Ultrasound versus X-Ray in hip arthroscopy: Safety, accuracy, and clinical outcomes.
ESSKA Academy. Wong I. 05/09/18; 217953; FP08-1787
Login now to access Regular content available to all registered users.

You can access free regular educational content on the ESSKA Academy by registering as an 'ESSKA Academy User’ here

Access to Premium content is currently a membership benefit.

Click here to join ESSKA or renew your membership.
Abstract
Discussion Forum (0)
Rate & Comment (0)
Objectives: Hip arthroscopy is accepted as a safe and less invasive technique to treat pathology of the hip. Due to the anatomy of this joint, imaging must be used to safely establish portals. Ultrasound-guided hip arthroscopy, although far less common than X-Ray-guided, eliminates radiation exposure and consists of smaller equipment. Allowing for it to be completed in small operating rooms and those without access to fluoroscopy.

Given no pre-existing literature beyond describing technique, the primary aim of this study is to assess the safety profile of ultrasound-guided hip arthroscopy by determining the rate of iatrogenic injury to the cartilage and labrum, compared to the standard X-Ray-guided technique. Secondary aims include measurement of the accuracy of osteoplasty and comparing the patient-reported outcome scores using the International Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33) pre and post-operatively.

We hypothesize that ultrasound-guided hip arthroscopy has a safety profile equal to X-Ray-guided and that the type of imaging used to establish portals will have no effect on patient outcome.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study compares patients who underwent ultrasound-guided hip arthroscopy or X-Ray-guided hip arthroscopy by a single surgeon from January 2014 to August 2017. Ultrasound was used at day surgery centers and X-Ray was used at the hospital. Patients with certain medical comorbidities or high body mass index could only have surgery at the hospital. Otherwise, patients were assigned to a surgical site based on waitlists.
Surgical videos were assessed for iatrogenic labral damage and cartilage injury during portal establishment. The α-angle was measured on pre- and post-operative X-Rays to establish accuracy of femoroplasty. The iHOT-33 was administered pre-operatively and at six months post-operatively.

Results: Three hundred ninety eight cases were identified for inclusion with 51% using ultrasound-guided technique. Patients in the ultrasound-guided cohort were younger (mean age 35.7 years compared to 39.1 years in X-ray-guided) and had a lower BMI (mean of 23.5 compared to 26.5 in X-Ray-guided). There was no significant difference in pre-operative iHOT-33 score (40.1 in ultrasound-guided; 36.1 in X-Ray-guided) or pre-operative α-angle (64.2 degrees in ultrasound-guided; 66.9 degrees in X-Ray-guided).
Video review showed a 1% incidence of femoral head cartilage injury and 1% labrum injury in both techniques. There was no significant difference in post-operative α-angle (56.1 degrees in ultrasound-guided; 57.7 degrees in X-Ray guided). At 6-months post-operatively, both cohorts had significant improvements in iHOT-33 scores (70.4 in ultrasound guided; 54.3 in X-Ray guided).

Conclusions: Although only supported by preliminary data, we find equally low complications with ultrasound- and X-Ray-guided hip arthroscopy. During early follow-up, we found no difference in resection of Cam lesions between the techniques and improved outcome scores post-operatively in both techniques.

Objectives: Hip arthroscopy is accepted as a safe and less invasive technique to treat pathology of the hip. Due to the anatomy of this joint, imaging must be used to safely establish portals. Ultrasound-guided hip arthroscopy, although far less common than X-Ray-guided, eliminates radiation exposure and consists of smaller equipment. Allowing for it to be completed in small operating rooms and those without access to fluoroscopy.

Given no pre-existing literature beyond describing technique, the primary aim of this study is to assess the safety profile of ultrasound-guided hip arthroscopy by determining the rate of iatrogenic injury to the cartilage and labrum, compared to the standard X-Ray-guided technique. Secondary aims include measurement of the accuracy of osteoplasty and comparing the patient-reported outcome scores using the International Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33) pre and post-operatively.

We hypothesize that ultrasound-guided hip arthroscopy has a safety profile equal to X-Ray-guided and that the type of imaging used to establish portals will have no effect on patient outcome.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study compares patients who underwent ultrasound-guided hip arthroscopy or X-Ray-guided hip arthroscopy by a single surgeon from January 2014 to August 2017. Ultrasound was used at day surgery centers and X-Ray was used at the hospital. Patients with certain medical comorbidities or high body mass index could only have surgery at the hospital. Otherwise, patients were assigned to a surgical site based on waitlists.
Surgical videos were assessed for iatrogenic labral damage and cartilage injury during portal establishment. The α-angle was measured on pre- and post-operative X-Rays to establish accuracy of femoroplasty. The iHOT-33 was administered pre-operatively and at six months post-operatively.

Results: Three hundred ninety eight cases were identified for inclusion with 51% using ultrasound-guided technique. Patients in the ultrasound-guided cohort were younger (mean age 35.7 years compared to 39.1 years in X-ray-guided) and had a lower BMI (mean of 23.5 compared to 26.5 in X-Ray-guided). There was no significant difference in pre-operative iHOT-33 score (40.1 in ultrasound-guided; 36.1 in X-Ray-guided) or pre-operative α-angle (64.2 degrees in ultrasound-guided; 66.9 degrees in X-Ray-guided).
Video review showed a 1% incidence of femoral head cartilage injury and 1% labrum injury in both techniques. There was no significant difference in post-operative α-angle (56.1 degrees in ultrasound-guided; 57.7 degrees in X-Ray guided). At 6-months post-operatively, both cohorts had significant improvements in iHOT-33 scores (70.4 in ultrasound guided; 54.3 in X-Ray guided).

Conclusions: Although only supported by preliminary data, we find equally low complications with ultrasound- and X-Ray-guided hip arthroscopy. During early follow-up, we found no difference in resection of Cam lesions between the techniques and improved outcome scores post-operatively in both techniques.

Code of conduct/disclaimer available in General Terms & Conditions

By clicking “Accept Terms & all Cookies” or by continuing to browse, you agree to the storing of third-party cookies on your device to enhance your user experience and agree to the user terms and conditions of this learning management system (LMS).

Cookie Settings
Accept Terms & all Cookies