Clinical outcomes and causes of arthroscopic hip revision surgery

Gao, Guanying; Zhang, Xin; Xu, Yan; Wang, Jianquan

doi:10.1038/s41598-018-37708-y

Cited by 17 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The VAS improved from a mean of 5.6 ± 1.4 to 2.0 ± 1.7 10 minutes after injection, changed to 3. Gao et al [11] evaluated 21 patients who underwent revision arthroscopy and concluded that misdiagnosed extra-articular impingement, osteoid osteoma and synovial chondromatosis can also be the indication of revision arthroscopy. Mansor et al [12] indicated that over-resection may also be an important reason of revision arthroscopy and actually cause more profound problems than under-resection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Clinical Outcomes of Ultrasound-Guided Hip Joint Injection in The Treatment of Persistent Pain After Hip Arthroscopy

Gao¹,

Fu²,

Wu³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To evaluate the short-term and long-term clinical outcomes of ultrasound-guided hip joint injection in the treatment of persistent pain after hip arthroscopy.Methods: Patients who had persistent pain after hip arthroscopy and underwent ultrasound-guided hip injection for treatment between January 2016 and February 2019 were involved. Pre-injection patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and post-injection PROs 1 month after injection and at final follow-up were obtained, including visual analog scale (VAS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score – Sport Specific Subscale (HOS - SSS) and Hip Outcome Score - Activity of Daily Living (HOS – ADL). VAS 10 minutes after injection was also recorded. Patient satisfaction with outcome of injection (graded as excellent, good, fair or poor) was documented at the end of follow-up. Results: A total of 33 patients were involved in this study. The mean follow-up time after injection was 24.1 months. The mean time between surgery and injection was 10.7 months. The VAS, mHHS, HOS-SSS and HOS-ADL improved from 5.6 ± 1.4, 56.4 ± 10.7, 59.1 ± 8.5 and 44.2 ± 17.1 to 3.3 ± 2.1, 67.3 ± 12.7, 69.1 ± 14.7 and 57.2 ± 23.0, respectively at 1 month after injection and improved to 2.4 ± 2.2, 76.4 ± 11.7, 80.3 ± 14.3 and 69.6 ± 23.0 at final follow-up. All results demonstrated statistically significant difference between different time point (P < 0.05). Three (9.1%) patients thought the outcome of ultrasound-guided hip injection was excellent, 8 (24.2%) thought the outcome was good, 9 (27.3%) thought the outcome was fair, and 13 (39.4%) thought the effect of injection was poor.Conclusion: Ultrasound-guided hip joint injection would be a feasible treatment method of persistent pain after hip arthroscopy, especially in older patients, patients with higher BMI and patents who are sensitive to intra-articular injection.Level of Evidence IV.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Clinical Outcomes of Ultrasound-Guided Hip Joint Injection in The Treatment of Persistent Pain After Hip Arthroscopy

Gao¹,

Fu²,

Wu³

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One surgeon with more than 10 years of experience performed standard hip joint arthroscopy on all patients. All surgeries were performed using a standard supine approach as described by Gao et al [ 28 ]. The operation was performed under spinal anesthesia.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A routine postoperative rehabilitation protocol with modifications was used, as described by Gao et al [ 28 ]. In brief, ankle pump, quadriceps strengthening and other isometric exercises were initiated 1 days after surgery.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hip arthroscopy has good clinical outcomes in the treatment of osteoid osteoma of the acetabulum

