English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes, pain, and patient satisfaction following revision hip arthroscopy at a high volume referral center with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Methods: During the study period, April 2008 to October 2011, data was prospectively collected on all patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy. All patients were assessed pre- and post-operatively with 4 patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscales (HOS-SSS). Pain was estimated on the visual analog scale (VAS). Patient satisfaction was measured on a scale from 0 to 10. Results: Eighty-seven patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy during the study period. Seventy (80.5%) patients were included in our study. In terms of residual FAI morphology, 45.7% of patients had preoperative alpha angles ≥55 degrees and 7.14% of patients had a LCEA ≥40 degrees. The score improvement from preoperative to 2-year follow-up was 57.84 to 73.65 for mHHS, 62.79 to 83.04 for HOS-ADL, 37.33 to 54.93 for HOS-SSS, 55.65 to 70.79 for NAHS. VAS decreased from 6.72 preoperatively to 4.08 postoperatively. All scores demonstrated statistically significant improvement (P<.001). Overall patient satisfaction was 7.67. Our success rate was 74.58% for primary revision hip arthroscopy and 100% for secondary revision hip arthroscopy. Ten (14.29%) patients underwent total hip arthroplasty during the study period. Our hip survivorship was 85.7%. Five (7.14%) patients underwent secondary revision hip arthroscopy during the study period. We found an overall minor complication rate of 10%. Conclusion: Revision hip arthroscopy for all procedures performed on aggregate has excellent clinical outcomes for all PROs and patient satisfaction scores at short-term follow-up. Patients should be counseled regarding the potential progression of degenerative change leading to arthroplasty, and the potential for revision surgery.

orthopaedic journal of sports medicine

Does Revision Hip Arthroscopy Result in Improved Clinical Outcomes? - A 2-Year Clinical Follow-up On All Revision Hip Arthroscopies Performed at a High Volume Referral Center