What other steroid options are alternatives for triamcinolone 40mg/ml for interarticular injections?

Comment by InpharmD Researcher

Potential alternatives to triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg/mL for intra-articular injection include methylprednisolone acetate, betamethasone, triamcinolone hexacetonide, and dexamethasone formulations. However, comparative evidence is limited and heterogeneous, with outcomes varying by corticosteroid, dose, joint, indication, and follow-up period. Furthermore, societal guidelines do not identify a preferred corticosteroid preparation or establish dose equivalence to triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg/mL, suggesting that corticosteroid selection may vary based on the clinical context and available formulation.
Background

The 2026 multisociety guideline from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, and International Pain and Spine Intervention Society states that there is limited evidence to guide selection of one intra-articular corticosteroid over another. The most commonly used preparations were methylprednisolone acetate, triamcinolone hexacetonide, and triamcinolone acetonide, and the guideline concluded that different preparations appear to have similar effectiveness but may differ in duration of action; evidence was insufficient to recommend one preparation over another. Comparative evidence included methylprednisolone acetate and triamcinolone acetonide at 20- and 40-mg doses for shoulder injections, with no differences in pain or function among preparations or doses, while 40 mg of either triamcinolone or methylprednisolone was described as commonly used for hip intra-articular injections. Extended-release triamcinolone acetonide 32 mg was also compared with conventional triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg for knee injections and was not significantly different for the primary pain outcome. Overall, the guideline describes methylprednisolone acetate and triamcinolone hexacetonide as other commonly used intra-articular corticosteroids, but available evidence does not establish a specific corticosteroid or dose as an equivalent substitute for triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg/mL. [1]

The 2019 American College of Rheumatology/Arthritis Foundation guideline strongly recommends intra-articular glucocorticoid injections for knee and hip osteoarthritis and conditionally recommends them for hand osteoarthritis, with evidence supporting short-term efficacy in knee osteoarthritis. However, the guideline does not identify specific corticosteroid preparations or doses as preferred alternatives to triamcinolone 40 mg/mL. Available evidence was considered insufficient to determine whether short- versus long-acting corticosteroid preparations or lower versus higher doses should be preferred. Thus, although the guideline supports intra-articular glucocorticoids as a treatment option, it does not provide specific guidance for selecting another corticosteroid or dose in place of triamcinolone 40 mg/mL. [2]

A 2019 review of intra-articular treatments for knee osteoarthritis described intra-articular glucocorticoids as an established treatment option for short-term symptom relief, although recommendations and estimates of benefit varied across guidelines and systematic reviews. The authors noted that the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons considered the evidence inconclusive, whereas the Osteoarthritis Research Society International considered intra-articular glucocorticoids appropriate; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance supported their use for short-term (1-4 week) pain relief, and an updated Cochrane meta-analysis suggested small-to-moderate benefit over placebo for up to 6 weeks, with uncertainty regarding clinical importance and substantial variability across trials. The authors also highlighted potential safety concerns with repeated treatment, including greater cartilage volume loss reported over 2 years with intra-articular triamcinolone 40 mg compared with saline. Regarding alternative formulations, extended-release triamcinolone acetonide (Zilretta 32 mg) was designed to prolong intra-articular exposure, but its clinical advantage over conventional triamcinolone acetonide was considered unclear because a phase III trial did not demonstrate significant improvement in the primary pain outcome versus conventional triamcinolone. Overall, while the review discussed glucocorticoids broadly and specifically evaluated conventional and extended-release triamcinolone, it did not describe use of other corticosteroid preparations. [3]

