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

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-129854/v1

Download PDF

Research article

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

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-129854/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

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.

Orthopedic Surgery

hip arthroscopy

ultrasound

injection

patient-reported outcomes

Over the past decade, hip arthroscopic surgery has developed rapidly and became a common technique. Persistent postoperative pain is becoming an evolving domain and may influence the postoperative outcomes.[1] There are many studies on early postoperative pain management in hip arthroscopy.[1-3] Several methods of pain management have been described, such as femoral nerve block, lumbar plexus block, fascia iliaca block, intra-articular injections, soft tissue surrounding surgical site injection.[3] However, there are few studies on the treatment of persistent postoperative pain. Zhang et al.[4] retrospectively analyzed a total of 36 patients who had hip pain after arthroscopic repair of acetabular labral tears and underwent ultrasound-guided drug injection and concluded that ultrasound-guided drug injection can effectively reduce hip pain, improve hip activity, and promote hip functional reconstruction for patients with postoperative hip pain. Common causes of persistent pain included under-resected femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), residual labral tear, inflammatory reaction, recurrent or missed structural pathology.[5, 6] Some patients continue to present with pain and poor functional outcomes and may be candidates for a revision procedure.[7] Ultrasound-guided injection can be a feasible treatment for FAI.[8] Postoperative inflammatory reaction and adhesion may be a reason for persistent postoperative pain, which results in a threshold that blocks the recovery, and ultrasound-guided injection could be useful for such problems. So we hypothesized that ultrasound-guided hip joint injection would be effective in the treatment of persistent pain after hip arthroscopy.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term and long-term effects of ultrasound-guided hip joint injection in the treatment of persistent pain after hip arthroscopy.

We evaluated consecutive patients who had persistent pain after hip arthroscopy and underwent ultrasound-guided hip injection for treatment between January 2016 and February 2019. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients who underwent arthroscopy in our hospital and had persistent pain after surgery, (2) patients had ineffective conservative treatment for more than 3 months, (3) patients underwent ultrasound-guided hip joint injection for treatment of persistent pain. Persistent pain was defined as unrelieved or new-onset pain at rest, with activity, or with motion in specific planes after hip arthroscopy with ineffective conservative treatment for more than 3 months. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients who had other hip surgeries except for the primary hip arthroscopy were excluded from this study, (2) obvious residual FAI, labral tear or other obvious indication of revision arthroscopy identified by ultrasound, X-rays, computed tomography (CT) or MRI, (3) bony development problems like hip instability, femoral anteversion and femoral retroversion were also excluded. The Ethics Committee of our hospital approved this study.

Ultrasound examination and ultrasound-guided injection

Ultrasound examination and ultrasound-guided injections were performed by a single radiologist, who specializes in musculoskeletal disorders with more than 10 years of experience. Ultrasonic examination was performed as described by Gao et al[9]. Patients were excluded if residual FAI or labral tear were identified by ultrasound, X-rays, CT or MRI. After ultrasound examination, skin preparation was undertaken using povidone iodine solution and then the area was draped. Under real-time ultrasound guidance, a 22-gauge spinal needle was advanced into the hip joint from anterolateral side to superomedial side targeting the anterior surface of the junction of femoral neck and head (Figure 1). Once the tip of the needle contacted the cortex within the anterior recess, intra-articular position of the needle was further confirmed by injecting a mixture containing 2 ml of 2% lidocaine and 5 mg of compound betamethasone injection (Diprospan, Schering-Plough) diluted to 10 ml with normal saline. Then a spot image was taken to document location.

Outcome measures

Pre-injection patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and post-injection PROs 1 month after injection and at final follow-up were obtained, including modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score – Sport Specific Subscale (HOS - SSS) and Hip Outcome Score - Activity of Daily Living (HOS – ADL). Pre-injection visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and post-injection VAS 10 minutes after injection, 1 month after injection and at final follow-up were recorded. The mHHS of patients before primary surgery was also recorded. Patient satisfaction with final outcome of injection (satisfied or poor) was documented at the end of follow-up. Patients who reported “excellent” or “good” were divided into "satisfied" group and patients who reported “fair” or “poor” were divided into "unsatisfied" group.

Statistics

The two-tailed paired t test was used to evaluate significance between pre-injection and post-injection PROs. Continuous variables with a normal distribution in the baseline data between groups were examined using the independent samples t test. Percentages were compared using the Chi-square test. P values <.05 were considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS Statistics, version 22 (IBM).

