Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Intra-articular knee injections (IAKI) are commonly used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes but may induce anxiety and fear. While existing literature has identified the variance between expected and actual pain levels in various medical procedures, this phenomenon remains unexplored in the context of IAKI.

Objectives: To describe the differences between anticipated and experienced pain recorded during IAKI.

Methods: The study cohort included 50 patients who underwent IAKI by an orthopedic specialist in an outpatient clinic. Patients recruited to the study recorded the anticipated and experienced pain, anxiety index, and factors influencing injection related fear.

Results: The study population (n=50) demonstrated a significant difference between the pain expected before the injection (mean Visual Analogue Scale [VAS] score 6.19) and the actual experienced (mean VAS score 2.07, P-value < 0.001). Significant differences between anticipated and experienced VAS scores were demonstrated for both females and males. There was a significant difference between males and females in terms of estimated VAS score. There was no significant difference between males and females in term of the experienced VAS score. The difference (delta) between expected and experienced pain differed significantly between sexes.

Conclusions: These findings emphasize the importance of educating patients about expected pain levels during IAKI. Presenting this quantified information may reassure patients that the procedure is not as painful as expected, which can potentially increase the compliance.

Diagnosis and treatment of posterior hip pain has increased due to advancements in clinical, anatomical, biomechanical, and related pathological understandings of the hip. Due to its complexity and close anatomical relationship with many osseous, neurovascular, and musculotendinous structures, posterior hip pain must be appropriately categorized based on its origin. Therefore, it is crucial that clinicians are able to determine whether patient complaints are of extra-articular or intra-articular nature so that they can implement the optimal treatment plan. In the current review article, we discussed posterior hip pain with an emphasis on the main differential diagnoses of deep gluteal syndrome, ischiofemoral impingement, and hamstring tear/hamstring syndrome. For the appropriate diagnosis and etiology of posterior hip pain, a thorough and conclusive clinical history is imperative. Physicians should rule out the possibility of spinal involvement by physical examination and if necessary, by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Furthermore, because of the vicinity to other, non-orthopedic structures, an obstetric and gynecologic history, general surgery history, and urologic history should be obtained. Following the collection of patient history clinicians should adhere to an established and efficient order of evaluation starting with standing then to seated, supine, lateral, and prone testing. Imaging assessment of posterior hip pain begins with a standard anterior-posterior pelvic radiograph, in addition to frog-leg lateral. MRI is pivotal for assessing soft tissue-related extra-articular causes of hip in patients with posterior hip pain. Non-surgical treatment is preferred in most cases of deep gluteal syndrome, ischiofemoral impingement, pudendal nerve entrapment, and proximal hamstring pathologies. Surgical treatment is saved as a last resort option in cases of failed non-surgical treatment

Background: The popularity of bicycle riding for recreation, exercise and transportation has grown enormously in recent years, which has led to an increased incidence of bicycle-related injuries. While these injuries involve mainly the musculoskeletal system, data on shoulder-specific injuries incurred while bike riding are lacking. Classifying these shoulder injuries may provide insight and assistance in the creation and implementation of effective protective gear and measures. 

Objectives: To investigate the types and mechanisms of shoulder injuries among cyclists.

Methods: This study retrospectively examined all cyclists who incurred shoulder injuries while riding and were admitted to the emergency department and shoulder clinic between January 2008 and November 2013. The study included 157 subjects with various bicycle-related shoulder injuries treated with either conservative or surgical measures. 

Results: Eighty-four percent of injuries were caused by a direct blow to the shoulder, 7% by falling on an outstretched hand, 6% were traction injuries, and 3% were due to hyper-abduction. Nine different clinical types of injury were observed; the most common injuries were clavicle fractures (32%), followed by acromioclavicular joint dislocations (22%), rotator cuff tears (22%), and humeral fractures (8%). Fifty-one percent of subjects were managed with conservative care and the remaining patients required surgical interventions. 

Conclusions: The shoulder injuries incurred while riding a bicycle span the entire spectrum of shoulder injuries and often result in debilitating conditions. Although the use of helmets is increasing, there is currently no effective protective gear or measures to prevent riders from suffering shoulder injuries.