Lastly, a 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated 18 randomized controlled trials, including 16 human studies with 1,577 patients, comparing different intra-articular corticosteroid preparations and doses for osteoarthritis, predominantly of the knee. The corticosteroids evaluated in human studies included triamcinolone, methylprednisolone acetate, betamethasone, and dexamethasone palmitate. Relevant to triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg, one study directly compared triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg with methylprednisolone acetate 40 mg and betamethasone disodium phosphate 3 mg, with methylprednisolone providing greater pain relief through 6 weeks; additional studies comparing methylprednisolone acetate 40 mg with triamcinolone hexacetonide 20 or 40 mg reported variable results depending on the follow-up period. In the pooled analysis of triamcinolone versus methylprednisolone, triamcinolone was associated with statistically lower post-injection pain scores at ≤2 weeks, although the difference did not meet the prespecified threshold for clinical importance, and no significant differences in pain improvement from baseline were observed between treatments at any follow-up through 24 weeks. Overall, the quality of evidence for the meta-analyzed pain outcomes was rated low, and the authors concluded that available comparative evidence is insufficient to determine an optimal intra-articular corticosteroid preparation or dose. [4]

Background References: [1] Benzon HT, Provenzano DA, Nagpal A, et al. Use and safety of corticosteroid injections in joints and musculoskeletal soft tissue: guidelines from the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians, and the International Pain and Spine Intervention Society. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2026;51(7):746-773. Published 2026 Jul 6. doi:10.1136/rapm-2024-105656
[2] Kolasinski SL, Neogi T, 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(2):220-233. doi:10.1002/art.41142
[3] Jones IA, Togashi R, Wilson ML, Heckmann N, Vangsness CT Jr. Intra-articular treatment options for knee osteoarthritis. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2019;15(2):77-90. doi:10.1038/s41584-018-0123-4
[4] Bensa A, Salerno M, Moraca G, Boffa A, McIlwraith CW, Filardo G. Intra-articular corticosteroids for the treatment of osteoarthritis: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the comparison of different molecules and doses. J Exp Orthop. 2024;11(3):e12060. Published 2024 Jun 21. doi:10.1002/jeo2.12060
Literature Review

A search of the published medical literature revealed 5 studies investigating the researchable question:

What other steroid options are alternatives for triamcinolone 40mg/ml for interarticular injections?

Level of evidence

B - One high-quality study or multiple studies with limitations  Read more→



Please see Tables 1-5 for your response.


 

Effects of a Single Intra-Articular Injection of a Microsphere Formulation of Triamcinolone Acetonide on Knee Osteoarthritis Pain

Design

Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, multinational, multicenter, phase III clinical trial

N=484

Objective

To assess symptomatic benefits and safety of Zilretta, a novel, microsphere-based, extended-release triamcinolone acetonide (TA), compared with saline solution placebo and triamcinolone acetonide crystalline suspension (TA-cs)

Study Groups

Zilretta 32 mg (n= 161)

Saline placebo (n= 162)

TA-cs 40 mg (n= 161)

Inclusion criteria:

aged ≥40 years, symptomatic knee osteoarthritis per American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for ≥6 months prior to screening, Kellgren-Lawrence grade-2 or 3 osteoarthritis in the index knee as assessed on the screening radiograph, patient-reported pain for >15 days in the previous month, and a 24-hour average-daily-pain (ADP)-intensity score of ≥5 and ≤9 for ≥5 days during the week preceding randomization and intra-articular injection

Exclusion criteria:

arthroscopic or open surgery of the index knee within 12 months of screening, prior use of intra-articular corticosteroids <3 months, intramuscular/oral corticosteroids within the past month, index-knee intra-articular hyaluronic acid <6 months, diabetics with a hemoglobin A1c level >7.5%, lost to follow-up, claimed lack of efficacy before study completion

Methods

Patients were randomized to receive a single intra-articular injection of Zilretta 5 mL, saline-solution placebo 5 mL, or TA-cs 40 mg (1 mL). Participants were evaluated at 7 outpatient visits (on day 1, then every 4 weeks after). Average-daily-pain was assessed daily via an interactive voice-response system.

