10 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
The purpose of this study is to determine whether the administration of hyaluronic acid or corticosteroid during arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint provides additional pain relief and improved function. The overall hypothesis for the study is that hyalgan will result in a 30% reduction in the mean visual analogue scale (VAS) at one month when compared to celestone and placebo.
Many patients suffer from a disorder known as temporomandibular joint dysfunction. This disorder has jaw joint pain and limited function as key elements. Many treatments have been advocated over the last 40 years, many of them deleterious. Currently treatment can be divided into four categories. The first is non-surgical and involves vocal rest, soft diet, heat, anti-inflammatory medications, muscle relaxants, splint therapy and physical therapy. All patients benefit to some degree utilizing one or more non-surgical approaches. Controversy exists with respect to which of the next three categories of treatment is ideal. Some advocate arthrocentesis which involves placing two small needles into the joint to allow irrigation and instillation of anti-inflammatory medication. This is a minimally invasive procedure performed under local anesthetic alone or with intravenous sedation. Others advocate arthroscopy which involves placing an arthroscope (a thin tube about 2mm in diameter with optical elements allowing one to see inside a joint) to visualize the inside of a joint. Furthermore the joint can be irrigated, scar bands removed, ligaments stretched and medication instilled. This is performed under a general anesthesia. Depending on the study, success for both arthrocentesis and arthroscopy has been reported to be about 80-90%. Still there are others who recommend arthroplasty which is an open joint surgical procedure that allows the surgeon to enter the joint and directly repair or remove the damaged cartilage disc within the joint. This is performed under a general anesthesia. Similar success rates of 80-94% have been reported. It is clear that some patients only require arthrocentesis, others arthroscopy and others arthroplasty. We currently do not have any real mechanism of predicting which patients will benefit the most from which procedure. This study will enable patients undergoing each procedure to be followed closely with the hope that we can determine objective factors that will allow us to stratify patients into one of the three surgical options: arthrocentesis, arthroscopy or arthroplasty. Our current approach is empiric and typically proceeds from arthrocentesis to arthroscopy to arthroplasty. All patients in this study will be offered the opportunity to have arthrocentesis performed. It is anticipated that a minority will achieve long-term benefit in terms of pain and function. We hope to be able to identify those factors which will predict which patients will benefit so that future patients selected to have arthrocentesis will have much higher success rates. Patients who fail to improve with arthrocentesis or who initially decline that procedure will be offered the opportunity to undergo arthroscopy. It is anticipated that a majority of patients will achieve long-term benefit in terms of pain and function. Again it is hoped that we can identify those factors which will predict which patients will benefit so that future patients selected to have arthroscopy will have even higher success rates. Patients who fail to improve with arthroscopy or who initially decline both arthrocentesis and arthroscopy will be offered the opportunity to undergo arthroplasty provided that clinical and radiographic evidence exists to support the presence of either a diseased or displaced cartilage disc. Our ability to adequately treat patients with temporomandibular joint dysfunction will be significantly improved if we can better stratify patients and follow an evidence based surgical algorithm that provides the greatest opportunity for success while reducing potential complications. Each of these surgical procedures is the standard of care throughout the USA but unfortunately the choice of which procedure to perform is often empiric and guided more by training and surgical experience.
Does ultrasound guidance improve success rate and decrease aspiration attempts for peripheral arthrocentesis?
Temporomandibular joint (TMJ) osteoarthritis (OA) affects articulating tissues secondary to inflammation resulting in intracapsular pain. This prospective, double-blind randomized clinical trial will evaluate the relative efficacy of TMJ arthrocentesis with a supplementation of platelet-rich growth factors (PRGF) compared to TMJ arthrocentesis with a steroid supplementation (a known effective therapy) for patients with TMJ OA.
