Gencer Zeliha Kapusuz, Özkiriş Mahmut, Okur Aylin, Korkmaz Murat, Saydam Levent
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Bozok University Medical Faculty, Turkey.
Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Bozok University Medical Faculty, Turkey.
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2014 Oct;42(7):1117-21. doi: 10.1016/j.jcms.2014.01.041. Epub 2014 Feb 4.
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of intra-articular injections of three different agents with well known anti-inflammatory properties.
Between April 2010 and January 2013 a total of 100 patients who were diagnosed as temporomandibular joint disorder in the Department of Otolaryngology at Bozok University School of Medicine were prospectively studied. Patients with symptoms of jaw pain, limited or painful jaw movement, clicking or grating within the joint, were evaluated with temporomandibular CT to investigate the presence of cartilage or capsule degeneration. In the study group there were 55 female and 45 male patients who were non-responders to conventional anti-inflammatory treatment for TMJ complaints. The patients were randomly divided into four groups consisting of a control group and three different groups who underwent intra-articular injection of one given anti-inflammatory agent for each group. We injected saline solution to intra-articular space in the control group. Of three anti-inflammatory agents including hyaluronic acid (HA, Hyalgan intra-articular injection, Sodium hyaluronate 10 mg/ml, 2 ml injection syringe, Bilim Pharmaceutical Company, Istanbul, Turkey); betamethasone (CS, Diprospan flacon, 7.0 mg betamethasone/1 ml, Schering-Plough Pharmaceutical Company, Istanbul, Turkey) and; tenoxicam (TX, Tilcotil flacon, 20 mg tenoxicam/ml, Roche Pharmaceutical Company, Istanbul, Turkey) were administered intra-articularly under, ultrasonographic guidance. Following the completion of injections the, changes in subjective symptoms were compared with visual analogue scales, (VAS) scores at 1st and 6th weeks' follow-up visits between four groups.
The HA group did significantly better pain relief scores compared to the, other groups at 1st and 6th weeks (p < 0.05). TX and CS groups' pain scores were better than control group values (p < 0.05, for both agents). The pain relief effect of TX was noted to decrease significantly between the 1st and 6th week (p < 0.05) (Fig. 1). We did not observe the same pattern in HA, CS and control (saline) groups between 1st and 6th week (p > 0.05).
We found that HA produced better pain relief scores when compared to the other anti-inflammatory agents studied. The main disadvantage of HA is its relatively higher cost. Additionally it does not have a reimbursement status by state or private health insurance systems in Turkey. Despite the lower VAS scores, intra-articular TX and CS may be assessed as more economic alternatives to intra-articular HA injections.
本研究旨在比较三种具有抗炎特性的不同药物关节腔内注射的疗效。
2010年4月至2013年1月期间,对博佐克大学医学院耳鼻喉科诊断为颞下颌关节紊乱的100例患者进行前瞻性研究。对有颌部疼痛、颌部活动受限或疼痛、关节内弹响或摩擦音症状的患者,进行颞下颌关节CT检查,以调查软骨或关节囊退变情况。研究组有55例女性和45例男性患者,他们对颞下颌关节疾病的传统抗炎治疗无反应。患者被随机分为四组,包括一个对照组和三个不同的组,每组接受一种抗炎药物的关节腔内注射。对照组向关节腔内注射生理盐水。三种抗炎药物包括透明质酸(HA,海乐妙关节腔内注射剂,透明质酸钠10mg/ml,2ml注射器,Bilim制药公司,土耳其伊斯坦布尔);倍他米松(CS,得宝松注射液,7.0mg倍他米松/1ml,先灵葆雅制药公司,土耳其伊斯坦布尔);替诺昔康(TX,痛力克注射液,20mg替诺昔康/ml,罗氏制药公司,土耳其伊斯坦布尔),在超声引导下进行关节腔内注射。注射完成后,在四组患者第1周和第6周随访时,用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分比较主观症状的变化。
在第1周和第6周时,HA组的疼痛缓解评分明显优于其他组(p<0.05)。TX组和CS组的疼痛评分优于对照组(两种药物p均<0.05)。TX组的疼痛缓解效果在第1周和第6周之间明显下降(p<0.05)(图1)。在第1周和第6周之间,HA组、CS组和对照组(生理盐水组)未观察到相同的模式(p>0.05)。
我们发现,与其他研究的抗炎药物相比,HA产生了更好的疼痛缓解评分。HA的主要缺点是其成本相对较高。此外,在土耳其,它没有被国家或私人医疗保险系统报销的资格。尽管VAS评分较低,但关节腔内注射TX和CS可能被认为是关节腔内注射HA更经济的替代方案。