Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services

User menu

  • My Cart
  • Log In

Search

  • Advanced search
The Journal of Rheumatology
  • JRheum Supplements
  • Services
  • My Cart
  • Log In
The Journal of Rheumatology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • First Release
    • Current
    • Archives
    • Collections
    • Audiovisual Rheum
    • COVID-19 and Rheumatology
  • Resources
    • Guide for Authors
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Payment
    • Reviewers
    • Advertisers
    • Classified Ads
    • Reprints and Translations
    • Permissions
    • Meetings
    • FAQ
    • Policies
  • Subscribers
    • Subscription Information
    • Purchase Subscription
    • Your Account
    • Terms and Conditions
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Letter from the Editor
    • Duncan A. Gordon Award
    • Privacy/GDPR Policy
    • Accessibility
  • Contact Us
  • Follow jrheum on Twitter
  • Visit jrheum on Facebook
  • Follow jrheum on LinkedIn
  • Follow jrheum on YouTube
  • Follow jrheum on Instagram
  • Follow jrheum on RSS
EditorialEditorial

A New Look at an Old Procedure?

Pascal Richette and Augustin Latourte
The Journal of Rheumatology December 2022, 49 (12) 1297-1298; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.220775
Pascal Richette
1P. Richette, MD, PhD, A. Latourte, MD, PhD, Hôpital Lariboisière, AP-HP, Service de Rhumatologie, and Bioscar UMR Inserm 1132 and Université de Paris Cité, Paris, France.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Pascal Richette
  • For correspondence: pascal.richette@aphp.fr
Augustin Latourte
1P. Richette, MD, PhD, A. Latourte, MD, PhD, Hôpital Lariboisière, AP-HP, Service de Rhumatologie, and Bioscar UMR Inserm 1132 and Université de Paris Cité, Paris, France.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Augustin Latourte
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters
PreviousNext
Loading

Joint lavage aims to remove debris such as microscopic or macroscopic fragments of cartilage matrix, bone macromolecules, and crystals that may induce synovitis, a likely source of pain and a putative cause of chondrolysis.1

Joint lavage has been used for several decades by rheumatologists and orthopedists for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and septic arthritis. It can be performed during an arthroscopy, or more easily, on its own by using 1 or 2 needles, allowing the injection of saline (1-3 L) into the joint cavity, which is then evacuated. In this case, the procedure is easy and less expensive, and depending on the disease, can be followed by an intraarticular (IA) injection of corticosteroids.

In this issue of The Journal of Rheumatology, Drs. Ike and Kalunian have written a review of the literature on the efficacy of joint lavage for different conditions, not only for knee OA but also for inflammatory arthropathies, microcrystalline arthritis, and septic arthritis.2 This is not a systematic literature review (SLR), but a narrative review.

The authors suggest that there is still a place for joint lavage in patients with knee OA.2 However, 2 SLRs conducted on this subject concluded that lavage did not provide any clinically relevant benefit in knee OA.3,4

In our previous SLR and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing joint lavage vs placebo for patients with knee OA, we found no robust evidence for a clinically relevant effect over placebo at 3 months. The pooled effect size (ES) of joint lavage vs placebo was not significant for pain (ES 0.17, 95% CI −0.37 to 0.71) or physical function (ES −0.15, 95% CI −0.34 to 0.04), nor was the pooled ES of joint lavage combined with steroid injection versus joint lavage alone significant for pain intensity (ES −0.82, 95% CI −2.47 to 0.82) or physical function (ES 0.09, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.45).3

Since then, no RCT has been published on the subject, to our knowledge, and lavage does not appear in the international recommendations for the treatment of knee OA.5-8 In our opinion, one important paper could have been cited: the study by Moseley et al, in which patients with knee OA were randomized into 3 arms: lavage, placebo, and arthroscopic debridement.9 At no point did the lavage group perform better on pain or function as compared to the placebo group. The important point in this study9 is that the placebo group did not receive saline into the joint, which could have had an analgesic effect and thus diminished the possibility of demonstrating an effect of the lavage. Indeed, for the patients in the control group, the surgeon asked for all instruments and manipulated the knee as if arthroscopy were being performed, and saline was splashed to simulate the sounds of lavage.9,10

Drs. Ike and Kalunian also suggest that lavage could be an alternative to IA corticosteroid injections,2 because of their potential toxicity on cartilage, citing the study by McAlindon et al.11 It should be remembered that the number of injections performed in this trial was 4 per year for 2 years, which is almost never done in daily practice. Finally, although this study suggests a deleterious effect of repeated IA steroid injections, this does not seem to increase the risk of knee replacement.12,13

In addition to lacking clinical relevance for pain relief, joint lavage may present several causes of discomfort for patients with knee OA as compared with corticosteroid injection: the total duration of a joint lavage (30-60 min) is longer than that required for one IA injection, bed rest might be recommended following the lavage, and low-molecular-weight heparin prescription is sometimes required. Moreover, the cost of joint lavage is much higher than that of a corticosteroid injection.