This will be prospective study of patients with knee effusion associated with degenerative osteoarthritis or symptomatic primary total knee arthroplasty that undergo therapeutic joint arthrocentesis. The diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis will be based on knee radiographs (including AP, Rosenburg view, lateral and Merchant views) read and interpreted by one of our clinical providers (PA, Fellow or Surgeon). Patients with at least Grade II Kellgren and Lawrence changes or higher will be included in the osteoarthritis group. Patients in the arthroplasty group must have had a primary total knee arthroplasty without infection (as determined by knee aspirate) to be included. Patients will be clinically evaluated at the time of their visit for presence of a knee effusion using a stroke test and graded on a 5-point scale (zero, trace, 1+, 2+, or 3+) which has shown good interrater reliability. Patients with a mild to severe effusion (1+ to 3+) will considered for the study. Patients having significant pain associated with their effusion will be offered a therapeutic arthrocentesis as part of their treatment plan discussion. This is a pre-post test design in which outcome measures will be collected immediately pre-arthrocentesis and immediately post arthrocentesis. Additionally, there will be an optional 7-10 follow up visit where outcomes measures will be collected again, should the participant choose to return to this visit.
Arthrocentesis is the removal of synovial fluid for analysis of pathologic processes. Small \& medium joint arthrocentesis will be defined as the following joints: elbow, wrist, finger, ankle and toe. Ultrasound (US) and landmark (LM) small \& medium joint arthrocentesis are both performed within the clinical setting. Both techniques are considered standard of care. Selection of which technique to use is dependent upon the physician's preference. There is currently limited data comparing the two methods. The investigators hope to determine if one modality is more effective in terms of success rate, number of attempts, and time to complete the procedure.
The purpose of this study is: * To determine the accuracy of intraarticular placement with the transpatellar tendon approach as compared to the suprapatellar approach. Patients undergoing knee arthroscopy will be consented for study of the injection of the fluid into the joint prior to portal placement or commencement of knee replacement. Patients will be randomized to receive injections via the transpatellar tendon or superolateral approach. Using injectable contrast and fluoroscopy, the placement of injections into the knee will be evaluated for accuracy. Injection attempts with contrast fluid that uniformly coats the articular surface on sagittal and coronal radiographs will be counted as successful. A concentration of contrast fluid in extraarticular fat will be counted as a failure. Hypothesis: The rate of accuracy of intraarticular placement of the needle tip via the transpatellar tendon approach to knee aspiration is greater than that of the superolateral approach. * To determine the distribution of contrast material with the transpatellar tendon and superolateral apporaches. Using a previously described evaluation technique of dividing the knee into seven compartments, sagittal and coronal fluoroscopy images will be evaluated to determine the distribution of contrast fluid. Hypothesis: Contrast injected into the knee via the trasnpatellar tendon approach will penetrate as many compartments of the knee as contrast injected via the superolateral approach.
This is an exploratory non-drug, interventional biomarker study in approximately 30 eligible patients with active osteoarthritis to investigate the degree of senescence-associated disease. Patients will provide blood and urine and undergo MRI imaging with and without gadolinium enhancement. Following imaging, arthrocentesis of both knees and an arthroscopy of the target knee will occur to obtain fluid, synovium and cartilage for analysis.
The hypothesis to be tested is temporomandibular joint (TMJ) rinsing followed by steroid injection is more efficacious than a placebo injection based on standard pain and physical measures that are recorded before and after treatment. All procedures will be the same as if following normal TMJ arthrocentesis (rinsing) clinical care except that the patient will be randomly assigned to one of two groups: (1) TMJ rinsing followed by the injection of 1 cc (about ¼ of a teaspoon) of the same rinsing solution (this is the placebo) into the jaw joint; or (2) TMJ rinsing followed by the injection of 1 cc (about ¼ teaspoon) of a steroid (5 mg of triamcinolone hexacetonide) into the jaw joint. A pregnancy test (urine test) will be conducted on all women of child-bearing age to verify that the patient is not pregnant before the rinsing procedure. The patient will fill out a short questionnaire and have a short exam of the TMJ and jaw muscles at each appointment.
The study design is a randomized study to directly compare the performance and the outcome of syringe and needle procedures with a standard syringe or the new reciprocating procedure device (RDP), which is a type of safety syringe. Over a 5 year period, 820 subjects who require and assent to a syringe and needle procedure for their usual and customary care will be randomized to either a conventional syringe or the RPD with one arm with and without ultrasound guidance. The RPD is designed to be safer, faster, less painful, and more effective for the patient, and the mechanics of the RPD are intended to provide the physician with better needle control, resulting in less needle trauma to patient tissues, and thus, reduced bleeding and pain for the patient. This clinical trial will address whether the RPD is indeed superior to the conventional syringe for shots, injections, and needle procedures, and whether it is a safer, less painful syringe.