Acetabular Labral Tear, Femoroacetabular Impingement
Conditions
Brief summary
To study the effect of arthroscopy on the treatment of hip diseases and to evaluate the regularity and treatment of hip joint diseases.
Detailed description
To study the clinical effect of arthroscopic treatment in patients with hip disease, a retrospective study was conducted on 600 patients with hip disease from January 2011 to January 2016. All patients underwent preoperative examinations. These included preoperative supine anteroposterior hip radiographs, cross-lateral radiographs, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging.Preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including visual analogue scale (VAS), international hip prognostic instrument-12 (IHOT-12), and modified Harris hip score (MHHS), were evaluated at 1, 2, and 5 years after surgery.
Interventions
PROCEDUREhip arthroscopy
Use epidural anesthesia or general anesthesia. The patient lies on the orthopedic traction bed to protect the perineum and perform traction of the lower limbs on the surgical side. Under arthroscopy, check the labrum, acetabular articular surface and femoral head cartilage, and round ligament in turn. The acetabular labrum with tear degeneration was treated with labrum suture or labrum revision surgery according to the injury. Perform femoral head and neck plastic or acetabular plastic surgery, osteoid osteoma debridement, etc.
Sponsors
Peking University Third Hospital
Study design
Observational model
OTHER
Time perspective
RETROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
15 Years to 70 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* The patient received imaging examination before surgery and was diagnosed with hip joint labrum injury, FAI and other hip joint diseases, and the patient complained of pain in the hip joint, buttocks or thigh. Conservative treatment is ineffective for more than 6 months.
Exclusion criteria
* History of hip surgery, hip osteoarthritis, femoral head necrosis, hip infection, rheumatic disease, lumbar disease, ankylosing spondylitis, or sacroiliac joint disease.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The patient was followed up at 1 year after surgery to evaluate the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). | 1 year after operation | Visual Analog Scale (VAS), The highest score was 10, and the lowest was 0. The higher the score, the more obvious the pain. |
| The patient was followed up at 2 years after surgery to evaluate the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). | 2 years after operation | Visual Analog Scale (VAS), The highest score was 10, and the lowest was 0. The higher the score, the more obvious the pain. |
| The patient was followed up at 5 years after surgery to evaluate the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). | 5 years after operation | Visual Analog Scale (VAS), The highest score was 10, and the lowest was 0. The higher the score, the more obvious the pain. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The patient was followed up at 1 year after surgery to evaluate modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). | 1 year after operation | Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS).The highest score was 44, and the lowest was 0. The higher the score, the better the postoperative recovery. |
| The patient was followed up at 1 year after surgery to evaluate the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12). | 1 year after operation | The International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12).The highest score was 120, and the lowest was 0. The higher the score, the better the postoperative recovery. |
| The patient was followed up at 5 years after surgery to evaluate modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). | 5 years after operation | Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS).The highest score was 44, and the lowest was 0. The higher the score, the better the postoperative recovery. |
| The patient was followed up at 2 years after surgery to evaluate modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). | 2 years after operation | Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS).The highest score was 44, and the lowest was 0. The higher the score, the better the postoperative recovery. |
| The patient was followed up at 2 years after surgery to evaluate the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12). | 2 years after operation | The International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12).The highest score was 120, and the lowest was 0. The higher the score, the better the postoperative recovery. |
| The patient was followed up at 5 years after surgery to evaluate the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12). | 5 years after operation | The International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12).The highest score was 120, and the lowest was 0. The higher the score, the better the postoperative recovery. |
Countries
China
Outcome results
None listed