Duration

24 weeks

Outcome Measures

Change from baseline to week 12 in weekly mean ADP-intensity scores (ranging from 0 to 10)

Baseline Characteristics

 

Zilretta 32 mg (n= 161)

Saline placebo (n= 162)

TA-cs (n= 161)

Age, years

61.5 ± 9.52 62.4 ± 8.89 62.3 ± 10.08

Female

103 (64.0%) 96 (59.3%) 97 (60.2%)

White

130 (80.7%) 144 (88.9%) 131 (81.4%)

Baseline average daily pain

6.3 ± 0.93 6.3 ± 0.98 6.3 ± 0.90

WOMAC scores

A: pain

B: stiffness

C: physical function

 

2.0 ± 0.53

2.3 ± 0.88

2.1 ± 0.56

 

2.0 ± 0.52

2.4 ± 0.79

2.1 ± 0.51

 

2.0 ± 0.52

2.3 ± 0.87

2.1 ± 0.58

WOMAC =Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (ranging 0 to 4)

Results

 

Zilretta 32 mg (n= 161)

Saline placebo (n= 162)

TA-cs (n= 161)

Change in ADP score at 12 weeks

-3.12 ± 0.20* -2.14 ± 0.22 -2.86 ± 0.20
P-value (Zilretta vs)

N/A

<0.0001 0.2964

Zilretta performed more favorably than did TA-cs with respect to exploratory endpoints, as evidenced by greater improvements in WOMAC subscale scores for pain (p≤0.0475), stiffness (p≤0.0182), and physical function (p≤0.0111) at weeks 4, 8, and 12.

Adverse Events

Common Adverse Events:

Arthralgia 

Headache 

Back pain

 

23 (14.3%)

14 (8.7%)

9 (5.6%)

 

20 (12.3%)

13 (8.0%)

9 (5.6%)

 

12 (7.5%)

15 (9.3%)

12 (7.5%)

Discontinued due to Adverse Events

0

1 (0.6%)

1 (0.6%)

Study Author Conclusions

In this study, intra-articular Zilretta (extended-release triamcinolone acetonide) provided significant, clinically meaningful pain reduction in knee osteoarthritis in comparison to saline placebo after 12 weeks.

InpharmD Researcher Critique

This study was powered to detect significant differences in changes in average daily pain scores between Zilretta and saline placebo but not the significant differences in rapidly progressive osteoarthritis, which was defined by joint-space narrowing or loss of fixed joint space width.

While the study duration was 24-weeks, endpoints were only statistically analyzed up to week 12 (primary endpoint). The graphs show that the three groups do not appear to be any different at week 24, but the individual numbers were not presented. 

Additionally, patients who discontinued due to a lack of efficacy were included as part of a last-observation-carried-forward analysis instead of continuing to keep track of their scores. This technique may have inflated the data to seem better in each group, as the last beneficial data point was continued instead of trailing or negative efficacy scores.



Table 1 References:
[5] Conaghan PG, Hunter DJ, Cohen SB, et al. Effects of a Single Intra-Articular Injection of a Microsphere Formulation of Triamcinolone Acetonide on Knee Osteoarthritis Pain: A Double-Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Multinational Study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(8):666-677. doi:10.2106/JBJS.17.00154

 

Betamethasone and Triamcinolone Acetonide Have Comparable Efficacy as Single Intra-Articular Injections in Knee Osteoarthritis
Design

Double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

N= 120

Objective To compare the efficacy of single-shot long-acting corticosteroid (betamethasone) and intermediate-acting corticosteroid (triamcinolone acetonide) injections in knee osteoarthritis
Study Groups

Betamethasone group (n= 60)

Triamcinolone acetonide group (n= 60)