Gao

Liu

et al. 2021

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Osteoid osteoma (OO) of the acetabulum is a relatively rare disease. However, the the clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopy for treatment of OO of the acetabulum are still uncertain. Methods We evaluated consecutive patients who were diagnosed with OO of the acetabulum and who underwent hip arthroscopy at our hospital between January 2013 and March 2020. All patients underwent a preoperative physical examination. Preoperative supine anteroposterior hip radiography, cross-table lateral radiographs, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging were performed in all patients. The alpha angle and lateral center-edge angle were measured before surgery. Supine anteroposterior hip radiography and CT were performed in all patients postoperatively. Preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and PROs at final follow-up were evaluated. Results A total of 6 patients (mean age, 18.7 years; age range, 6–31 years; 5 males and 1 females) were included in this study. The average follow-up period after surgery was 28.3 months (range, 6–90 months). Before surgery, the mean mHHS was 45.2 ± 10.5 (range, 33–56), the mean iHOT-12 was 33.3 ± 14.5 (range, 13–49), and mean VAS was 8.2 ± 1.0 (range, 7–9). At one month after surgery, mean mHHS was 78.7 ± 1.9 (range, 77–81), iHOT-12 was 71.0 ± 4.5 (range, 68–80), and mean VAS was 0. At the final post-operative follow-up, mean mHHS was 89.2 ± 2.1 (range, 86–91), iHOT-12 was 93.5 ± 5.0 (range, 88–98), and mean VAS was 0. All results, except VAS between one month after surgery and at final follow-up, demonstrated statistically significant improvement (P < 0.05). One patient underwent revision surgery. Conclusions Hip arthroscopy has good clinical outcomes in the treatment of OO of the acetabulum. Further study on the mechanism of secondary femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) caused by OO of the acetabulum is needed. More cases of arthroscopic excision and longer follow-up are also needed to better prove the clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopy for OO of the acetabulum.

show abstract

“…One surgeon with more than 10 years of experience performed standard hip joint arthroscopy for all patients. All surgeries were performed using a standard supine approach as described by Gao et al [23] In brief, a detailed inspection of the central compartment was performed to assess the acetabular rim, acetabular labrum, articular cartilage, and ligamentum teres. Labral repair or labral debridement was performed according to the nature of injury.…”

Section: Surgical Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

Hip Arthroscopy has Good Clinical Outcomes in the Treatment of Osteoid Osteoma of the Acetabulum

Gao

Liu

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Osteoid osteoma (OO) of the acetabulum is a relatively rare disease. The clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopy for treatment of OO of the acetabulum is still uncertain.Methods: We evaluated consecutive patients who were diagnosed with OO of the acetabulum and underwent hip arthroscopy for treatment in our hospital between January 2013 and March 2020. All patients underwent preoperative physical examination. Preoperative supine anteroposterior hip radiographs, cross-table lateral radiographs, CT images, and MR images were obtained for all patients. Alpha angle and lateral center-edge angle were measured before surgery. Supine anteroposterior hip radiographs and CT images were obtained for all patients postoperatively. Preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including visual analog scale (VAS), the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and PROs at final follow-up were evaluated.Results: A total of 6 patients (mean age, 18.7 years; age range, 6-31 years; 5 males and 1 females) were included in this study. The average follow-up period after surgery was 28.3 months (range, 6–90 months). Before surgery, mean mHHS was 45.2±10.5 (range, 33-56), mean iHOT-12 was 33.3±14.5 (range, 13-49), and mean VAS was 8.2±1.0 (range, 7-9). At one month after surgery, mean mHHS was 78.7±1.9 (range, 77-81), iHOT-12 was 71.0±4.5 (range, 68-80), and mean VAS was 0. At the final post-operative follow-up, mean mHHS was 89.2±2.1 (range, 86-91), iHOT-12 was 93.5±5.0 (range, 88-98), and mean VAS was 0. All results, except VAS between one month after surgery and at final follow-up, demonstrated statistically significant improvement (P < 0.05). One patient underwent revision surgery.Conclusion: Hip arthroscopy has good clinical outcomes in the treatment of OO of the acetabulum.

show abstract

Clinical outcomes and causes of arthroscopic hip revision surgery

Cited by 17 publications

References 28 publications

The Clinical Outcomes of Ultrasound-Guided Hip Joint Injection in The Treatment of Persistent Pain After Hip Arthroscopy

The Clinical Outcomes of Ultrasound-Guided Hip Joint Injection in The Treatment of Persistent Pain After Hip Arthroscopy

Hip arthroscopy has good clinical outcomes in the treatment of osteoid osteoma of the acetabulum

Hip Arthroscopy has Good Clinical Outcomes in the Treatment of Osteoid Osteoma of the Acetabulum

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About