Haws Brittany E, Condidorio Chad G, Adler Kelly L, Giordano Brian D
Department of Orthopaedics, University of Rochester Medical Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 665, Rochester, NY 14642, USA.
J Hip Preserv Surg. 2022 Jun 25;9(3):158-164. doi: 10.1093/jhps/hnac025. eCollection 2022 Aug.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the predictive value of preoperative diagnostic intra-articular injections with formal provocative post-injection functional testing on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following hip arthroscopy. Patients aged 14-40 with suspected labral pathology and/or femoroacetabular impingement were prospectively enrolled. Patients received a diagnostic intra-articular anesthetic injection then completed a battery of provocative physical function (PF) tests and were asked to rate the percentage of pain improvement. Patients completed PRO surveys preoperatively and up to 2 years postoperatively. PROs were compared between positive and negative injection response groups. Ninety-six patients received a diagnostic injection with provocative functional testing and subsequently underwent hip arthroscopy, 74 reported a positive injection response (≥75% improvement) and 22 reported a negative injection response (<75% improvement). The average postoperative follow-up was 12 months. Both groups experienced significant improvement in PROs postoperatively. A positive injection response was associated with greater improvements in hip outcome score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference and PROMIS PF at final follow-up compared to a negative injection response. Similar improvements in modified Harris Hip Score, Visual Analog Scale hip pain and PROMIS depression were experienced between groups. These results indicate that diagnostic intra-articular hip anesthetic injection with provocative functional testing may be a valuable predictor of pain and PF following hip arthroscopy. However, patients with negative injection responses still experienced significant clinical improvement in their postoperative outcomes. As such, a negative injection response should not preclude patients from being surgical candidates, but their outcomes may be less predictable.
本研究的目的是评估术前诊断性关节内注射并进行正式的注射后激发性功能测试对髋关节镜检查后患者报告结局(PROs)的预测价值。前瞻性纳入了年龄在14至40岁之间、疑似盂唇病变和/或股骨髋臼撞击症的患者。患者接受诊断性关节内麻醉注射,然后完成一系列激发性功能(PF)测试,并被要求对疼痛改善的百分比进行评分。患者在术前及术后长达2年的时间里完成PROs调查。比较了注射反应阳性组和阴性组之间的PROs。96例患者接受了诊断性注射及激发性功能测试,随后接受了髋关节镜检查,74例报告注射反应阳性(改善≥75%),22例报告注射反应阴性(改善<75%)。术后平均随访时间为12个月。两组患者术后PROs均有显著改善。与注射反应阴性相比,在末次随访时,注射反应阳性与髋关节结局评分、非关节炎髋关节评分、患者报告结局测量信息系统(PROMIS)疼痛干扰和PROMIS PF有更大改善相关。两组在改良Harris髋关节评分、视觉模拟量表髋关节疼痛和PROMIS抑郁方面有相似的改善。这些结果表明,诊断性关节内髋关节麻醉注射并进行激发性功能测试可能是髋关节镜检查后疼痛和PF的有价值预测指标。然而,注射反应阴性的患者术后结局仍有显著临床改善。因此,注射反应阴性不应排除患者成为手术候选者,但他们的结局可能较难预测。