Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 2, 2025
Knee Arthrocentesis in Adults
Published on: February 25, 2022
Double-Puncture Versus Single-Puncture Arthrocentesis: A Randomized Controlled Trial with 3 Years of Follow-Up
Aims:
To compare the clinical effectiveness of conventional double-puncture vs single-puncture type 2 arthrocentesis for management of temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disc displacement without reduction (DDWOR) after 3 years of follow-up.
Methods:
A total of 26 patients with DDWOR were randomly and blindly allocated into two treatment groups (n = 13 each): group 1 = conventional double-puncture arthrocentesis; group 2 = single-puncture type 2 arthrocentesis. Data on gender, side of painful joint complaint, age (years), duration of joint pain (months), maximum interincisal distance (MID, mm), and pain intensity (self-reported with a 0-10 visual analog scale [VAS]) were collected. VAS scores and MID were measured before (baseline) and 3 years after (final) the arthrocentesis.
Results:
Twenty-three patients completed the study (group 1, n = 11; group 2, n = 12). Both techniques resulted in significantly reduced VAS scores and increased MID (P = .001) after the 3 years of follow-up; however, there were no statistically significant differences between techniques (P > 0.05).
Conclusion:
The two arthrocentesis methods tested were both effective in reducing VAS scores and increasing MID in patients with DDWOR.
