ABSTRACT
Background: Intraarticular corticosteroid injections (ICIs) are widely used to treat foot and ankle conditions. Although laboratory studies indicate certain corticosteroids and local anesthetics used in ICIs are associated with chondrotoxic effects, and selected agents such as ropivacaine and triamcinolone may have less of these features, clinical evidence is lacking. We aimed to identify the patterns of drug selection, perceptions of injectate chondrotoxicity, and rationale for medication choice among surgeons in the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS). Methods: An e-survey including demographics, practice patterns, and rationale was disseminated to 2011 AOFAS members. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for demographic data, anesthetic and steroid choice, rationale for injectate choice, and perception of chondrotoxicity. Bivariate analysis was used to identify practice patterns significantly associated with perceptions of injectate risk and rationale. Results: In total, 387 surveys were completed. Lidocaine and triamcinolone were the most common anesthetic and corticosteroid used (51.2% and 39.3%, respectively). Less than half of respondents felt corticosteroids or local anesthetics bear risk of chondrotoxicity. Respondents agreeing that corticosteroids are chondrotoxic were more likely to use triamcinolone (P = .037). Respondents agreeing local anesthetics risk chondrotoxicity were less likely to use lidocaine (P = .023). Respondents choosing a local anesthetic based on literature were more likely to use ropivacaine (P < .001). Conclusion: Corticosteroid and local anesthetic use in ICIs varied greatly. Rationale for ICI formulation was also variable, as the clinical implications are largely unknown. Those who recognized potential chondrotoxicity and who chose based on literature were more likely to choose ropivacaine and triamcinolone, as reflected in the basic science literature. Further clinical studies are needed to establish guidelines that shape foot and ankle ICI practices based on scientific evidence and reduce the variation identified by this study. Level of Evidence: Level IV, cross-sectional survey study.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We document a military patient presenting with a diffuse set of symptoms suggestive of chronic Lyme disease (CLD) and the subsequent empiric treatment and health complications arising therein. The lay medical community, spurred by the internet, has ascribed these diffuse symptoms to various illnesses including CLD without confirmatory serological evidence of any underlying disease. With a growing community of patient advocates, CLD has become an illness with broad and highly generalized list of clinical symptoms and an absence of agreed-upon confirmatory laboratory tests. Further complicating matters, diagnostic criteria and treatment protocols differ between the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society guidelines. Clinicians also face serious challenges in diagnosing and treating patients who present with generalized symptoms and close to 50 diagnostic tests for Lyme disease available in North America. Further complicating the picture for military patients seeking medical confirmation of a disease and resolution of their symptoms, medical fitness boards use putative diagnoses as prima faciae evidence in disability. Here a military patient with a long list of complaints that defy any clear or easy diagnosis and treatment is discussed. However, these symptoms taken together with selectively summed notes in the medical record in the absence of convincing and clear laboratory confirmation are suggestive of CLD and its complications, but no resolution was ultimately reached. With the presumptive determination of a medical disability due to CLD by the medical board, the medical dismissal of this service member from active duty occurred.
