4.4 Article

Extractable synovial fluid in inflammatory and non-inflammatory arthritis of the knee

期刊

CLINICAL RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 38, 期 8, 页码 2255-2263

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s10067-019-04524-2

关键词

Arthrocentesis; Injections; Intraarticular; Knee; Quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction/objectivesWe hypothesized that mechanical compression of the knee in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) would mobilize occult extractable fluid and improve arthrocentesis success.MethodsSixty-seven consecutive knees with RA and 186 knees with OA and were included. Conventional arthrocentesis was performed and success and volume (milliliters) determined; the needle was left intraarticularly, and mechanical compression was applied with an elastomeric knee brace. Arthrocentesis was then resumed until fluid return ceased. Fluid was characterized as to volume and cell counts.ResultsIn the RA, knee mechanical compression decreased failed diagnostic arthrocentesis from 56.7% (38/67) to 26.9% (18/67) (-47.4%, p=0.003) and increased absolute arthrocentesis yield from 4.710.3ml to 9.8 +/- 9.8ml (108% increase, 95% CI -8.5<-5.1<-1.7 p=0.0038). Total extractable fluid yield was 96% greater in RA (9.8 +/- 9.8ml) than OA (5.0 +/- 9.4ml, p=0.0008), and occult extractable fluid was 77% greater in RA than OA (RA 5.3 +/- 8.7ml, OA 3.0 +/- 5.5ml, p=0.046). Large effusions versus small effusions in RA demonstrated increased neutrophils in synovial fluid (p=0.04) but no difference in radiologic arthritis grade (p=0.87). In contrast, large effusions versus small effusions in OA demonstrated no difference in neutrophils in synovial fluid (p=0.87) but significant different radiologic arthritis grade (p=0.04).Conclusion Mechanical compression improves the success of diagnostic and therapeutic knee arthrocentesis in both RA and OA. Large effusions in RA are associated with increased neutrophil counts but not arthritis grade; in contrast, large effusions in OA are associated with more severe arthritis grades but not increased neutrophil counts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据