Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association · 2016
Arthroscopic Central Acetabular Decompression: Clinical Outcomes at Minimum 2-Year Follow-up Using a Matched-Pair Analysis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lodhia Parth, Gui Chengcheng, Martin Timothy J, Chandrasekaran Sivashankar, Suárez-Ahedo Carlos, Walsh John P, Domb Benjamin G
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess 2-year clinical outcomes of patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for central acetabular osteophytes (CAO) treated with central acetabular decompression (CAD), and to compare these outcomes with those of a matched control group.
METHODS: Data were prospectively gathered for patients undergoing CAD during hip arthroscopy from February 2008 to July 2012. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years with modified Harris Hip Score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patient satisfaction (0 to 10) was collected. A matched control group of patients without CAOs who did not undergo CAD was selected on a 1:3 ratio.
RESULTS: Forty-nine hips were included in the CAD group and 147 in the control group. The mean change in patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores at 2-year follow-up in the CAD group for modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, and VAS was 11.0, 19.6, 15.2, 21.4, and -2, respectively. The mean change in PRO scores at 2-year follow-up in the control group was 17.0, 19.8, 24.0, 20.9, and -2.75, respectively. All improvements in PRO scores for both groups were statistically significant compared with the data collected preoperatively (P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative PRO scores and VAS between the groups. Postoperative patient satisfaction at the latest follow-up was 7.14 and 7.60 for CAD and control groups, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that patients with a CAO treated with CAD during hip arthroscopy had favorable outcomes at minimum 2 years postoperatively. Furthermore, the study group showed similar PRO scores and VAS to the control group. We conclude that CAD is a viable treatment option for CAO, yielding clinical improvement at short-term follow-up.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prospective comparative study.
METHODS: Data were prospectively gathered for patients undergoing CAD during hip arthroscopy from February 2008 to July 2012. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years with modified Harris Hip Score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patient satisfaction (0 to 10) was collected. A matched control group of patients without CAOs who did not undergo CAD was selected on a 1:3 ratio.
RESULTS: Forty-nine hips were included in the CAD group and 147 in the control group. The mean change in patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores at 2-year follow-up in the CAD group for modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, and VAS was 11.0, 19.6, 15.2, 21.4, and -2, respectively. The mean change in PRO scores at 2-year follow-up in the control group was 17.0, 19.8, 24.0, 20.9, and -2.75, respectively. All improvements in PRO scores for both groups were statistically significant compared with the data collected preoperatively (P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative PRO scores and VAS between the groups. Postoperative patient satisfaction at the latest follow-up was 7.14 and 7.60 for CAD and control groups, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that patients with a CAO treated with CAD during hip arthroscopy had favorable outcomes at minimum 2 years postoperatively. Furthermore, the study group showed similar PRO scores and VAS to the control group. We conclude that CAD is a viable treatment option for CAO, yielding clinical improvement at short-term follow-up.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prospective comparative study.