Functional and Clinical Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy With Borderline Hip Dysplasia at 2-Year Follow-up

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 3240-3247 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jourdan M. Cancienne ◽  
Edward C. Beck ◽  
Kyle N. Kunze ◽  
Jorge Chahla ◽  
Sunikom Suppauksorn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Hip Dysplasia

scholarly journals The utility of hip arthroscopy for patients with painful borderline hip dysplasia

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 230949902092316
Author(s):  
Deuk-Soo Hwang ◽  
Chan Kang ◽  
Jeong-Kil Lee ◽  
Jae-Young Park ◽  
Long Zheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Hip Dysplasia ◽  
Reoperation Rate ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Control Group ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Tönnis Grade

Purpose: We measured the width of the acetabular labra in, and the clinical outcomes of, patients with borderline hip dysplasia (HD) who underwent arthroscopy. Methods: A total of 1436 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy to treat symptomatic, acetabular labral tears were enrolled. From this cohort, we extracted a borderline HD group (162 cases). Lateral labral widths were evaluated using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging scans. Clinical data including the modified Harris hip score (mHHS), non-arthritic hip score (NAHS), hip outcome score–activity of daily living (HOS-ADL) score, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and Tönnis grade were collected. In addition, patient satisfaction with arthroscopy outcomes was rated. All complications and reoperations were noted. Results: The mean follow-up time was 87.4 months. The lateral labral width was 7.64 mm in those with normal hips and 7.73 mm in borderline HD patients, respectively ( p = 0.870). The Tönnis grade progressed mildly from 0.46 to 0.76 ( p = 0.227). At the last follow-up, clinical outcome scores (mHHS, NAHS, and HOS-ADL scores) and the VAS score were improved ( p < 0.001). The mean patient satisfaction was scored at 8.2. The reoperation rate was higher in those who underwent labral debridement (25.6%) than labral repair (4.1%). Conclusions: The lateral labral width did not differ significantly between the borderline HD group and the nondysplastic control group. Arthroscopy relieved the symptoms of painful borderline HD and did not accelerate osteoarthritis. Therefore, if such patients do not respond to conservative treatment, hip arthroscopy can be considered for further treatment.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes of Revision Hip Arthroscopy for Synovial Chondromatosis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guanying Gao ◽  
Hongjie Huang ◽  
Jianquan Wang ◽  
Yingfang Ao ◽  
Yan Xu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Synovial Chondromatosis ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Radiographic Evaluation ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Outcome Tool

Abstract Background: Synovial chondromatosis (SC) is a relatively rare disease and there were few studies on causes and clinical outcomes of revision surgery for SC. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes of revision hip arthroscopy for synovial chondromatosis.Methods: We evaluated consecutive patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy for SC in our hospital between January 2008 and January 2020. Radiographic evaluation was made before and after surgery. Preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PROs at final follow-up were obtained, including visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS).Results: A total of 8 patients (mean age, 39.5 years; age range, 27-62 years; 5 males and 3 females) were included in this study. The recurrence rate of hip SC in our hospital was 6.8%. The average follow-up period after surgery was 47.3 months (range, 12–120 months). Before surgery, mean mHHS was 60.6±17.3 (range, 20-77), mean iHOT-12 was 43.8±13.7 (range, 18-69), and mean VAS was 3.1±1.7 (range, 1-7). At the final post-operative follow-up, mean mHHS was 83.8±16.6 (range, 43-91), iHOT-12 was 80.6±19.7 (range, 32-90), and mean VAS was 0.6±1.8 (range, 0-5). All results demonstrated statistically significant improvement (P < 0.05). Recurrence of SC was found in 2 patients 1 year and 4 years after revision hip arthroscopy, respectively.Conclusion: Hip arthroscopy had good clinical outcomes for revision surgery of SC.

scholarly journals Predictors of Clinical Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy: 5 Year Follow- Up Analysis of 1038 Patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (7_suppl6) ◽  
pp. 2325967120S0038
Author(s):  
Benjamin Domb ◽  
Cammille Go ◽  
David Maldonado ◽  
Sarah Chen ◽  
Ajay Lall
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Multivariate Analysis ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Predictive Factors ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Alpha Angle ◽  
Joint Space ◽  
Bivariate Analysis