Should we definitively abandon joint lavage for the treatment of knee OA? Probably not, because one must remain pragmatic for the patients whose knee OA and synovial fluid effusion are not alleviated with 1 or more IA corticosteroid injections; this is a patient population that has never been specifically studied in RCTs.

On the other hand, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for symptomatic patients with a meniscal tear and knee OA do not result in better functional outcomes than physical therapy.14,15

The value of joint lavage in microcrystalline arthritis to remove urate or calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD) crystals is very uncertain. In gout, the most important goal is to dissolve the monosodium urate crystals by lowering the urate levels to below 5 or 6 mg/dL.16,17 To date, there is no treatment capable of dissolving CPPD crystals, but we should not fear that they will worsen the progression of preexisting knee OA.18,19 Acute CPPD arthritis is usually well controlled by nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, corticosteroids (oral or injectable), colchicine, and likely also anti–interleukin (IL)-1 and anti–IL-6 blockers, as has been reported in some patients.20 Finally, there is a concern that joint lavage may favor the crystals shedding from the cartilage into the joint cavity, thus triggering an intense inflammatory reaction, as has already been reported.21

Drs. Ike and Kalunian also cite some studies reporting the effectiveness of joint lavage in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It must be emphasized that the use of this procedure for the treatment of isolated RA of the knee is not recommended. IA corticosteroid injections should be preferred in this case.8

In 2022, joint lavage plays an important role in the treatment of septic arthritis of the knee, a severe disease.22 It allows the evacuation of bacterial debris but also of macromolecules and proinflammatory cytokines that accompany the infection. Unfortunately, the way it should be done (during arthroscopy or with needles), and the moment when it should be done (at diagnosis or after a few days of antibiotics in case of uncontrolled infection) are not codified, because of the lack of well-conducted studies on the field.23-25 We sincerely hope that we will see these studies in the coming years to confirm the effectiveness of joint lavage for the management of septic arthritis.

