ArticleFoot & ankle orthopaedics2024
Limited Evidence to Support the Use of Intra-Articular Injection of Hyaluronic Acid for the Management of Hallux Rigidus: A Systematic Review.
Article in Foot & ankle orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (viscosupplementation) for osteoarthritis: is it effective?Australian prescriber · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate outcomes following intra-articular injection of hyaluronic acid (HA) for the treatment of hallux rigidus. Methods: During April 2024, a systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data collected and analyzed were number of patients, patient age, follow-up, subjective clinical outcomes, complications, and failures. Results: Five studies were included. In total, 218 patients (218 feet) underwent intra-articular injection of HA at a weighted mean follow-up time of 4.4 ± 1.4 months (range, 3-6). There was an improvement in postinjection visual analog scale (VAS) pain at rest scores, VAS pain during activity scores, American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, and Foot Health Status Questionnaire (FHSQ) scores. In total, 21 complications (10.0%) were observed, the most common of which was transient postinjection pain in 20 patients (9.6%). There were 7 patients (3.2%) who underwent secondary procedures (3.2%). One randomized control trial (RCT) demonstrated no difference in outcomes between an intra-articular injection of HA compared to an intra-articular injection of saline. One RCT demonstrated superior FHSQ scores following between an intra-articular injection of HA compared to an intra-articular injection of triamcinolone acetonide. Conclusion: This systematic review suggests that intra-articular injection of HA for the treatment of hallux rigidus may lead to improved clinical outcomes with a low complication rate at short-term follow-up. However, the low level and quality of evidence underscores the need for further high-quality studies to be conducted to identify the precise role of HA in the treatment of hallux rigidus.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.