Register for email alerts and news feeds:
This journal | BMJ Group
rss
The most recent version of this article was published on 1 August 2007

Br J Sports Med. Published Online First: 6 March 2007. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2006.031468
Copyright © 2007 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & British Association of Sport and Exercise Medicine.

Paper

Movement discrimination after intra-articular local anaesthetic of the ankle joint

Stuart J Down 1*, Gordon Waddington 2, Roger Adams 3 and Malcolm Thomson 4

1 Australian Institute of Sport, Australia
2 University of Canberra, Australia
3 University of Sydney, Australia
4 National Canberra Diagnostic Imaging, Australia

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: stu_down{at}yahoo.com.au.

Accepted 21 February 2007


Abstract

Background: The impact on clinical safety of dampening articular mechanoreceptor feedback at the ankle is unknown. Injection of the ankle joint for pain control may involve such dampening. Athletes receiving intra- articular local anaesthetic may therefore be at increased risk of sustaining ankle injuries, which are a common source of missed sporting participation.

Objectives: To determine the effect of intra- articular local anaesthetic on movement discrimination at the ankle joint.

Design: Prospective, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial.

Setting: Australian Institute of Sport (AIS) Medical Centre, Canberra, Australia.

Patients: Twenty-two healthy subjects (44 ankles) aged 18-26 were recruited for the three visits of the study

Interventions: Subjects were tested for their initial movement discrimination scores using the active movement extent discrimination apparatus (AMEDA). They then received ultrasound-guided intra-articular injections of local anaesthetic (lignocaine hydrochloride 2%) or normal saline, on two separate later occasions, prior to further AMEDA assessment.

Main Outcome Measures: Change in movement discrimination scores following intra-articular injection of local anaesthetic or saline.

Results: Movement discrimination scores were not significantly different from control ankles after injection of either local anaesthetic or saline into the ankle joint.

Conclusions: Neither the intra-articular injection of 2mls of lignocaine nor normal saline resulted in significant effects on movement discrimination at the ankle joint. These results suggest local anaesthetic injections into the ankle joint are unlikely to significantly affect proprioception and subsequently heighten injury risk.

Key Words: Active Movement Discrimination, Ankle Injection, Inversion, Proprioception


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

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.

 

The journal is co-owned by and the official journal of BASEM

Official journal of ECOSEP

Available online to all members of ACSP, AMSSM and SMNZ