Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Feb 25;35(1):77.
doi: 10.1007/s00590-025-04193-9.

Efficient patient-initiated follow-up after orthopaedic injections

Ka Siu Fan  1   2 , Iqraa Haq  3 , Ali Taha  4 , Andrew Carne  5 , Chintu Gademsetty  6 , Matthew Solan  7
Affiliations

Efficient patient-initiated follow-up after orthopaedic injections

Ka Siu Fan et al. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. .

Abstract

Background: Annually, thousands of patients with foot and ankle pain receive injections for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. However, since the duration of pain relief is unpredictable, planning follow-up appointments is difficult. This study aimed to improve patient-initiated follow-up through pain diaries.

Methods: The diagnosis, intervention and outcomes for patients receiving ultrasound guided foot and ankle injections were included. By comparing the timing of patient-initiated appointments against the standard 6-8 week appointments, the number of 'saved' appointments were calculated.

Results: Over twelve months, 104 injections were recorded. Fifty-nine patients (57%) requested a follow-up, with a median time to follow-up was 117 days. Only nine patients (9%) requested a review within 6-8 weeks. This may translate to a potential saving of £9500-£19,000 from the avoided follow-up appointments.

Conclusion: Improved pain monitoring through pain diaries allows follow-up appointments to be tailored to patients, which can improve patient experience and resource allocation.

Keywords: Ankle; Appointment; Foot; Injections; Pain diary; Patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Pain diary provided to patients to capture the pain levels and location of pain throughout the weeks following their injection
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Stephens MB, AnthonyBeutlerO’connor IFG (2008) Musculoskeletal injections: a review of the evidence. Am Fam Phys 78(8):971–976 - PubMed
    1. Rozental T, Sculco T (2000) Intra-articular corticosteroids: an updated overview—PubMed. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead, NJ) 29(1):18–23 - PubMed
    1. Ward ST, Williams PL, Purkayastha S (2008) Intra-articular corticosteroid injections in the foot and ankle: a prospective 1-year follow-up investigation. J Foot Ankle Surg 47(2):138–144. 10.1053/j.jfas.2007.12.007 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Saltychev M, Mattie R, McCormick Z, Laimi K (2020) The magnitude and duration of the effect of intra-articular corticosteroid injections on pain severity in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 99(7):617–625. 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001384 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Flood C, Carne A, Singh B, Solan M (2022) Wasting everyone’s time? Current practice after injections. In: EFAS congress Edinburgh

LinkOut - more resources