Maybe you have already sensed it — that the cortisone shots are a holding pattern rather than a solution. That the relief keeps arriving on a shorter lease. That nobody has described what the endpoint of this arrangement is supposed to be.
That instinct deserves respect. It also happens to be supported by the evidence.
What the trial found
The data here is unusually clean, because the comparison was against a placebo rather than against nothing.
In a rigorous two-year placebo-controlled trial, repeated cortisone injections caused significantly more cartilage loss than saline — and produced no better pain relief at two years.
Two findings, and the second is what makes the first so difficult to argue around.
If repeated cortisone had produced meaningfully better pain control over two years, there would be a real trade-off to weigh: cartilage against comfort, a legitimate clinical judgment call with reasonable arguments on both sides. That is not what the trial showed. It showed more cartilage lost, and no better relief at the two-year mark.
The trade you are actually being offered
Put plainly: you are trading real cartilage now for temporary relief that does not even last.
That is worth naming precisely because of how the offer is usually experienced. A cortisone injection presents as a low-cost, low-commitment intervention — quick, familiar, covered, over in minutes. Nothing about the encounter signals that a durable asset is being spent.
But cartilage is not a renewable resource in the way that comfort is. Relief returns and fades on a cycle. Cartilage does not come back on a cycle. The costs of the arrangement are asymmetric in a way that the convenience of the procedure conceals.
It is not a cure. It is a high-interest loan against your joint — one where the principal is drawn from something you cannot replace, and the payments come due later, in a currency the person offering the loan does not have to collect.
Why it is still the default
If the two-year data is that unfavorable, why does the shot remain the standard next step?
The answer is structural. Repeated cortisone fits the model almost perfectly: it is inexpensive, quick, reimbursed, procedurally simple, and delivers an immediate effect the patient can feel before leaving the building. It closes an encounter cleanly. It generates a satisfied patient in the short term, and the long-term cost lands years later, often in a different setting, under a different diagnosis, attributed to the natural history of arthritis rather than to anything that was administered.
That is not an accusation against any physician. It is a description of what a system optimized for throughput and short-cycle outcomes will reliably produce. When the incentives, the visit length, the billing structure, and the immediate patient experience all point at the same tool, that tool becomes the default regardless of what the two-year data says. Changing that requires changing the structure, not blaming the people working inside it.
A bridge, not a destination
None of this makes cortisone illegitimate. That is an important distinction and it should not be lost.
You can use a steroid as a rare, strategic bridge. There are moments where suppressing an inflammatory signal creates the window needed to do something else — to tolerate rehabilitation, to get through a defined period, to make a specific plan workable. Used that way, with an endpoint and a purpose beyond itself, it is a reasonable tool.
What the evidence argues against is accepting it as your destination — as an indefinite arrangement with no defined end, repeated every few months until the joint reaches a point where a different conversation begins.
The regenerative alternative starts from the opposite premise: aligning treatment with how joints actually heal rather than with how quickly a signal can be silenced. That is slower and less immediately satisfying. It is also aimed at a different outcome.
The point is not that you must choose one. The point is that you should decide with your eyes open — knowing what the two-year data shows, knowing what is being spent, and knowing that there is a question worth asking your physician before the next injection rather than after it.
Frequently asked questions
Should I stop the cortisone injections I am currently receiving?
No — not on your own. Do not start, stop, or change any treatment without consulting your physician. Bring the trial findings described here to the physician managing your care, or seek a formal second evaluation. This page exists to inform that conversation, not to replace it.
Was I supposed to be told about the cartilage findings?
An informed decision requires knowing what the evidence shows, and many patients report never having had this discussed. That gap is more a function of how short a standard visit is and how routine the procedure has become than of any individual’s intent. Either way, it is entirely reasonable to raise it now.
Is there ever a good reason to get a cortisone shot?
Yes — as a rare, strategic bridge. Suppressing an inflammatory signal for a defined period, with a purpose beyond the relief itself, is a legitimate use. The evidence argues against repetition as an open-ended strategy, not against the tool existing.
What does an approach aligned with how joints heal actually look like?
It targets the joint’s biology rather than the pain signal it is producing, which means it works on a longer timescale and requires evaluating the tissue and the terrain around it first. Individual results vary, and not every patient is a candidate for the therapies described; what applies to your joint is determined by examination and imaging.
Key takeaways
- In a rigorous two-year placebo-controlled trial, repeated cortisone caused significantly more cartilage loss than saline.
- The same trial found no better pain relief at two years than saline — so there is no comfort benefit offsetting the cartilage cost.
- The trade is real cartilage now for temporary relief that does not last, which makes it a loan against the joint rather than a cure.
- The shot remains the default because it fits a short-visit, reimbursed, throughput-driven model, not because the long-term evidence favors repetition.
- A steroid can be a rare, strategic bridge — the argument is against accepting it as a destination.
Medically reviewed by Gurpreet Singh Padda, MD, MBA, MHP — Board Certified in Anesthesiology, Pain Medicine, Interventional Pain Management, Addiction Medicine, and Obesity Medicine. Last reviewed July 2026.
This article is educational and is not a substitute for evaluation, diagnosis, or treatment by a physician. Individual results vary, and not every patient is a candidate for the therapies described. Do not start, stop, or change any treatment without consulting your physician. Orthobiologic therapies are not FDA-approved for this indication and are provided as part of physician-directed care.
Find out what is actually driving your pain
Regen.MD begins with a physician-led Clinical Evaluation — a review of your history, imaging, and metabolic data, and a written terrain roadmap. Evaluation is contingent upon review of your data.
Questions? Call (314) 295-3000 or text (314) 886-5902.