As shown in Table 1, a total of 33 patients (mean age, 34.9 years; age range, 17-53 years; 19 males and 14 females) were involved in this study. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 23.3 (range, 18.9-29.4). The mean follow-up time after injection was 24.1 months (range, 12-41). The mean time between surgery and injection was 10.7 months (range 3-24). No side effects were observed. One patient underwent revision arthroscopy. Thirty-three (4.4%) in 750 patients who underwent hip arthroscopic surgeries during this period in our hospital had persistent postoperative pain.

As shown in Table 2, arthroscopy confirmed the presence of cam impingement in all patients, pincer impingement in 25 (75.8%) patients, labral tear in all patients, and ischiofemoral Impingement syndrome (IFI) in 1 (3.0%) patients. The surgeries patients underwent were also shown in Table 2. There were 2 (6.1%) patients who had Outerbridge I or II femoral cartilage damages, 5 (15.2%) patients who had Outerbridge II acetabular cartilage damages, 6 (18.2%) patients who had Outerbridge III acetabular cartilage damages and 6 patients (18.2%) who had Outerbridge IV acetabular cartilage damages.

As shown in Figure 2, the VAS improved from a mean of 5.6 ± 1.4 to 2.0 ± 1.7 10 minutes after injection, changed to 3.3 ± 2.1 at 1 month after injection and improved to 2.4 ± 2.2 at final follow-up. The mean mHHS before primary surgery was 67.4 ± 8.1. The mHHS improved from a mean of 56.4 ± 10.7 to 67.3 ± 12.7 at 1 month after injection and improved to 76.4 ± 11.7 at final follow-up. The HOS-ADL improved from a mean of 59.1 ± 8.5 to 69.1 ± 14.7 at 1 month after injection and improved to 80.3 ± 14.3 at final follow-up. The HOS-SSS improved from a mean of 44.2 ± 17.1 to 57.2 ± 23.0 at 1 month after injection and improved to 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. There were 11 (33.3%) patients in "satisfied" group and 22 (66.7%) patients in " unsatisfied " group. The mean BMI of " satisfied " group was 25.1 and the mean BMI of “unsatisfied” group was 22.0 (P＜0.05). The mean age of " satisfied " group was 41.1 and the mean age of “unsatisfied” group was 31.9 (P＜0.05). As shown in Table 3, there is no significant difference in mHHS before primary surgery, gender, chondral damage and time between surgery and injection between “satisfied” group and " unsatisfied” group. There was no significant difference in VAS, mHHS, HOS-ADL and HOS-SSS between " satisfied " group and “unsatisfied” group before injection. There was significant difference in VAS, mHHS, HOS-ADL and HOS-SSS between " satisfied " group and “unsatisfied” group 1 month after injection and at final follow-up (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The mean VAS 10 minutes after injection in "satisfied" group and "unsatisfied" group was 1±1 and 2.6±1.7, respectively (P＜0.05). The mean VAS 10 minutes after injection and 1 month after injection in "satisfied" group had no significant difference (P＞0.05). The mean VAS 10 minutes after injection and 1 month after injection in "unsatisfied" group increased from 2.6±1.7 to 4.4±1.7 and had significant difference (P＜0.05).

In our study, 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. During this period, we performed a total of 750 hip arthroscopic surgeries. Thirty-three (4.4%) in those 750 patients had persistent postoperative pain. The VAS improved from a mean of 5.6 ± 1.4 to 2.0 ± 1.7 10 minutes after injection, changed to 3.3 ± 2.1 at 1 month after injection and improved to 2.4 ± 2.2 at final follow-up. The mHHS, HOS-SSS and HOS-ADL improved from 56.4 ± 10.7, 59.1 ± 8.5 and 44.2 ± 17.1 to 67.3 ± 12.7, 69.1 ± 14.7 and 57.2 ± 23.0, respectively at 1 month after injection and improved to 76.4 ± 11.7, 80.3 ± 14.3 and 69.6 ± 23.0 at final follow-up. There was no significant difference in VAS, mHHS, HOS-ADL and HOS-SSS between " satisfied " group and “unsatisfied” group before injection. Patients in "satisfied" group had older age, higher BMI and more improvement in VAS 10 minutes after injection.

Common causes of postoperative persistent pain included under-resected FAI, residual labral tear, inflammatory reaction, recurrent or misdiagnosed structural pathology.[5, 6] Shapira et al.[10] conducted a systematic review and concluded that the most common indications for revision hip arthroscopy in descending order were labral tears, residual cam deformities, residual pincer deformities, and synovitis. 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. In our study, patients with obvious indication of revision arthroscopy were excluded. Bony development problems like hip instability, femoral anteversion and femoral retroversion were also excluded.

