4.5 Article

The Correlation Between the HEAD-US-C Score and HJHS in Hemophilic Arthropathy of the Knee

Journal

JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE
Volume 42, Issue 4, Pages 859-868

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jum.16072

Keywords

hemophilia; hemophilic arthropathy; Hemophilia Joint Health Score; ultrasound

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to discuss the correlation between the Hemophilia Early Detection Ultrasound in China (HEAD-US-C) score and the Hemophilia Joint Health Score version 2.1 (HJHS 2.1) of the knee joint in patients with hemophilia. The results showed a significant correlation between the ultrasound score and the clinical score, indicating the importance of HEAD-US-C in evaluating hemophilic arthropathy.
Objectives We aimed to discuss the correlation between the Hemophilia Early Detection Ultrasound in China (HEAD-US-C) score and the Hemophilia Joint Health Score version 2.1 (HJHS 2.1) of the knee joint in patients with hemophilia. Methods We included 70 male patients with hemophilia admitted to The Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University; the patients' bilateral knee joints were evaluated using the HEAD-US-C score and HJHS. We analyzed factors influencing hemophilia arthropathy of the knee and examined the correlation between the HEAD-US-C score and HJHS. Results The joint injury severity was positively correlated with age and the number of bleeds (P < .001). Further, the HEAD-US-C score and HJHS differed according to the severity (both P < .001), but not type (P = .163 and P = .283, respectively), of hemophilia. There was a significant correlation between the HEAD-US-C score and HJHS (P < .001). Conclusions Overall, all joint lesions observed on ultrasound corresponded to clinical joint functional abnormalities. Therefore, the HEAD-US-C is important for hemophilic arthropathy evaluation and is useful in explaining abnormal joint function.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available