Inclusion Criteria Patients with symptomatic primary knee OA (based on the American Rheumatism Association criteria) with a Kellgren-Lawrence stage of 2 or 3, for whom other conservative treatments had failed
Exclusion Criteria Patients with acute exacerbation of inflammation, allergy to study medications, current corticosteroid use, IA knee injection within the past 6 months, oral use of SYSADOA within the past 6 months, infection in the affected limb, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, adrenal insufficiency, coagulopathy, previous fracture or surgical procedure on the affected knee
Methods Participants were randomized to receive either a 7-mg IA injection of betamethasone or a 40-mg IA injection of triamcinolone acetonide. The injections were administered with 3 mL of 1% lidocaine without epinephrine. The primary outcomes were VAS pain scores at rest and during movement at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included knee flexion angle, modified WOMAC score, UCLA activity score, TUG, 2MWT, and side effects. Multilevel regression models were used for analysis.
Duration December 2021 to January 2024
Outcome Measures

Primary: VAS pain scores at rest and during movement at 6 months

Secondary: Knee flexion angle, modified WOMAC score, UCLA activity score, TUG, 2MWT, side effects

Baseline Characteristics   Betamethasone Group (n= 54) Triamcinolone Acetonide Group (n= 57)
Female (no. of patients) 50 (93%) 53 (93%)
Age (yr) 61 ± 8 62 ± 8
BMI (kg/m²) 26 ± 5 28 ± 6
Kellgren-Lawrence (no. of patients) - 2 35 (65%) 37 (65%)
Kellgren-Lawrence (no. of patients) - 3 19 (35%) 20 (35%)
Symptom duration (mo) 2 (1, 5) 1 (1, 4)
Injected knee: right (no. of patients) 28 (52%) 37 (65%)
VAS pain at rest (points) 72 ± 16 71 ± 16
Active knee flexion (deg) 128 ± 10 124 ± 10
Modified WOMAC (points) 39 ± 16 43 ± 13
UCLA (points) 5 ± 1 5 ± 1
TUG (s) 15 ± 5 16 ± 5
2MWT (m) 110 ± 18 104 ± 24
Results   Betamethasone Group Triamcinolone Acetonide Group Difference p-Value
24 hours 17 ± 18 17 ± 14 0 (-6 to 6) 0.92
48 hours 15 ± 16 13 ± 13 1 (-4 to 7) 0.82
72 hours 16 ± 16 14 ± 13 2 (-4 to 8) 0.65
1 week 17 ± 17 15 ± 15 2 (-5 to 8) 0.70
3 weeks 17 ± 20 17 ± 17 0 (-8 to 7) 0.88
1 month 22 ± 24 19 ± 19 3 (-5 to 11) 0.49
2 months 17 ± 19 21 ± 18 24 (-12 to 3) 0.33
3 months 20 ± 21 22 ± 20 22 (-10 to 7) 0.80
4 months 20 ± 20 22 ± 19 21 (-9 to 7) 0.82
5 months 20 ± 21 23 ± 21 23 (-11 to 6) 0.58
6 months 22 ± 24 24 ± 23 21 (-11 to 8) 0.77
Adverse Events No serious adverse events, such as infection, acute injection-site reaction, erythema, swelling, or pruritus, were reported in either group during the study. 
Study Author Conclusions No significant differences were observed between IA betamethasone and triamcinolone acetonide with respect to VAS pain, functional scores, or performance-based outcomes at 6 months. Given the comparable safety and efficacy, factors such as cost and availability may guide corticosteroid selection for individual patients. 
Critique The study was well-designed as a double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, which strengthens the validity of the findings. However, the lack of a placebo or non-active control group limits the ability to attribute improvements solely to the corticosteroid injections. Additionally, the use of lidocaine may have masked early effects of the corticosteroids. The study's findings are limited to a Thai population, which may affect generalizability to other populations. Further research is needed to explore cost-effectiveness and to confirm these findings in diverse populations.
Table 2 References:
[6] Wattanasirisombat K, Boontanapibul K, Pinitchanon P, Pinsornsak P. Betamethasone and Triamcinolone Acetonide Have Comparable Efficacy as Single Intra-Articular Injections in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Double-Blinded, Randomized Controlled Trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2026;108(1):35-44. doi:10.2106/JBJS.25.00100