Ultrasound-guided hip joint injection is a kind of safe diagnostic and therapeutic method and can also be a feasible treatment for FAI.[8, 13, 14] Abate et al.[15] evaluated 20 patients with mild FAI and underwent intra-articular ultrasound-guided injection of hyaluronic acid and reported that pain decreased from 6.7 ± 1.3 to 3.7 ± 1.8 and to 1.7 ± 1.8 after 6 and 12 months, respectively and the mean Harris Hip Score improved from 83.3 ± 6 before treatment to 88.2 ± 4.7 at 12 months. Lee et al.[16] evaluated 30 patients with FAI clinically and radiologically and underwent hip injection using steroid or hyaluronic acid and reported that intra-articular hip injection may be effective in FAI, with faster effect of pain improvement by steroid and more delayed effect of function improvement by hyaluronic acid. Zhang et al.[4] reported that ultrasound-guided drug injection can effectively reduce hip pain, improve hip activity, and promote hip functional reconstruction for patients with hip pain after arthroscopic repair of acetabular labral tears. But patients in that study didn’t have diagnosis of FAI. However, there are some studies that reported limited therapeutic effect of intra-articular injection for patients with FAI.[17, 18]

In our study, the mHHS, HOS-ADL and HOS-SSS improved as time went up after injection. There was significant improvement between mHHS before primary surgery and at final follow-up. This proved the effect of surgery and accurate diagnosis. VAS increased one month after injection and improved at the last follow-up. Although VAS increased one month after injection, it was significantly improved compared with that before injection. In this study, there were 22 (66.7%) patients in " unsatisfied " group. The mean VAS before injection and 10 minutes after injection had significant difference in " unsatisfied " group. The significant improvement after injection showed that the cause of persistent pain should be intra-articular pathology. But the mean VAS 10 minutes after injection and 1 month after injection in "unsatisfied" group increased from 2.6±1.7 to 4.4±1.7 and had significant difference (P＜0.05). For patients in "unsatisfied" group, injection didn't provide sustained effect. Although they have temporally relief after injection, the injection didn't solve the problem. Previously published short- and midterm studies have indicated the presence and severity of chondral degradation was predictor of worse clinical outcomes.[19] Chondral degeneration, chronic nonspecific inflammation, muscle strength not recovered, reasons clinical and radiologic evaluation didn't found could be the causes of unrelieved postoperative pain. On the other hand, the mean VAS 10 minutes after injection and VAS 1 month after injection in "satisfied" group had no significant difference (P＞0.05). This proved that the ultrasound-guided hip injection in "satisfied" group has a sustained good effect for treatment of persistent pain after hip arthroscopy. One of the reasons for the improvement is that there may be chronic nonspecific inflammatory blocking recovery. Hip injection could be effective for chronic nonspecific inflammatory. And recovery of muscle strength and function rehabilitation cannot enter the virtuous circle due to chronic pain. The ultrasound-guided hip joint injection may help these patients to enter the virtuous stage of functional recovery for a period of time and improve the clinical outcomes finally. So we think it will help patient to cross the thresholds of recovery and help to delay or avoid revision surgery.

One patient in our study underwent revision arthroscopy 18 months after primary surgery because of unrelieved postoperative pain. Ultrasound examination and MRI before revision surgery didn't identify obvious residual FAI, labral tear or other pathology. However, this patient was diagnosed with labral tear and residual FAI in revision arthroscopy and underwent labral repair, femoral osteoplasty and acetabuloplasty. Inconspicuous labral tear and residual FAI may be misdiagnosed by ultrasound or MRI. Ultrasound-guided hip joint injection can also be a diagnostic tool for persistent postoperative pain. Patients in "unsatisfied" group may also have labral tear or residual FAI that ultrasound and MRI could not identify. For patients with transient relief but recurring pain after hip injection, ineffectiveness of injection in the long term may be one of the indications of revision surgery.

