Dan J. Harkey

Master Educator | Business & Finance Consultant | Mentor

Hip Injections: Clinical Case Studies-

Hip pain—most commonly from osteoarthritis (OA), bursitis, labral pathology, or tendinopathies—affects function, mobility, and quality of life. Hip & Knee Together: About 40-50% of older adults experience pain in either their hip or knee joints, says Regenerative Institute of Newport Beach, Carolina Regional Orthopaedics, and Oxford Academic.

by Dan J. Harkey

Share This Article

Case 1: Steroid Injection for Hip OA

Patient: 68-year-old with moderate hip OA (Tönnis grade 2), BMI 29, diabetic.
Presentation: Persistent groin pain, limited ROM, failed NSAIDs, and PT.
Intervention: Ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection (triamcinolone 40 mg).
Outcome: Pain relief for 8 weeks; blood glucose spike for 48 hours managed with insulin adjustment.
Lesson: Steroid injections can provide short-term relief but require careful monitoring in diabetics and strict adherence to frequency limits (≤3/year, ≥12 weeks apart).

Case 2: PRP for Early Hip OA

Patient: 54-year-old recreational cyclist, mild OA (Tönnis grade 1).
Presentation: Hip stiffness and pain after activity; wants to avoid surgery.
Intervention: Single PRP injection under fluoroscopy; continued PT.
Outcome: VAS pain dropped from 5 to 2; functional improvement sustained for 9 months.
Lesson: PRP is a viable option for active patients with early OA seeking non-surgical relief.

Case 3: Transition to Hip Replacement

Patient: 72-year-old with severe OA (Tönnis grade 4), prior steroid and HA injections with diminishing benefit.
Presentation: Severe pain, mobility loss, difficulty with ADLs.
Intervention: Total hip arthroplasty.
Outcome: Post-op recovery over 4 months; pain-free ambulation at 6 months.
Lesson: THR remains the Gold standard for advanced OA when conservative measures fail.

Case 4: Insurance Market Impact on Hip Care

Patient: 65-year-old in wildfire-prone California region; multifamily property owner.
Presentation: Hip OA requiring PRP; elective THR planned in 12 months.
Complication: A spike in insurance premiums affects liquidity; the patient delays surgery and opts for PRP as an interim measure.
Lesson: External financial stressors can influence treatment sequencing—highlighting the need for flexible care plans.

Clinical Case Studies (Multi‑Clinic Vignettes)

Case A — Academic Sports Medicine Clinic (Hip Labral Tear → Arthroscopy)

Patient: 32-year-old female runner with mechanical groin pain, positive impingement signs; MRI confirms labral tear with cam morphology.
Intervention: Hip arthroscopy with cam correction and labral repair (tissue suitable for repair).
Outcome: mHHS improves from 62 pre‑op to 88 at 12 months; resumes recreational running with graded return.
Why this path: Systematic reviews show labral repair or reconstruction yields good‑to‑excellent outcomes, with mHHS typically improving into the 80–90 range at 1–10 years, and conversion to THA is driven mainly by age/OA severity rather than technique choice. 
Lesson: In young patients with labral pathology and minimal OA, arthroscopy provides durable symptom relief when combined with correction of structural impingement.

Case B — PM&R Ultrasound‑Guided Clinic (Early Hip OA → PRP + PT)

Patient: 54-year-old cyclist, Tönnis 1 hip OA; wants to avoid surgery and steroids.
Intervention: Ultrasound-guided intra-articular PRP (leukocyte‑poor) + progressive abductor/core strengthening.
Outcome: VAS pain 5→2 by 6–12 months; improved iHOT‑12 and HOS‑ADL; maintains cycling.
Evidence basis: Pilot and RCT/meta-analytic data in hip OA show modest, often 6–12-month improvements in pain/Function with PRP versus HA or placebo, but criteria for choosing each remain unclear, highlighting the need for individualized assessment.
Technique note: Ultrasound guidance improves accuracy/safety for hip injections and is commonly used in office practice.