A double-blind randomized comparative study of triamcinolone hexacetonide and dexamethasone intra-articular injection for the treatment of knee joint arthritis in rheumatoid arthritis
Design

Double-blind randomized clinical trial

N= 70

Objective To compare the efficacy and side effects of intra-articular injection of dexamethasone (DEX) and triamcinolone hexacetonide (TH) in the treatment of knee joint arthritis in rheumatoid arthritis
Study Groups

DEX (n= 34)

TH (n= 36)

Inclusion Criteria RA patients with one-swelled knee and constant treatment regimen in the previous 3 months
Exclusion Criteria Bleeding tendency, knee or overlying skin infection, plan for changing the treatment regimen, non-inflammatory synovial fluid, and arthrocentesis in the previous 3 months
Methods Patients were randomly allocated to receive either 40 mg TH or 8 mg DEX via intra-articular injection. The joint was entered with a 21-gauge needle using a lateral approach, and synovial fluid was aspirated. The DEX and TH preparations were undiluted and not mixed with a local anesthetic. Patients were recommended a 48-hour rest without weight bearing at home. Assessments were conducted at baseline and at weeks 1, 3, 8, 16, and 24 post-injection.
Duration November 2012 to December 2015
Outcome Measures

Primary: Reduction of knee joint swelling and pain at 1 and 3 weeks after injection

Baseline Characteristics   DEX (n = 30) TH (n = 32) P value
Female/male 1.3/1 1.4/1 NS
Age (years ± SD) 43.5 ± 11.4 45.6 ± 11.3 NS
Disease duration (years ± SD) 5.7 ± 4.3 4.9 ± 4.3 NS
DAS 28 3.6 ± 1.1 3.7 ± 1.1 NS
Knee circumference (cm) 39.2 ± 4.2 40.6 ± 3.2 NS
Knee pain (VAS mm) 66.1 ± 13.7 61.6 ± 16.8 NS
Methotrexate (%) 30 (100) 32 (100) NS
Methotrexate, mg/week (mean ± SD) 16.5 ± 3.8 15.9 ± 4.3 NS
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) (%) 28 (93.3) 29 (90.6) NS
HCQ, mg/day (mean ± SD) 324.1 ± 41.6 346.3 ± 53.2 NS
Sulfasalazine (SZZ) (%) 12 (40) 11 (34.4) NS
SSZ, mg/day (mean ± SD) 1654.7 ± 401.6 1794.1 ± 451.2 NS
Prednisolone (%) 27 (90) 30 (94) NS
Prednisolone, mg/day (mean ± SD) 6.2 ± 1.6 5.9 ± 1.5 NS
Other medications (%) 10 (33.3) 9 (28.1) NS
Results   DEX TH p-value
Reduction in knee circumference at week 1 Significant* Significant* <0.001
Reduction in knee circumference at week 3 Not significant* Not significant* NS
Reduction in knee pain at week 1 Significant* Significant* <0.001
Reduction in knee pain at week 3 Significant* Significant* <0.001
Average time for pain reduction (days) 2.3 ± 1.8 3.4 ± 2.3 0.06
Relapse of knee arthritis 2 (6.7%) 3 (9.4%) NS
*Results presented as graphs
Adverse Events No side effects of injections were found in the two groups.
Study Author Conclusions Intra-articular injection of dexamethasone, like triamcinolone hexacetonide, causes rapid and long-term reduction of knee pain and swelling in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and is safe.
Critique The study provides valuable insights into the efficacy of dexamethasone and triamcinolone hexacetonide for knee arthritis in RA, showing no significant difference between the two. However, the relatively short follow-up duration of 24 weeks and the lack of assessment of knee joint range of motion and inflammatory cytokines in synovial fluid are limitations. Additionally, the study did not include a comparison with other glucocorticoid preparations, which could have provided a broader context for the findings.
Table 3 References:
[7] Hajialilo M, Ghorbanihaghjo A, Valaee L, et al. A double-blind randomized comparative study of triamcinolone hexacetonide and dexamethasone intra-articular injection for the treatment of knee joint arthritis in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Rheumatol. 2016;35(12):2887-2891. doi:10.1007/s10067-016-3397-4

