Squishing sound heard following an intra-articular shoulder injection with fluid and air is associated with higher efficacy: A retrospective analysis

2.1Design

We retrospectively analyzed the files of patients with phase-1 capsulitis of the shoulder who were treated with an intra-articular injection in the shoulder in our clinic between July 1, 2010 and July 1, 2016. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Erasmus University Rotterdam, MEC-2019-0138. The IRB concluded that written informed consent was not needed since the study was retrospective and the data were collected and analyzed anonymously.

2.2Selection of files

Inclusion of patients was based on medical history, clinical examination, and ultrasound investigation. If indicated, an X-ray was taken. Data were collected from patients meeting all of the following criteria: 1) pain in the acromial region (with or without radiation into the arm); 2) restriction of passive anteflexion, and active internal rotation; 3) at least a 20-degree restriction of passive external rotation and of glenohumeral abduction; 4) pain at passive anteflexion as well as external and internal rotation; 5) no clinical signs of subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS) or osteoarthritis.

We excluded patients who had a history of fracture of the humerus and/or scapula, patients with a rheumatic disease, bilateral shoulder pain, and those who had had an intra-articular injection into the studied shoulder within the past 3 months. Patients with full-thickness rotator-cuff rupture and/or peri-articular calcifications larger than 3 mm were also excluded.

Sample size calculation with alpha 0.05 and beta 0.80 showed that the number of needed dossiers was 88. This value was based upon the estimated proportion of patients with squishing was 67%, efficacy was 85% in case of squishing and 50% in those without. Moreover, with the assumption that 25% of the dossiers had to be excluded.

2.3Protocol

The shoulder joint was treated with a blind injection using the method described by Cyriax [11]: “… the patient sitting and the shoulder internally rotated. The needle punctured the skin 2 cm below the point where the lateral edge of the acromion and the lower edge of spine of the scapula meet. Then the needle was moved in the direction of the point of the coracoid process until the humeral head was felt with the needle.” Some resistance is felt as the capsule is pierced, and the patient usually complains of pain at that point [10].

A mixture containing 0.5 ml triamcinolone 40 mg/ml, 3.5 ml lidocaine 1%, and 2 ml air was then injected. A 50 mm 22G needle was used. After the injection and removal of the needle, the physician rotated the slightly abducted arm internally and externally a few times to check for a squishing sound.

The efficacy of the injection was measured after 2 weeks by asking the patients to give their impression on a six-point Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), which was documented in their files. A response of ‘much better’ or ‘completely recovered’ was defined as positive; ‘somewhat better,’ ‘unchanged,’ ‘somewhat worse’ and ‘much worse’ as negative. Some patients scored their improvement by giving a percentage. In such cases, 50% improvement or higher was scored as positive and a score < 50% as negative.

In addition to the extent of restriction of range of motion (in degrees) and squishing (present or absent) data were collected regarding factors that might influence the success of the intervention: age, sex, diabetes (present or absent), and duration of symptoms in months.

2.4Statistical analysis

Normally distributed continuous variables are presented as mean and standard deviation; non-normally distributed continuous variables as median and interquartile range. Differences between responders and non-responders are analyzed with an independent samples t-test for normally distributed continuous variables (age), with a Mann-Whitney test for non-normal distributions (duration of complaints, restriction of external rotation and abduction) and with a chi-square test for categorical variables (gender and diabetes). Differences in efficacy between injections with and without a squishing sound are expressed as odds ratios computed in a univariate logistic regression with the clinical effect (positive or negative) as the dependent variable. Odds ratios are presented with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Analyses were performed using SPSS version 27. P< 0.05 is considered statistically significant.

3.1Squishing

In the 6-year period, 88 patients fulfilled all inclusion criteria (Fig. 1 and Table 1). Two patients were excluded. Efficacy data were not recorded in 25 dossiers. Mostly because patients cancelled the appointment for follow-up. Hence, 61 cases were available for analysis. A squishing sound was heard following 47 of these 61 injections (77%).

Figure 1.

Flow diagram.

3.2Efficacy

Two weeks after the injection, none of the 61 patients reported worsening of their symptoms. A positive effect was reported by 49 patients (80%) and a negative effect by 12 patients (20%).

3.3Squishing and efficacy

When a squishing sound was heard, the effect was positive in 42 of the 47 patients (89%) and when no squishing sound was heard, the effect was positive in 7 of the 14 patients (50%). A comparison of these outcomes showed an odds ratio of 8.4 (95% CI 2.1–34.0; p= 0.003) in the univariate analysis with Nagelkerke pseudo R2= 0.22.

3.4Check for selection bias due to missing data

Twenty-five cases were lost to follow up. Besides the fact that the non-responders were on average 6 years younger than the responders, no significant differences were found between responders and non-responders (Table 1).

4.1Squishing and accuracy

It is our hypothesis that squishing is related to accuracy. Two previous publications used the squishing sound as evidence that the injected mixture had reached the joint cavity of the shoulder [10, 12]. The association between squishing and accuracy has never been proven for the shoulder, as far as we know. The following facts support our hypothesis:

A study in the knee showed that after injection of a mixture of local anesthetic, corticosteroid, contrast dye, and 1 to 2 cc of air, a squishing sound was heard after 85% of intra-articular injections and in none after injections placed extra-articularly [13]. Glattes e.a. hypothesized that the noise in the knee “… is produced as the air passes from the femoral-tibial compartment to the suprapatellar cavity.” [13] We theorize that the noise in the shoulder arises when the air will be moved during rotations from one part of the joint cavity to another part.

Sounds following injection of a mixture of air and fluid into a joint after double-contrast arthrography are well-known. The American College of Radiology writes on their patient-information site that after arthrography “… the patient may … hear gurgling when the joint is moved” [14], and, as far as we know, squishing sounds have never been heard after intra-articular injections with fluid only. In case of inaccuracy or leakage of blind posterior injections, the fluid appears almost always in the infraspinatus and/or teres minor muscle belly [15, 16, 17, 18]. It is theoretically unlikely that an injection of a mixture of fluid and air in the belly of those muscles could result in a squishing sound when the shoulder is moved by the physician.

4.2Accuracy and efficacy

It is our hypothesis that accuracy is related to efficacy. That inaccuracy reduces efficacy seems obvious, but a firm association between accuracy and efficacy was, as far as we know, not been assessed in previous studies [19, 20, 21, 22]. In two of those studies, a strong conclusion could not be drawn because in the analysis, the results of the patients with capsulitis were pooled with those of patients with various other diagnoses [19, 20]. In two other studies, the efficacy of accurate injections was not significantly greater than that of inaccurate injections [21, 22]. These results could have been due to the rather small number of inaccurate injections (seven and eleven). Another explanation for the weak association between accuracy and efficacy in the aforementioned studies could be that leakage of fluid outside the joint was not considered as a possible explanation for inefficacy. Leakage after injection is quite common. A systematic review comprising 21 publications mentioned the appearance of extra-articular contrast in 1.0%–51.0% of the cases [8]. Rutten et al. injected 50 shoulders guided by ultrasound and 50 by fluoroscopy, reporting a minimal amount of extra-articular contrast in 24% of all procedures, but a massive amount in 27% of them [23].

In most studies on accuracy, the appearance of contrast fluid in the joint was defined as a successful injection. However, this definition is debatable. Rutten et al. showed that even significant leakage of contrast did not compromise the diagnostic quality of the arthrogram [23]. However, significant leakage may reduce efficacy. It is theoretically possible that the production of a squishing sound after injection could mean that a large part of the fluid has reached the joint cavity without significant leakage. This could be a better indicator for correct placement than sufficiency of fluid reaching the joint, for purposes of producing an acceptable arthrogram.

The present study has much in common with a former study comparing the effect of ultrasonography guided and blindly given intra-articular injections [25]. In that study ultrasonographic given injections were more effective to reduce pain and to improve range of motion and function two weeks after the injections. The authors suggest that the injection technique in their study was related to accuracy and accuracy to efficacy, but a check for accuracy was missing.

4.3Limitations

One limitation of the study is that the patients were not ‘blinded’ for the squishing sound. Theoretically they could have been more prone to report a positive result when they heard the squishing sound.

Another limitation is that we used only one effect measure (PGIC) and only one evaluation. Most prospective studies use two or three measures to determine clinical changes. Although the use of only one effect measure is a limitation, patient’s opinion is very responsive and, at least in phase 1, seems to be more relevant for the patient than surrogate measures such as improvement of range of motion or strength [26, 27, 28].

Moreover, the retrospective design and the small amount of only 12 patients with a negative result are limitations. A blinded control group with an injection of 4 ml placebo-fluid with 2 ml air could have made the conclusions more robust.

4.4Recommendations

The present study indicates that a prospective study should be performed, with a blinded observer for squishing and a blinded radiographic control for intra-articular air. It is a challenge to find a method to make the researcher more objective in the assessment of squishing.