Objectives: Identify predictive factors of midterm outcomes after hip arthroscopy in a cohort of 1038 patients, whose outcomes at minimum 2-year follow-up have previously been reported. In addition, to provide a comparison of short-term and midterm predictive factors in outcome measures following hip arthroscopy. Methods: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed on all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy between February 2008 and June 2012. Patients were included if they had minimum 5-year follow-up on 3 patient reported outcomes: Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS). Patients were excluded if they had any prior ipsilateral hip conditions. Using bivariate and multivariate analyses, we analyzed the effect of 36 preoperative and intraoperative variables on NAHS. Results: A total of 1038 patients met our listed inclusion and exclusion criteria, with a mean follow-up time of 62.0 months (range, 60.0 - 120.0 months). The bivariate analysis identified 11 variables (4 categorical and 7 continuous) that were predictive of 5-year postoperative NAHS. For the multivariate analysis, 7 variables were identified as being significant: preoperative NAHS, body mass index (BMI), age, lateral joint space, alpha angle, revision hip arthroscopy, and acetabular microfracture. These 7 variables were also predictive in the bivariate analysis. Conclusion: This study reports favorable midterm clinical outcomes in the largest cohort of hip arthroscopies with minimum 5-year follow up in the literature to date. Seven variables were identified as being significant predictors in both the bivariate and multivariate analysis: preoperative NAHS, body mass index (BMI), age, lateral joint space, alpha angle, revision hip arthroscopy, and acetabular microfracture. Of these, preoperative NAHS, BMI, age, and revision hip arthroscopy were predictive of both 2-year and 5-year postoperative NAHS. These predictive factors may prove useful to clinicians in determining indications for hip arthroscopy and counseling patients on its expected outcomes.

scholarly journals Superior Clinical Outcomes with Capsular Closure versus Non-Closure in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Hip Labral Repair

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2325967118S0000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ioanna Bolia ◽  
Karen K. Briggs ◽  
Marc J. Philippon
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Edge Angle ◽  
Center Edge ◽  
Lateral Center Edge Angle ◽  
Closure Group ◽  
Center Edge Angle

Objectives: Controversy still exists on closing the capsule following hip arthroscopy. It is unclear if capsular closure at the end of hip arthroscopy results in better clinical outcomes compared to non-closure. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes in patients who had a closed capsule to those without a closed capsule following hip arthroscopic labral repair by a single surgeon. Methods: Patients who did not have capsular closure were identified by reviewing arthroscopy video (non-closure group). Fifty consecutive patients without capsular closure were matched with fifty patients who had capsular closure. All patients underwent primary hip arthroscopy and labral repair. The primary patient-reported outcome measure was Hip Outcome Score(HOS)-ADL. Secondary outcome measures included the modified Harris hip score(MHHS), HOS-Sport, WOMAC, general health, and patient satisfaction with outcome. Patients with lateral center edge angle less than 25º were excluded. Results: There were 23 females and 27 males with an average age of 36 years (range:14 to 77) in each group. The average lateral center edge angle was 34º (range, 27 to 48) in both groups. The alpha angle was 68º (range, 40 to 134) in the non-closure group and 70º (range, 41 to 98) in the closure group. No patient had microfractures at the time of surgery. The average follow-up time was 5 years (non-closure group range: 3-10; closure group range 3-9). Eight patients (16%) in the non-closure group required total hip arthroplasty(THA), while 4 patients (8%) in the closure group required THA. Six patients in the non-closure group and 3 patients in the closure group required revision hip arthroscopy. Of those patients who did not require revision or THA, there was a significant difference in the HOS ADL score and the secondary outcome measures (see table). Capsular closure resulted in superior clinical outcomes compared to non-closure. Conclusion: There were twice as many conversion to THA and twice as many hip arthroscopy revisions in patients undergoing hip arthroscopic labral repair without capsular closure compared to those with closure. In addition, the closure group showed significantly higher outcomes scores compared to the non-closure at 5-year follow-up time. [Table: see text]

Predictors of Clinical Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy: A Prospective Analysis of 1038 Patients With 2-Year Follow-up

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (6) ◽  
pp. 1324-1330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin G. Domb ◽  
Timothy J. Martin ◽  
Chengcheng Gui ◽  
Sivashankar Chandrasekaran ◽  
Carlos Suarez-Ahedo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Predictive Factors ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Multivariate Analyses ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Outcome Instrument ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: As hip arthroscopy has expanded in popularity and volume, more information is needed about indications for the procedure and the predictive factors of clinical outcomes. Purpose: To evaluate clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopy in a prospective study and to analyze the cohort to identify factors that are predictive of improvement. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were collected prospectively on all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy between February 2008 and June 2012. We included all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy who agreed to participate and who completed 4 patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments at a minimum 2-year follow-up: the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and Hip Outcome Score–Sport-Specific Subscale. The NAHS was selected as our primary outcome instrument. All patients with any previous hip conditions were excluded. We analyzed 34 preoperative and intraoperative variables using bivariate and multivariate analyses compared with NAHS. Results: The cohort consisted of 1038 patients with a mean follow-up of 30.1 months (range, 24.0-61.2 months). Mean age was 36.4 years (range, 13.2-76.4 years). All postoperative PRO scores showed significant improvement ( P < .001) at 2 years compared with preoperative scores. Bivariate analysis identified 15 variables (7 categorical and 8 continuous) and multivariate analysis identified 10 variables that were predictive of 2-year postoperative NAHS. Preoperative NAHS, preoperative HOS-ADL, preoperative mHHS, age, duration of symptoms, body mass index (BMI), and revision hip arthroscopy were identified as predictive factors in both bivariate and multivariate analyses. The predictive value of preoperative NAHS was accentuated for patients with higher BMI. Conclusion: This study reports favorable clinical outcomes in the largest cohort of hip arthroscopies with a minimum 2-year follow-up in the literature to date. Factors identified as predictive in both bivariate and multivariate analyses included preoperative NAHS, HOS-ADL, and mHHS; age; duration of symptoms; BMI; and revision hip arthroscopy. These predictive factors may be useful to the clinician in determining prognosis and operative indications for hip arthroscopy.

