Kim Joon Yub, Chung Seok Won, Kim Joo Hak, Jung Jae Hong, Sung Gwang Young, Oh Kyung-Soo, Lee Jong Soo
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Seonam University College of Medicine Myongji Hospital, Goyang-si, Korea.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Konkuk University School of Medicine, 120-1 Neungdong-ro (Hwayang-dong), Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, 143-729, Korea.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Mar;474(3):776-83. doi: 10.1007/s11999-015-4579-0. Epub 2015 Oct 13.
Olecranon bursitis might be a minor problem in the outpatient clinic but relatively be common to occur. However, there are few well-designed studies comparing approaches to treatment.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Which treatment (compression bandaging with nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs [NSAIDs], aspiration, or aspiration with steroid injections) is associated with the highest likelihood of resolution of nonseptic olecranon bursitis? (2) Which treatment is associated with earliest resolution of symptoms? (3) What factors are associated with treatment failure by 4 weeks?
We enrolled 133 patients from two centers; after applying prespecified exclusions (septic bursitis or concomitant inflammatory arthritis, intraarticular elbow pathology, recent aspiration or steroid injection done elsewhere, and refusal to participate), 90 patients were randomly allocated to receive compression bandaging with NSAIDs (C), aspiration (A), or aspiration with steroid injection (AS) groups (30 patients in each). The groups were similar at baseline in terms of age and gender. Seven patients (four from Group A and three from Group AS) were lost to followup. All patients were followed up weekly for 4 weeks, and the same treatment procedure was repeated if the bursitis recurred with any substantial fluid collection. At 4 weeks, the state of resolution and pain visual analog scale (VAS) were evaluated. Failed resolution was defined as presence of persistent olecranon bursal fluid collection at Week 4 after the initiation of the treatment; on the contrary, if bursal fluid collection was clinically reduced or completely disappeared by the end of Week 4, the treatment was considered successful. We compared the proportion of resolution by Week 4 and the median times to resolution among the treatment groups. In addition, we evaluated whether the resolution affected pain VAS and what factors were associated with the resolution.
There were no differences in the proportion of patients whose bursitis resolved by Week 4 among the three treatment groups (Group C: 25 of 30 [83%], relative risk of resolution failure: 0.68 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.27-1.72], p = 0.580; Group A: 17 of 26 [65%], relative risk of resolution failure: 2.19 [95% CI, 0.98-4.87], p = 0.083; Group AS: 23 of 27 [85%], relative risk of resolution failure: 0.59 [95% CI, 0.22-1.63], p = 0.398) (p = 0.073). Steroid injection after aspiration (Group AS) was associated with the earliest resolution (2.3 weeks [range, 1-4 weeks]) when compared with aspiration alone (Group A; 3.1 weeks [range, 2-4 weeks]) and compression bandaging with NSAIDs (Group C; 3.2 weeks [range, 2-4 weeks]), p = 0.015). Longer duration of symptoms before treatment was the only factor associated with treatment failure by 4 weeks (failed resolution: 6 weeks [range, 2-9 weeks]; successful resolution: 4 weeks [range, 0.4-6 weeks]; p = 0.008).
With the numbers available, there were no differences in efficacy when compression bandaging with NSAIDs, aspiration, and aspiration with steroid injection were compared. However, we were powered only to detect a 30% difference, meaning that if there were a smaller difference in efficacy among the groups, we might not have detected it in a study of this size. Our data can be used as pilot data to power future prospective (and likely multicenter) trials. Because olecranon bursitis can recur, and because treatments like aspiration and aspiration with steroid injection can cause complications, unless future trials demonstrate clear efficacy advantages of aspiration and/or injection both at short and longer terms, we suggest that compression bandaging and a short course of NSAIDs may offer the most appropriate balance of safety and efficacy.
Level II, therapeutic study.
鹰嘴滑囊炎在门诊可能是个小问题,但相对较为常见。然而,很少有设计良好的研究比较其治疗方法。
问题/目的:(1)哪种治疗方法(使用非甾体抗炎药[NSAIDs]进行加压包扎、穿刺抽吸或穿刺抽吸加类固醇注射)能使非化脓性鹰嘴滑囊炎的消退可能性最高?(2)哪种治疗方法能使症状最早得到缓解?(3)哪些因素与4周时治疗失败相关?
我们从两个中心招募了133名患者;在应用预先设定的排除标准(化脓性滑囊炎或合并炎性关节炎、肘关节内病变、近期在其他地方进行过穿刺抽吸或类固醇注射以及拒绝参与)后,90名患者被随机分配接受使用NSAIDs进行加压包扎(C组)、穿刺抽吸(A组)或穿刺抽吸加类固醇注射(AS组)(每组30名患者)。各组在年龄和性别方面基线相似。7名患者(4名来自A组,3名来自AS组)失访。所有患者每周随访4周,如果滑囊炎复发且有大量积液,则重复相同的治疗程序。在4周时,评估消退状态和疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)。治疗失败定义为治疗开始后第4周仍存在持续性鹰嘴滑囊积液;相反,如果在第4周结束时滑囊积液在临床上减少或完全消失,则认为治疗成功。我们比较了各治疗组在第4周时的消退比例以及消退的中位时间。此外,我们评估了消退是否影响疼痛VAS以及哪些因素与消退相关。
三个治疗组中在第4周时滑囊炎消退的患者比例无差异(C组:30例中的25例[83%],消退失败的相对风险:0.68[95%置信区间{CI},0.27 - 1.72],p = 0.580;A组:26例中的17例[65%],消退失败的相对风险:2.19[95% CI,0.98 - 4.87],p = 0.083;AS组:27例中的23例[85%],消退失败的相对风险:0.59[95% CI,0.22 - 1.63],p = 0.398)(p = 0.073)。与单纯穿刺抽吸(A组;3.1周[范围,2 - 4周])和使用NSAIDs进行加压包扎(C组;3.2周[范围,2 - 4周])相比,穿刺抽吸后注射类固醇(AS组)与最早消退相关(2.3周[范围,1 - 4周]),p = 0.015)。治疗前症状持续时间较长是与4周时治疗失败相关的唯一因素(治疗失败:6周[范围,2 - 9周];治疗成功:4周[范围,0.4 - 6周];p = 0.008)。
就现有数据而言,比较使用NSAIDs进行加压包扎、穿刺抽吸和穿刺抽吸加类固醇注射时,疗效无差异。然而,我们的检验效能仅能检测出30%的差异,这意味着如果各组之间的疗效差异较小,在这样规模的研究中我们可能无法检测到。我们的数据可作为未来前瞻性(可能是多中心)试验的初步数据。由于鹰嘴滑囊炎可能复发,且穿刺抽吸和穿刺抽吸加类固醇注射等治疗可能会引起并发症,除非未来试验证明穿刺抽吸和/或注射在短期和长期都有明显的疗效优势,我们建议加压包扎和短期使用NSAIDs可能提供了最合适的安全性和疗效平衡。
II级,治疗性研究。