectively. The difference between the preintervention KOOS and respective follow-up periods was statistically significant (P < 0.001), apart from follow eight up at 6 months (P < 0.09). Similar results showing significant pain relief for the initial 10 weeks and a gradual decrease in the later weeks were reported by Heyworth et al.[26] With respect to the symptom's domain, the difference between the preintervention KOOS and respective follow-up periods was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The same trend of increase in the values at 1 month (50.84 ± 12.95), 2 months (55.56 ± 11.09), 3 months (59.34 ± 10.62), and a sudden fall at the end of 6 months (55.25 ± 8.58) was reported by Nabi et al.[27] Similarly, the difference between preintervention KOOS function in daily living (ADL) at follow-up periods at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months was statistically significant (P < 0.001). These results were in contrast to that reported by Henriksen et al.[28] where they have reported ADL at baseline and at the end of the trial (14 weeks) to be 61.0 ± 14.7 and 14.9 ± 1.7, respectively. Similarly, the difference between preintervention KOOS QOL and follow-up periods at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Even though the trend of QOL showed an increase in the initial follow up, it has gradually declined in the further follow ups, this was related to the reports by Riis et al.[29] where the QOL was lower in patients with steroidal injections compared to those with placebo. WOMAC, a self-administered instrument, established for measuring pain and physical function in OA, to investigate the impact and associated features of knee pain in the older general population, was used during the assessment.

The mean of total WOMAC scores was 48.43 ± 3.33, and at different follow-ups at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and at the end of 6 months, it was found to be 92.92 ± 1.8, 90.79 ± 3.36, 80.1 ± 2.49, and 55.04 ± 2.36 respectively. The difference between the WOMAC scores before the intervention and at different follow-ups was found to be statistically significant (P < 0.001). The total WOMAC scores reported in this current study were in contrast to those reported by Buyuk et al.[17] where they have reported that the preintervention total WOMAC score to be 67.6 ± 14.4 and at the follow ups at 2 weeks, 3 months, and end of 6 months were reported to be 31.6 ± 17.3, 58.1 ± 18, and 61.3 ± 16.4, respectively – this was according to buyuk et all study. The occurrence of any major adverse events such as infection of the affected joint and joint effusion during the different follow-up periods was absent in the study. Only minor side effects such as nausea, vomiting, sweating, and transient headache were reported. The safety of IA injection of steroids has been established by many other previous studies.

However, the study is not without any limitations. First, in our study, there was no control group, hence the role of various potential confounding factors on the treatment outcomes could not be controlled for. Second, even though validated tools were used to assess the treatment outcomes, the possibility of reporting bias and ascertainment bias could not be ruled out completely. Finally, considering the limited catchment area and conduction of study in a single center, the generalizability of the study findings is very limited.

Hence, in future, there is a need to conduct large-scale well-controlled clinical trials with the appropriate control group, to be able to document the relative efficacy and safety of IA steroid injection. Till such evidence is available and clear guidelines evolve, the IA injections need to be used with caution, after thoroughly explaining the risk and benefits involved to the patients.


   Conclusion Top


The current study had included individuals with a mean of age of 58.96 ± 9.58, ranging from 40 to 75 years, with a slightly higher proportion of females. The proportion of Grade 1 and Grade II OA was 24% and 76%, respectively, and 54.7% had right-sided involvement. The mean of pre-RX VAS score was 5.06 ± 0.4 and showed a gross decline to 2.49 ± 0.47 at 2 weeks and gradually increased thereafter to 4.57 ± 0.36 at the end of 6 months. The difference between pre-RX VAS score and follow-up periods at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months was statistically significant. KOOS also had shown statistically significant improvement from baseline. WOMAC scores also had shown statistically significant improvement from pretreatment levels in the study population.

Limitations

Due to small sample size and limited catchment area the generalizability of the study is limited.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the technical support in data entry, analysis, and manuscript editing by “Evidencian Research Associates.”