Footnotes

  • The authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

  • See Bring back knee washout?, page 1307

  • Copyright © 2022 by the Journal of Rheumatology

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Ayral X
    . Arthroscopy and joint lavage. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2005;19:401-15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Ike RW,
    2. Kalunian KC
    . Is it time to bring back knee washout? J Rheumatol 2022;49:1307-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Avouac J,
    2. Vicaut E,
    3. Bardin T,
    4. Richette P
    . Efficacy of joint lavage in knee osteoarthritis: meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Rheumatology 2010;49:334-40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Reichenbach S,
    2. Rutjes AW,
    3. Nuesch E,
    4. Trelle S,
    5. Juni P
    . Joint lavage for osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010:CD007320.
  5. 5.↵
    1. Bannuru RR,
    2. Osani MC,
    3. Vaysbrot EE, et al.
    OARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee, hip, and polyarticular osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2019;27:1578-89.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.
    1. Kolasinski SL,
    2. Neogi T,
    3. Hochberg MC, et al.
    2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation guideline for the management of osteoarthritis of the hand, hip, and knee. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020;72:220-33.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. 7.
    1. Sellam J,
    2. Courties A,
    3. Eymard F, et al; French Society of Rheumatology
    . Recommendations of the French Society of Rheumatology on pharmacological treatment of knee osteoarthritis. Joint Bone Spine 2020;87:548-55.
    OpenUrl
  8. 8.↵
    1. Uson J,
    2. Rodriguez-Garcia SC,
    3. Castellanos-Moreira R, et al.
    EULAR recommendations for intra-articular therapies. Ann Rheum Dis 2021;80:1299-305.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Moseley JB,
    2. O’Malley K,
    3. Petersen NJ, et al.
    A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 2002;347:81-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Felson DT,
    2. Buckwalter J
    . Debridement and lavage for osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 2002;347:132-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. McAlindon TE,
    2. LaValley MP,
    3. Harvey WF, et al.
    Effect of intra-articular triamcinolone vs saline on knee cartilage volume and pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2017;317:1967-75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Latourte A,
    2. Rat AC,
    3. Omorou A, et al.
    Do glucocorticoid injections increase the risk of knee osteoarthritis progression over 5 years? Arthritis Rheumatol 2022 Mar 14 (Epub ahead of print).
  13. 13.↵
    1. Conaghan PG
    . Corticosteroids and osteoarthritis progression: a confounded issue. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2019;27:e5-6.
    OpenUrl
  14. 14.↵
    1. Katz JN,
    2. Brophy RH,
    3. Chaisson CE, et al.
    Surgery versus physical therapy for a meniscal tear and osteoarthritis. N Engl J Med 2013;368:1675-84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Katz JN,
    2. Brownlee SA,
    3. Jones MH
    . The role of arthroscopy in the management of knee osteoarthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2014;28:143-56.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. FitzGerald JD,
    2. Dalbeth N,
    3. Mikuls T, et al.
    2020 American College of Rheumatology guideline for the management of gout. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020;72:879-95.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Pascart T,
    2. Latourte A,
    3. Flipo RM, et al.
    2020 recommendations from the French Society of Rheumatology for the management of gout: urate-lowering therapy. Joint Bone Spine 2020;87:395-404.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    1. Latourte A,
    2. Rat AC,
    3. Ngueyon Sime W, et al.
    Chondrocalcinosis of the knee and the risk of osteoarthritis progression: data from the Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis Long-term Assessment Cohort. Arthritis Rheumatol 2020;72:726-32.
    OpenUrl
  19. 19.↵
    1. Neogi T,
    2. Nevitt M,
    3. Niu J, et al.
    Lack of association between chondrocalcinosis and increased risk of cartilage loss in knees with osteoarthritis: results of two prospective longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging studies. Arthritis Rheum 2006;54:1822-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Stack J,
    2. McCarthy G
    . Calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease - Treatment options. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2021;35:101720.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    1. Pasquetti P,
    2. Selvi E,
    3. Righeschi K, et al.
    Joint lavage and pseudogout. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63:1529-30.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Abram SGF,
    2. Alvand A,
    3. Judge A,
    4. Beard DJ,
    5. Price AJ
    . Mortality and adverse joint outcomes following septic arthritis of the native knee: a longitudinal cohort study of patients receiving arthroscopic washout. Lancet Infect Dis 2020;20:341-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Richebe P,
    2. Coiffier G,
    3. Guggenbuhl P, et al.
    Management and outcome of native joint septic arthritis: a nationwide survey in French rheumatology departments, 2016-2017. Ann Rheum Dis 2022 Jul 12 (Epub ahead of print).
  24. 24.
    1. Couderc M,
    2. Bart G,
    3. Coiffier G, et al; French Rheumatology Society Bone, Joint Infection Working Group
    . 2020 French recommendations on the management of septic arthritis in an adult native joint. Joint Bone Spine 2020;87:538-47.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Mathews CJ,
    2. Weston VC,
    3. Jones A,
    4. Field M,
    5. Coakley G
    . Bacterial septic arthritis in adults. Lancet 2010;375:846-55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Journal of Rheumatology
Vol. 49, Issue 12
1 Dec 2022
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by Author
  • Editorial Board (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about The Journal of Rheumatology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A New Look at an Old Procedure?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from The Journal of Rheumatology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the The Journal of Rheumatology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A New Look at an Old Procedure?
Pascal Richette, Augustin Latourte
The Journal of Rheumatology Dec 2022, 49 (12) 1297-1298; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.220775

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

 Request Permissions

Share
A New Look at an Old Procedure?
Pascal Richette, Augustin Latourte
The Journal of Rheumatology Dec 2022, 49 (12) 1297-1298; DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.220775
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
  • eLetters

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • New Advances in the Knowledge of Elemental Enthesis Lesions: Doppler, Erosion, and Thickness
  • Keep It in Mind: Assessing the Risk of Dementia in Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis and Opportunities for Intervention
  • Celebrating The Journal of Rheumatology’s 50th Year of Publication
Show more Editorial

Similar Articles

Content

  • First Release
  • Current
  • Archives
  • Collections
  • Audiovisual Rheum
  • COVID-19 and Rheumatology

Resources

  • Guide for Authors
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Author Payment
  • Reviewers
  • Advertisers
  • Classified Ads
  • Reprints and Translations
  • Permissions
  • Meetings
  • FAQ
  • Policies

Subscribers

  • Subscription Information
  • Purchase Subscription
  • Your Account
  • Terms and Conditions

More

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • My Alerts
  • My Folders
  • Privacy/GDPR Policy
  • RSS Feeds
The Journal of Rheumatology
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
Copyright © 2022 by The Journal of Rheumatology Publishing Co. Ltd.
Print ISSN: 0315-162X; Online ISSN: 1499-2752
Powered by HighWire