Comparison of outcomes with the single‐puncture and double‐puncture techniques of arthrocentesis of the temporomandibular joint: An updated systematic review and meta‐analysis
Shakil Ahmed Nagori, Adity Bansal, Anson Jose, Ajoy Roychoudhury
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare intra-operative and postoperative outcomes between the single-puncture and the standard double-puncture techniques of arthrocentesis. METHODS: August 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective studies conducted on patients with temporomandibular joint disorders comparing any type of single-puncture arthrocentesis with standard double-puncture arthrocentesis and reporting intra-operative/postoperative outcomes were included. Assessment of the risk of bias was done with the Cochrane Collaboration risk assessment tool. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included (12 were RCTs). Analysis of a limited number of studies indicated no difference in pain or maximal mouth opening (MMO) between the single-puncture type-1 or type-2 and the double-puncture technique at various follow-up intervals. Pooled analysis (four studies) demonstrated that the single-puncture type-2 technique requires significantly less operating time as compared to the double-puncture method. No such difference was noted between single-puncture type-1 and double-puncture techniques. Analysis of two studies indicated significantly reduced intra-operative needle relocations with the single-puncture techniques. Studies were not of high quality with concerns of bias in randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding. CONCLUSIONS: Limited data indicate no difference in pain or MMO with single- or double-puncture techniques of arthrocentesis. Amongst the three techniques, the single-puncture type-2 technique has the advantages of significantly lower operating time and reduced intra-operative needle relocations and it may be the preferred method of TMJ arthrocentesis in clinical practice.