It should be noted that older patients and patients with higher BMI had better treatment satisfaction in this study. The mean BMI of " satisfied " group was 25.1 and the mean BMI of “unsatisfied” group was 22.0 (P＜0.05). Previous studies also reported that obesity may influence the outcome of hip arthroscopy.[20, 21] The mean age of " satisfied " group was 41.1 and the mean age of “unsatisfied” group was 31.9 (P＜0.05). The elderly patients and the patients with high BMI may not able to complete postoperative rehabilitation very well, leading to unsatisfied postoperative results. So ultrasound-guided injection may be more effective in these patients. We also found that the mean VAS 10 minutes after injection in "satisfied" group and "unsatisfied" group was 1±1 and 2.6±1.7, respectively (P＜0.05). This proved that patients who were sensitive to intra-articular injection may have a better long-term clinical outcome. Ultrasound-guided hip joint injection may better help these patients enter the virtuous circle of rehabilitation.

This study has several limitations. First, this study has a relatively small size, because the number of patients with persistent postoperative pain is relatively small. Second, this is not a randomized control study and a control group is lacking. A placebo effect and improvement due to the passage of time cannot be ruled out. However, the persistent good short-term outcomes in "satisfied" group can prove the good effect of ultrasound-guided hip joint injection, not just the effect of passage of time. Another limitation is that HOS-ADL, HOS-SSS and VAS before primary surgery are not recorded.

In 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 patients who are sensitive to intra-articular injection.

FAI: femoroacetabular impingement;

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Ethics Committee of the Third Hospital of Peking University approved this study. (NO. M2019193) All subjects provided informed consent to take part in the study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

This study was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (NFSC; grants 81672182).

Authors’ contributions

GG performed the study. YX and LC conceived of the study and participated in its design. GG, RW, RL and QF was responsible for coordination, data collection/interpretation, and proofreading of the final manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Kahlenberg CA, Patel RM, Knesek M, Tjong VK, Sonn K, Terry MA. Efficacy of Celecoxib for Early Postoperative Pain Management in Hip Arthroscopy: A Prospective Randomized Placebo-Controlled Study. Arthroscopy 2017; 33: 1180-1185.
Bech NH, Hulst AH, Spuijbroek JA, van Leuken LL, Haverkamp D. Perioperative pain management in hip arthroscopy; what options are there? J Hip Preserv Surg 2016; 3: 181-189.
Shin JJ, McCrum CL, Mauro CS, Vyas D. Pain Management After Hip Arthroscopy: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies. Am J Sports Med 2018; 46: 3288-3298.
Zhang, Liu, Fu. [Application of ultrasound-guided hip joint drug injection in the postoperative rehabilitation of arthroscopie repair of acetabular labral tears].
Ward JP, Rogers P, Youm T. Failed hip arthroscopy: causes and treatment options. Orthopedics 2012; 35: 612-617.
Cvetanovich GL, Harris JD, Erickson BJ, Bach BR, Jr., Bush-Joseph CA, Nho SJ. Revision Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review of Diagnoses, Operative Findings, and Outcomes. Arthroscopy 2015; 31: 1382-1390.
Sardana V, Philippon MJ, de Sa D, Bedi A, Ye L, Simunovic N, et al. Revision Hip Arthroscopy Indications and Outcomes: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy 2015; 31: 2047-2055.
Khan W, Khan M, Alradwan H, Williams R, Simunovic N, Ayeni OR. Utility of Intra-articular Hip Injections for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review. Orthop J Sports Med 2015; 3: 2325967115601030.
Gao G, Fu Q, Cui L, Xu Y. The Diagnostic Value of Ultrasound in Anterosuperior Acetabular Labral Tear. Arthroscopy 2019; 35: 2591-2597.
Shapira J, Kyin C, Go C, Rosinksy PJ, Maldonado DR, Lall AC, et al. Indications and Outcomes of Secondary Hip Procedures After Failed Hip Arthroscopy. A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy 2020;
Gao G, Zhang X, Xu Y, Wang J. Clinical outcomes and causes of arthroscopic hip revision surgery. Sci Rep 2019; 9: 1230.
Mansor Y, Perets I, Close MR, Mu BH, Domb BG. In Search of the Spherical Femoroplasty: Cam Overresection Leads to Inferior Functional Scores Before and After Revision Hip Arthroscopic Surgery. Am J Sports Med 2018; 46: 2061-2071.
Byrd JW, Potts EA, Allison RK, Jones KS. Ultrasound-guided hip injections: a comparative study with fluoroscopy-guided injections. Arthroscopy 2014; 30: 42-46.
Kivlan BR, Martin RL, Sekiya JK. Response to diagnostic injection in patients with femoroacetabular impingement, labral tears, chondral lesions, and extra-articular pathology. Arthroscopy 2011; 27: 619-627.
Abate M, Scuccimarra T, Vanni D, Pantalone A, Salini V. Femoroacetabular impingement: is hyaluronic acid effective? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22: 889-892.
Lee YK, Lee GY, Lee JW, Lee E, Kang HS. Intra-Articular Injections in Patients with Femoroacetabular Impingement: a Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind, Cross-over Study. J Korean Med Sci 2016; 31: 1822-1827.
Krych AJ, Griffith TB, Hudgens JL, Kuzma SA, Sierra RJ, Levy BA. Limited therapeutic benefits of intra-articular cortisone injection for patients with femoro-acetabular impingement and labral tear. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22: 750-755.
Tangtiphaiboontana J, Zhang AL, Pandya NK. Outcomes of intra-articular corticosteroid injections for adolescents with hip pain. J Hip Preserv Surg 2018; 5: 54-59.
McCarthy JC, Jarrett BT, Ojeifo O, Lee JA, Bragdon CR. What factors influence long-term survivorship after hip arthroscopy? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469: 362-371.
Gupta A, Redmond JM, Hammarstedt JE, Stake CE, Domb BG. Does obesity affect outcomes in hip arthroscopy? A matched-pair controlled study with minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2015; 43: 965-971.
Gupta A, Redmond JM, Hammarstedt JE, Lindner D, Stake CE, Domb BG. Does obesity affect outcomes after hip arthroscopy? A cohort analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 16-23.