Case C — Community Orthopedics Clinic (Moderate Hip OA → HA Viscosupplementation)

Patient: 61-year-old male, Tönnis 2 OA, flares despite NSAIDs and PT; prefers to avoid steroids due to diabetes.
Intervention: Ultrasound-guided hyaluronic acid (high-density) injection.
Outcome: mHHS 60→82 at 12 months; fewer NSAID days per week; counseled that progression may still occur.
Evidence basis: Prospective and observational studies report functional/pain gains at 6–12 months in mild‑to‑moderate OA, with limited benefit in advanced OA; RCT/meta‑analyses suggest HA and PRP have comparable short-term pain outcomes, with modest effect sizes.
Lesson: HA can reduce symptoms in selected hip OA; set expectations that advanced OA (Tönnis 3) responds poorly and may require arthroplasty.

Case D — Pain Management & Sports Rehab Clinic (GTPS → PRP vs Steroid)

Patient: 60-year-old female with greater trochanteric pain syndrome (gluteus medius/minimus tendinopathy confirmed on US); prior PT with partial benefit.
Intervention: Single intratendinous PRP injection under ultrasound guidance; continued tendon‑loading rehab.
Outcome: mHHS and PASS improve at 12 weeks; benefit sustains at 2 years, whereas corticosteroid benefit (from previous episodes) peaked at 6 weeks and waned.
Evidence basis: RCTs show that PRP is superior to corticosteroids at 12 weeks and is sustained up to 2 years in chronic gluteal tendinopathy; CSI may help in the short term but is inferior to PRP in the long term.
Meta-perspective: Systematic reviews report mixed findings, but many suggest that PRP outperforms CSI beyond mid-term follow-up; CSI is not consistently superior to exercise or PRP.

Case E — VA Hospital / Primary Care–Orthopedics Collaboration (Hip OA with Diabetes → Steroid Use & Glycemia Plan)

Patient: 68-year-old veteran, Tönnis 2 OA with diabetes (HbA1c 8.1%); cannot tolerate NSAIDs; declines surgery now.
Intervention: Image-guided triamcinolone 40 mg injection with glucose monitoring protocol (days 1–3).
Outcome: Pain relief for ~8 weeks; day‑1 hyperglycemia (peaks ~280 mg/dL) managed with temporary adjustment; glucose returns to baseline by day 5.
Evidence basis: Intra-articular steroids can cause transient hyperglycemia—peaks within 24–72 h, occasionally higher and prolonged in poorly controlled diabetes; counsel and monitor accordingly.
Frequency rule: Limit steroids to ≤3–4 injections/year/hip, ≥12 weeks apart, especially in weight-bearing joints.

Case F — Arthroplasty Center (Advanced Hip OA → THR)

Patient: 72-year-old with end-stage OA (Tönnis 4), severe functional limitation; prior steroids/HA/PRP with limited durable relief.
Intervention: Total hip replacement (primary THA).
Outcome: Rapid pain resolution; independent ambulation by week 3; resumes golf at 4 months.
Evidence basis: THR is definitive for advanced OA, with >90% of patients achieving substantial pain relief and functional gains; however, potential long-term risks like revision surgery should be considered in shared decision-making.
Lesson: For severe OA or failure of non-operative care, THR offers the most durable solution; revision risk correlates with younger age and activity.

Case G — Academic Hip Preservation Clinic (Hip OA → PRP vs HA Pilot)

Patient: 55-year-old male, KL/Tönnis ~2–3 OA, internal rotation limited; desires biologic option before THA.
Intervention: Series of LP‑PRP injections; comparison cohort receives low‑molecular‑weight HA.
Outcome: At 6 months, the PRP group shows improvement in WOMAC and delayed conversion to THA compared with HA; IR at 90° flexion improves in PRP versus declines in HA.
Evidence basis: Double‑blind randomized pilot (University of Colorado) found PRP improved WOMAC and reduced THA conversions compared with HA over 24 months.
Context: Broader network meta-analyses show similar pain outcomes among PRP/HA/CSI/placebo at 2–6 months; differences can be minor and protocol‑dependent—set expectations.

Case H — Tertiary Sports Medicine Clinic (Alternative Hip Injection Approach)

Patient: 57-year-old with labral tear/FAI, difficult anterior window due to body habitus and pain; needs diagnostic/therapeutic intra-articular injection.
Intervention: Ultrasound-guided posterior approach hip injection, followed by fluoroscopic arthrogram confirmation.
Outcome: Accurate placement on first attempt in 9/10 cases; mild transient adverse events in 2/10; patient tolerates posterior approach well.
Evidence basis: Pilot data support the posterior US-guided approach as accurate and without serious adverse events, and it is useful when anterior access is challenging.

I am not a medical practitioner.  Consult your medical specialist and your spouse.