Hip arthroscopy has good clinical outcomes in the treatment of osteoid osteoma of the acetabulum.
Arthroscopy
Hip
Osteoid osteoma
Patient-reported outcomes
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 May 2021
28 May 2021
Historique:
received:
06
01
2021
accepted:
17
05
2021
entrez:
29
5
2021
pubmed:
30
5
2021
medline:
2
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34049517
doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04384-5
pii: 10.1186/s12891-021-04384-5
pmc: PMC8161943
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
491Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Jun;80(6):815-21
pubmed: 9655099
J Pediatr Orthop. 2006 Sep-Oct;26(5):695-700
pubmed: 16932114
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011 Sep;19(9):1521-3
pubmed: 21445593
Hip Int. 2021 Mar 3;:1120700021996269
pubmed: 33656954
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2012 Sep;5(3):263
pubmed: 22392545
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Oct;(247):261-71
pubmed: 2791394
JBR-BTR. 2010 Jul-Aug;93(4):204-6
pubmed: 20957894
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2019 Sep;53(5):360-365
pubmed: 31371131
Radiol Case Rep. 2021 Feb 24;16(5):1037-1041
pubmed: 33680272
Orthopedics. 2011 Jan 01;34(2):86
pubmed: 21323284
Rheumatol Int. 2008 Apr;28(6):601-3
pubmed: 17987292
Arthroscopy. 2001 Jan;17(1):56-61
pubmed: 11154368
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2013 May;99(3):341-6
pubmed: 23537998
J Pediatr Orthop. 2009 Sep;29(6):547-51
pubmed: 19700981
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Aug;(389):5-8
pubmed: 11501822
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Jul;468(7):1963-70
pubmed: 20174900
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1999 Aug;(365):167-74
pubmed: 10627701
Arthroscopy. 2019 Feb;35(2):411-416
pubmed: 30612776
HSS J. 2019 Jul;15(2):103-108
pubmed: 31327939
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 May;471(5):1727-32
pubmed: 23315200
Eur J Radiol. 2010 Feb;73(2):374-9
pubmed: 19144485
Arthroscopy. 2021 Jan;37(1):128-135
pubmed: 32828935
Can J Surg. 2003 Feb;46(1):60-1; author reply 61
pubmed: 12585802
Case Rep Orthop. 2012;2012:820501
pubmed: 23304593
Radiology. 2002 Jul;224(1):82-6
pubmed: 12091665
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Dec;18(12):1685-7
pubmed: 20422402
Arthroscopy. 2008 May;24(5):534-9
pubmed: 18442685
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011 Feb;469(2):464-9
pubmed: 20953854
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Aug;43(8):1844-9
pubmed: 26078452
N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2007 Nov;2(4):231-40
pubmed: 21509142
Mod Rheumatol. 2005;15(4):286-9
pubmed: 17029079
Arthroscopy. 2001 Sep;17(7):768-71
pubmed: 11536099
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2006 Dec;126(10):660-7
pubmed: 16927097
J Hip Preserv Surg. 2017 Dec 28;5(1):88-99
pubmed: 29423256
Arthroscopy. 2021 Apr 16;:
pubmed: 33865934
Radiology. 1986 Feb;158(2):417-20
pubmed: 3941866
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Sep;41(9):2065-73
pubmed: 23835268
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015 Oct 24;16:318
pubmed: 26497395
Sci Rep. 2019 Feb 4;9(1):1230
pubmed: 30718558