Table 1. Demography of patients (n = 33)

Parameter	Data
Age, y, mean (range)	34.9 (17-53)
Gender
Male	19 (57.6%)
Female	14 (42.4%)
Side
Left	14 (42.4%)
Right BMI	19 (57.6%) 23.3 (18.9-29.4)
Mean follow-up time after injection (month)	24.1
Mean time between surgery and injection (month)	10.7
Revision surgery	1

NOTE. Unless otherwise specified, data are numbers of patients, with percentages in parentheses.

Table 2. Arthroscopic Findings and Procedures

	Data
Arthroscopic diagnosis
Cam impingement	33 (100%)
Pincer impingement	25 (75.8%)
Acetabular labral tear	33 (100%)
IFI	1 (3.0%)
Femoral cartilage damages (Outerbridge grade)
0	31 (93.9%)
I	1 (3.0%)
II	1 (3.0%)
III	0
IV	0
Acetabular cartilage damages (Outerbridge grade)
0	16 (48.5%)
I	0
II	5 (15.2%)
III	6 (18.2%)
IV Procedures Labral repair Femoral osteoplasty Acetabuloplasty Lesser trochanterplasty	6 (18.2%) 33 (100%) 33 (100%) 25 (75.8%) 1 (3.0%)

NOTE. Unless otherwise specified, data are numbers of patients, with percentages in parentheses.

Table 3. Comparison between " satisfied " group and " unsatisfied " group

	" satisfied " group	" unsatisfied " group	p Value
Age	41.1	31.9	＜.05
Gender			＞.05
Male	6	13
Female	5	9
BMI	25.1	22.0	＜.05
Time between surgery and injection	13.1±9.1	9.8±5.7	＞.05
Acetabular cartilage damages (Outerbridge grade)			＞.05
0	2	14
I	0	0
II	3	2
III	3	3
IV	3	3
VAS before injection	5.4±1.4	5.7±1.4	＞.05
VAS 10 min after injection	1±1	2.6±1.7	＜.05
VAS 1 month after injection	1.1±0.9	4.4±1.7	＜.05
VAS at final follow-up	0.3±0.5	3.5±1.9	＜.05
mHHS before primary surgery	71.2±3.6	65.2±9.4	＞.05
mHHS before injection	51.5±13.9	57.7±8.8	＞.05
mHHS 1 month after injection	75.7±6.3	63.1±13.1	＜.05
mHHS at final follow-up	86.7±2.1	71.2±11.1	＜.05
HOS-ADL before injection	60.4±9.3	58.5±8.5	＞.05
HOS-ADL 1 month after injection	82.8±12.1	62.2±10.8	＜.05
HOS-ADL at final follow-up	92.9±3.5	74.1±13.4	＜.05
HOS-SSS before injection	53.2±22.6	39.7±12.1	＞.05
HOS-SSS 1 month after injection	78.8±12.4	46.4±19.2	＜.05
HOS-SSS at final follow-up	85.5±8.3	61.7±24.1	＜.05

NOTE. Unless otherwise specified, values are presented as the mean ± SD unless otherwise indicated

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

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

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Status:

Version 1