Efficacy of Triamcinolone Hexacetonide versus Methylprednisolone Acetate Intraarticular Injections in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Double-blinded, 24-week Study
Design

Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study

N= 100

Objective To compare the efficacy of triamcinolone hexacetonide (TH) and methylprednisolone acetate (MA) injections in knee osteoarthritis
Study Groups

TH group (n= 50)

MA group (n= 50)

Inclusion Criteria Diagnosis of knee OA according to the American College of Rheumatology criteria, Kellgren-Lawrence grade II or III, VAS for knee pain of at least 40 mm, age ≥ 40 years, failure to control OA symptoms with analgesics and/or NSAID
Exclusion Criteria Other rheumatic or inflammatory conditions, symptomatic disease of the lower limbs, serious/uncontrolled medical illness, BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2, IA injection of corticosteroid or hyaluronic acid in the previous 6 months, knee replacement, local/systemic infection, pregnancy, skin lesions at injection site, current knee physical therapy, hypersensitivity to corticosteroids or lidocaine, use of anticoagulants
Methods Patients were randomized to receive 40 mg of IA TH or MA. Evaluations were performed at 4, 12, and 24 weeks. 
Duration 24 weeks
Outcome Measures

Primary: Change in patient's assessment of pain by VAS from baseline to Week 4

Secondary: Global assessment by patients and physicians, WOMAC, OMERACT-OARSI criteria of response

Baseline Characteristics   TH (n= 50) MA (n= 50) p-value
Female 49 (98%) 45 (90%) 0.204
Age, yrs, mean (SD) 64.8 (8.3) 66.2 (8.2) 0.387
Disease duration, yrs, mean (SD) 7.9 (6.0) 8.3 (7.4) 0.770
BMI, kg/m2, mean (SD) 28.8 (2.7) 28.5 (2.8) 0.246
Kellgren-Lawrence grade II 12 (24%) 14 (28%) 0.648
Kellgren-Lawrence grade III 38 (76%) 36 (72%) 0.648
Joint effusion 19 (38%) 18 (36%) 1.0
Concomitant analgesic use 22 (44%) 16 (32%) 0.303
Concomitant NSAID use 25 (50%) 28 (56%) 0.689
Patient's pain assessment, 0–100 mm VAS, mean (SD) 82.7 (18.7) 78.5 (19.5) 0.269
Results   TH (n= 50) MA (n= 50) p-value
Patient's pain assessment, 0–100 mm VAS, mean (SD) at Week 4 46.4 (31.8) 48.1 (28.7) 0.352
PtGA, 0–100 mm VAS, mean (SD) at Week 4 53.4 (33.1) 49.9 (31.6) 0.94
PGA, 0–100 mm VAS, mean (SD) at Week 4 45.0 (27.4) 48.6 (25.1) 0.54
WOMAC, 0–96 points, mean (SD) at Week 4 33.1 (21.1) 35.9 (22.7) 0.23
OMERACT-OARSI responders at Week 4 74% 72% 0.54
Adverse Events There was only 1 adverse event in the MA group, which was postinjection arthritis characterized by pain, swelling, redness, and joint effusion. The patient recovered after arthrocentesis, rest, and NSAID treatment. No adverse events were reported in the TH group.
Study Author Conclusions Both IA therapies are equally effective, and improvement in pain and function can be sustained for up to 24 weeks.
Critique The study provided strong evidence of the efficacy of both TH and MA in knee OA, with a robust design and long follow-up. However, the lack of a control group and the inclusion of lidocaine in the MA group to maintain blinding could have influenced results. The study was limited by the small number of subjects with joint effusion and the potential for non-intraarticular injections due to the lack of imaging guidance.
Table 4 References:
[8] Lomonte AB, de Morais MG, de Carvalho LO, Zerbini CA. Efficacy of Triamcinolone Hexacetonide versus Methylprednisolone Acetate Intraarticular Injections in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized, Double-blinded, 24-week Study. J Rheumatol. 2015;42(9):1677-1684. doi:10.3899/jrheum.150297
Comparison between intraarticular triamcinolone acetonide and methylprednisolone acetate injections in treatment of frozen shoulder
Design