scholarly journals Clinical Outcomes after Arthroscopic Repair of Gluteus Medius with a Two-year Minimum Follow-up

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (7_suppl6) ◽  
pp. 2325967120S0044
Author(s):  
David Bloom ◽  
David Kirby ◽  
Thomas Youm ◽  
Jordan Fried
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Gluteus Medius ◽  
Arthroscopic Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Partial Group ◽  
Patient Reported

Objectives: Hip arthroscopy has replaced the need for many open surgeries including repairs of gluteus medius tendon tear. There are only a few studies that have analyzed patient reported outcomes at 2 years for arthroscopic gluteus medius tendon repair. The purpose of the current study is to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients who underwent arthroscopic gluteus medius repair with at least 2 year follow-up. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective IRB approved study. Between August 2010 and August 2016, patients who underwent hip arthroscopy with gluteus medius repair by a single surgeon were evaluated at baseline and two year follow-up via Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS) and Non-arthritic Hip Score (NAHS). Inclusion criteria included all patients who received arthroscopic repair of the full or partial thickness tears of the gluteus medius tendon and had a minimum follow up of at least two years. Paired t-test was used for statistical comparison between baseline and follow-up for each respective outcome score and group. Results: 20 hips were evaluated, met the inclusion criteria and separated based on partial (group one) or full thickness tear (group two). The study population comprised of 15 (79%) females and 4 (21%) males. Group one presented with a mean age of 54.8 ± 11.3 years and an average BMI of 25.1 ± 4.0. Group two presented with a mean age of 46 ± 11.4 and an average BMI of 25.5 ± 4.0. Patients in group one reported an average preoperative MHHS and NAHS of 33.6 ± 11.3 and 40.4 ± 14.9, respectively. At 2 year follow-up, an average MHHS and NAHS of 72.9 ± 22.9 and 77.2 ± 19.7 was reported, respectively. Patients in group two reported an average preoperative MHHS and NAHS of 43.8 ± 14.7 and 46.4 ± 8.3, respectively. At 2 year follow-up, an average MHHS and NAHS of 80.1 ± 8.5 and 79.5 ± 10.1, respectively. There was significant clinical improvement at the 2 year follow-up, relating to both outcome measures in each subject group (p<0.0004). Conclusions: After a minimum of two years for follow-up, arthroscopic repair of gluteus medius tears proves to be an effective approach and treatment. In the future, studies looking at longer follow-up time would help determine if the current approach maintains long-term clinical improvement.

scholarly journals Predictors of Clinical Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy: A Prospective Analysis of 1038 Patients With Two-Year Follow-Up

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. e14-e15
Author(s):  
Parth Lodhia ◽  
Benjamin Domb ◽  
Timothy Martin ◽  
Chengcheng Gui ◽  
Sivashankar Chandrasekaran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Prospective Analysis

Does Iliopsoas Lengthening Adversely Affect Clinical Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy? A Multicenter Comparative Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (11) ◽  
pp. 2624-2631 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Maldonado ◽  
Aaron J. Krych ◽  
Bruce A. Levy ◽  
David E. Hartigan ◽  
Joseph R. Laseter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Labral Tear ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Pain Patient ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Outcome Score

Background: Iliopsoas fractional lengthening (IFL) continues to be a controversial procedure in hip arthroscopy. Hypothesis: Patients who underwent arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and a labral tear either with or without IFL would experience favorable outcomes, and there would be no difference in postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between the 2 groups at minimum 2-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data from July 2009 and April 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were eligible if they had hip arthroscopy for both FAI and labral tear treatment with IFL and without IFL. IFL was indicated for painful internal snapping. Minimum postoperative follow-up was set to 2 years. The authors calculated the modified Harris Hip Score, International Hip Outcome Tool–12, Hip Outcome Score–Activity of Daily Living Score, Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, visual analog scale for pain, patient satisfaction, minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and the percentage of patients who achieved patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS). Revision surgeries and conversions to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were documented. Results: 351 hips (307 patients) met the necessary inclusion criteria in the IFL cohort, with a mean ± SD follow-up time of 42.5 ± 18.1 months. For the control cohort, 392 hips (354 patients) were included, with a mean ± SD follow-up time of 43.9 ± 19.6 months. Both groups showed significant postoperative improvement in 2-year follow-up PROs. The group with iliopsoas lengthening showed comparable results to the control group with respect to PRO improvement, MCID, PASS, and rates of revision or THA conversion. Conclusion: This comparative cohort study demonstrated that treatment of painful internal snapping syndrome with arthroscopic IFL, in the setting of FAI and a labral tear, is a safe procedure with good short- to mid-term follow-up results and associated improvement in PROs. Patients who underwent IFL showed similar outcomes compared with a control group treated for FAI and labral tear without IFL. In appropriately selected patients, arthroscopic IFL did not adversely affect clinical outcomes compared with patients who did not need IFL.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document