To study the effect of arthroscopy on the treatment of hip diseases and to evaluate the regularity and treatment of hip joint diseases.
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.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
600
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.
Peking University Third Hospital
Beijing, China
The patient was followed up at 1 year after surgery to evaluate the Visual Analog Scale (VAS).
Visual Analog Scale (VAS), The highest score was 10, and the lowest was 0. The higher the score, the more obvious the pain.
Time frame: 1 year after operation
The patient was followed up at 2 years after surgery to evaluate the Visual Analog Scale (VAS).
Visual Analog Scale (VAS), The highest score was 10, and the lowest was 0. The higher the score, the more obvious the pain.
Time frame: 2 years after operation
The patient was followed up at 5 years after surgery to evaluate the Visual Analog Scale (VAS).
Visual Analog Scale (VAS), The highest score was 10, and the lowest was 0. The higher the score, the more obvious the pain.
Time frame: 5 years after operation
The patient was followed up at 1 year after surgery to evaluate the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12).
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.
Time frame: 1 year after operation
The patient was followed up at 2 years after surgery to evaluate the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12).
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.
Time frame: 2 years after operation
The patient was followed up at 5 years after surgery to evaluate the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12).
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.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Time frame: 5 years after operation
The patient was followed up at 1 year after surgery to evaluate modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS).
Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS).The highest score was 44, and the lowest was 0. The higher the score, the better the postoperative recovery.
Time frame: 1 year after operation
The patient was followed up at 2 years after surgery to evaluate modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS).
Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS).The highest score was 44, and the lowest was 0. The higher the score, the better the postoperative recovery.
Time frame: 2 years after operation
The patient was followed up at 5 years after surgery to evaluate modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS).
Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS).The highest score was 44, and the lowest was 0. The higher the score, the better the postoperative recovery.
Time frame: 5 years after operation