Non-controlled clinical trial

N= 135

Objective To compare the effectiveness of triamcinolone acetonide (40 mg) and methylprednisolone acetate (60 mg) in Iraqi patients with primary and secondary frozen shoulder
Study Groups

Triamcinolone acetonide (n= 68)

Methylprednisolone acetate (n= 67)

Inclusion Criteria Patients with painful restriction of glenohumeral mobility, age ≥18 years, and gave informed consent
Exclusion Criteria Bilateral symptoms, prior corticosteroid injections or physiotherapy within 6 months, contraindications to treatment, surgery, dislocation, or fractures in the shoulder area, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, systemic musculoskeletal disorders, or neurological disorders
Methods Intraarticular injections of 40 mg triamcinolone acetonide or 60 mg methylprednisolone acetate given every 3 weeks (not more than 3 injections) using posterior route. Patients continued physical exercises at home
Duration January 2004 to December 2005
Outcome Measures

Primary: Improvement in pain and disability

Secondary: Number of injections required, improvement in diabetic frozen shoulder

Baseline Characteristics   Patients treated with triamcinolone acetonide (40 mg) Patients treated with methylprednisolone acetate (60 mg)
Number 68 67
Male 46 (67.6%) 47 (70.1%)
Age (year) - Male 51.9 ± 9.9 51.2 ± 12.2
Age (year) - Female 53.1 ± 11.2 55.2 ± 10.6
Right side 27 (39.7%) 25 (37.3%)
Left side 41 (60.3%) 42 (62.7%)

Cause

Diabetes mellitus

Post-traumatic

Primary (idiopathic)

 

39 (57.3%)

18 (26.5%)

11 (16.2%)

 

41 (61.2%)

14 (20.9%)

12 (17.9%)

Results   All (n=135) Patients treated with triamcinolone acetonide (40 mg) (n = 68) Patients treated with methylprednisolone acetate (60 mg) (n = 67)
Diabetes mellitus 43 (53.8%) 27 (69.2%) 16 (39%)
Post-traumatic 29 (90.6%) 16 (88.9%) 13 (92.9%)
Primary (idiopathic) 19 (82.6%) 9 (81.8%) 10 (83.8%)
Total 91 (67.4%) 52 (76.5%) 39 (58.2%)

For above outcomes, comparison favored triamcinolone acetonide (p< 0.025).

For diabetic patients specifically, greater resposne was seen to triamcinolone acetonid (p< 0.01). 

Adverse Events Not specifically mentioned.
Study Author Conclusions Triamcinolone acetonide is a good rescue for painful stiff shoulder, particularly for resistant cases such as with diabetes mellitus, and with long duration of illness. Its efficacy can be observed with less frequent injections.
Critique The study provides valuable insights into the comparative effectiveness of two corticosteroids for frozen shoulder, particularly highlighting the benefits of triamcinolone acetonide in diabetic patients. However, the non-controlled design and lack of a placebo group limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions about the superiority of one treatment over another. Additionally, the study's findings may not be generalizable beyond the specific population studied, and the lack of detailed adverse event reporting is a limitation.
Table 5 References:
[9] Sakeni RA, Al-Nimer MS. Comparison between intraarticular triamcinolone acetonide and methylprednisolone acetate injections in treatment of frozen shoulder. Saudi Med J. 2007;28(5):707-712.