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Kiadaliri AA, Lamm CJ, de Verdier MG, Engström G, Turkiewicz A, Lohmander LS, et al. Association of knee pain and different definitions of knee osteoarthritis with health-related quality of life: A population-based cohort study in southern Sweden. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2016;14:121.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Cross M, Smith E, Hoy D, Nolte S, Ackerman I, Fransen M, et al. The global burden of hip and knee osteoarthritis: Estimates from the global burden of disease 2010 study. Ann Rheum Dis 2014;73:1323-30.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Yu D, Peat G, Bedson J, Jordan KP. Annual consultation incidence of osteoarthritis estimated from population-based health care data in England. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2015;54:2051-60.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Neogi T, Zhang Y. Epidemiology of osteoarthritis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am 2013;39:1-19.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Leskinen J, Eskelinen A, Huhtala H, Paavolainen P, Remes V. The incidence of knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis grows rapidly among baby boomers: A population-based study in Finland. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:423-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Akinpelu AO, Alonge TO, Adekanla BA, Odole AC. Prevalence and pattern of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis in Nigeria: A community-based study. Internet J Allied Health Sci Pract 2009;7:10.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Solomon L, Beighton P, Lawrence JS. Rheumatic disorders in the South African Negro. Part II. Osteo-arthrosis. S Afr Med J 1975;49:1737-40.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Mobasheri A. The future of osteoarthritis therapeutics: Targeted pharmacological therapy. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2013;15:364.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Valtonen EJ. Clinical comparison of triamcinolonehexacetonide and betamethasone in the treatment of osteoarthrosis of the knee-joint. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl 1981;41:1-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Jones A, Doherty M. Intra-articular corticosteroids are effective in osteoarthritis but there are no clinical predictors of response. Ann Rheum Dis 1996;55:829-32.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Gamble R, Wyeth-Ayerst J, Johnson EL, Searle WA, Beecham S. Recommendations for the medical management of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: 2000 update. American College of Rheumatology Subcommittee on Osteoarthritis Guidelines. Arthritis Rheum 2000;43:1905-15.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Creamer P. Intra-articular corticosteroid treatment in osteoarthritis. Curr Opin Rheumatol 1999;11:417-21.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Pelletier JP, Mineau F, Raynauld JP, Woessner JF Jr., Gunja-Smith Z, Martel-Pelletier J. Intraarticular injections with methylprednisolone acetate reduce osteoarthritic lesions in parallel with chondrocyte stromelysin synthesis in experimental osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1994;37:414-23.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: A health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988;15:1833-40.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Brandt KD, Fife RS, Braunstein EM, Katz B. Radiographic grading of the severity of knee osteoarthritis: Relation of the Kellgren and Lawrence grade to a grade based on joint space narrowing, and correlation with arthroscopic evidence of articular cartilage degeneration. Arthritis Rheum 1991;34:1381-6.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Lequesne M, Brandt K, Bellamy N, Moskowitz R, Menkes CJ, Pelletier JP, et al. Guidelines for testing slow acting drugs in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol Suppl 1994;41:65-71.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Buyuk AF, Kilinc E, Camurcu IY, Camur S, Ucpunar H, Kara A. Compared efficacy of intra-articular injection of methylprednisolone and triamcinolone. Acta Ortop Bras 2017;25:206-8.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Roos EM, Lohmander LS. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): From joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:64.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Bellamy N. WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index: User Guide IX. Nicholas Bellamy; 2008.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Raynauld JP, Buckland-Wright C, Ward R, Choquette D, Haraoui B, Martel-Pelletier J, et al. Safety and efficacy of long-term intraarticular steroid injections in osteoarthritis of the knee: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48:370-7.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2013.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
McAlindon TE, LaValley MP, Harvey WF, Price LL, Driban JB, Zhang M, et al. Effect of intra-articular triamcinolone vs saline on knee cartilage volume and pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;317:1967-75.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Askari A, Gholami T, NaghiZadeh MM, Farjam M, Kouhpayeh SA, Shahabfard Z. Hyaluronic acid compared with corticosteroid injections for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: A randomized control trail. Springerplus 2016;5:442.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Pyne D, Ioannou Y, Mootoo R, Bhanji A. Intra-articular steroids in knee osteoarthritis: A comparative study of triamcinolone hexacetonide and methylprednisolone acetate. Clin Rheumatol 2004;23:116-20.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Chansoria M, Upadhyay S, Panwar S, Shivhare PV. Comparative efficacy of intraarticular injection of combination of ozone and steroid and ozone alone in patients with primary knee osteoarthritis: A prospective and randomized clinical analysis. J Recent Adv Pain 2016;2:11.  Back to cited text no. 25
  [Full text]  
26.
Heyworth BE, Lee JH, Kim PD, Lipton CB, Strauch RJ, Rosenwasser MP. Hylan versus corticosteroid versus placebo for treatment of basal joint arthritis: A prospective, randomized, double-blinded clinical trial. J Hand Surg Am 2008;33:40-8.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Nabi BN, Sedighinejad A, Mardani-Kivi M, Haghighi M, Roushan ZA. Comparing the effectiveness of intra-articular platelet-rich plasma and corticosteroid injection under ultrasound guidance on pain control of knee osteoarthritis. Iran Red Crescent Med J 2018;20.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Henriksen M, Christensen R, Klokker L, Bartholdy C, Bandak E, Ellegaard K, et al. Evaluation of the benefit of corticosteroid injection before exercise therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:923-30.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Riis RG, Henriksen M, Klokker L, Bartholdy C, Ellegaard K, Bandak E, et al. The effects of intra-articular glucocorticoids and exercise on pain and synovitis assessed on static and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in knee osteoarthritis: Exploratory outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2017;25:481-91.  Back to cited text no. 29
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Methods
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed351    
    Printed10    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded50    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal