Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
The most recent version of this article was published on 1 August 2006

Ann Rheum Dis. Published Online First: 8 December 2005. doi:10.1136/ard.2005.045781
Copyright © 2005 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & European League Against Rheumatism.

Extended Report

A randomized, controlled trial of the reciprocating syringe in arthrocentesis

Hilda T. Draeger 1*, Jon M. Twining 1, Courtney R. Johnson 1, Sharon C Kettwich 2, Lawrence G. Kettwich 2 and Arthur D. Bankhurst 1

1 University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, United States
2 University of New Mexico, United States

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: hdraeger31{at}aol.com.

Accepted 27 November 2005


Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the outcomes of arthrocentesis with the new highly controllable, one- handed reciprocating procedure syringe compared to a conventional syringe.

Methods: 100 arthrocentesis procedures were randomized between the reciprocating syringe and the conventional syringe. Outcome measures included patient pain, procedure duration, operator satisfaction, synovial fluid volume, cell counts, and complications.

Results: 50 arthrocentesis procedures with the conventional syringe resulted in a mean procedure time of 3.39± 1.88 minutes, a mean VAPS (patient pain) score of 5.35 ± 3.15, and a mean VASS (operator satisfaction) score of 4.88± 1.92. 30/50 subjects experienced moderate to severe pain (VAPS score 5 or greater) during arthrocentesis. In contrast, the reciprocating syringe resulted in a reduced procedure time of 1.94± 1.14 minutes (p<0.001), a reduced VAPS (patient pain) score of 2.54± 1.60 (p<0.001), and an increased VASS (operator satisfaction) score of 8.91± 0.79 (p<0.001). Only 5/50 of subjects experienced moderate to severe pain with the reciprocating syringe. Synovial cell counts were similar between the two syringes (p > 0.05), but there was a trend toward greater volume (greater synovial fluid yield) and fewer red blood cells with the reciprocating syringe.

Conclusions: Arthrocentesis with a conventional syringe results in moderate to severe pain in 60% of subjects. The reciprocating syringe prevents significant pain, reduces procedure time, and improves physician performance of arthrocentesis. The reciprocating syringe is superior to the conventional syringe in arthrocentesis.

Keywords: Arthrocentesis, joint, procedure, reciprocating, syringe


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Sibbitt, R. R., Palmer, D. J., Sibbitt, W. L. Jr (2008). Integration of Patient Safety Technologies Into Sclerotherapy for Varicose Veins. VASC ENDOVASCULAR SURG 42: 446-455 [Abstract]  

This Article

Services
Citing Articles
Google Scholar
PubMed
Bookmark with

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

BMJ Careers - Latest Rheumatology Jobs

Rheumatology Jobs