Publication:
A prospective randomized study comparing the effectiveness of midlateral and posterior subacromial steroid injections

dc.contributor.authorPhob Ganokrojen_US
dc.contributor.authorLikit Matrakoolen_US
dc.contributor.authorPanida Limsuwarnen_US
dc.contributor.authorThaworn Sissaynaraneen_US
dc.contributor.authorCharongrat Yimvassanaen_US
dc.contributor.authorSorawut Laoratanavoraphongen_US
dc.contributor.authorJirantanin Ratanawarinchaien_US
dc.contributor.otherSuranaree University of Technologyen_US
dc.contributor.otherPolice General Hospitalen_US
dc.contributor.otherFaculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol Universityen_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-27T10:34:59Z
dc.date.available2020-01-27T10:34:59Z
dc.date.issued2019-01-01en_US
dc.description.abstractCopyright © SLACK inCorporAted The authors sought to compare the accuracy and effectiveness of the midlateral and posterior routes of subacromial injection. They conducted a prospective randomized study involving 50 shoulders scheduled to receive subacromial injection via the midlateral or posterior route. After injection, a blinded musculoskeletal radiologist interpreted the radiographs. Age, sex, body mass index, side of shoulder involved, circumference of the proximal humerus, and acromial type were assessed. The accuracy rates of the injections, modified University of California Los Angeles shoulder scores, and visual analog scale pain scores were compared. The accuracy rate of the midlateral route was significantly higher than that of the posterior route (92% vs 68%; P<.034). Although there were significantly improved modified University of California Los Angeles shoulder and visual analog scale pain scores in both groups after injection, differences in functional outcomes were not statistically significant (P>.05). Univariate analysis showed no correlation between accuracy and age, sex, body mass index, or circumference of the proximal humerus. However, injection route had some influence on accuracy, with a crude odds ratio of 5.41 (95% confidence interval, 1.017-28.791; P=.048) for the midlateral route. Midlateral was the preferred route for subacromial injection.en_US
dc.identifier.citationOrthopedics. Vol.42, No.1 (2019), e44-e50en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.3928/01477447-20181109-03en_US
dc.identifier.issn19382367en_US
dc.identifier.issn01477447en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85060131308en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/52327
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85060131308&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleA prospective randomized study comparing the effectiveness of midlateral and posterior subacromial steroid injectionsen_US
dc.typeReviewen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85060131308&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections