Is Microfracture Necessary? Acetabular Chondrolabral Debridement/Abrasion Demonstrates Similar Outcomes and Survival to Microfracture in Hip Arthroscopy: A Multicenter Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (7) ◽  
pp. 1670-1678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Hevesi ◽  
Christopher Bernard ◽  
David E. Hartigan ◽  
Bruce A. Levy ◽  
Benjamin G. Domb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Treatment Technique ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Acetabular Cartilage ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cartilage Lesions ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Grade 3

Background: Hip arthroscopy is becoming more advanced and commonly performed. However, significant controversy exists regarding whether high-grade acetabular cartilage lesions should be treated with debridement/abrasion or microfracture. In addition, patients treated with microfracture are subject to extended protected weightbearing rehabilitation to mitigate risk of subchondral plate fracture and to protect fibrocartilage tissue formation. Purpose: To determine the midterm patient-reported outcomes and failure rate of patients with grade 3 and 4 acetabular labrum articular disruption (ALAD) lesions managed with debridement/abrasion or microfracture. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Primary arthroscopic labral repair cases at 2 centers from November 2008 to April 2016 were reviewed for patients aged <55 years with unipolar ALAD grade 3 and 4 chondrolabral acetabular delamination. Patients undergoing microfracture and debridement/abrasion were compared using the visual analog pain scale (VAS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Hip Outcome Score–Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) to determine predictors of outcomes and failure. Results: A total of 113 hips in 110 patients (66 males, 44 females; mean age, 34.5 ± 1.1 years) undergoing debridement/abrasion (n = 82) or microfracture (n = 31) were followed for a mean of 4.9 years (range, 2.0-8.5 years). Lesion size was not statistically different between the debridement/abrasion (1.3 ± 1.0 cm2) and microfracture cohorts (1.4 ± 1.0 cm2) ( P = .47). Patients undergoing debridement/abrasion achieved 3.6-point mean improvements in VAS ( P < .01), 21.2-point improvements in mHHS ( P < .01), and 25.4-point improvements in HOS-SSS ( P < .01), which were not significantly different from those observed in microfracture patients ( P≥ .20). The 5-year rate of survival free of revision surgery was 84.0% in the debridement/abrasion group and 85.6% in the microfracture group ( P = .78). The cartilage treatment technique was found not to be predictive of revision risk during both univariate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; P = .98) and multivariate (HR, 0.93; P = .90) analysis accounting for patient age, lesion grade, and acetabular coverage. Conclusion: Patients undergoing debridement/abrasion of high-grade unipolar acetabular cartilage lesions demonstrate similar outcome scores and revision rates compared with those of patients undergoing microfracture. These outcomes support the consideration of preferential debridement/abrasion at the discretion of the treating surgeon to optimize recovery while maintaining established positive outcomes after hip arthroscopy.

scholarly journals Acetabular Debridement Demonstrates Similar Outcomes and Survival to Microfracture in Hip Arthroscopy: A Multi-Center Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (7_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0043
Author(s):  
Mario Hevesi ◽  
Christopher D. Bernard ◽  
David Edward Hartigan ◽  
Bruce A. Levy ◽  
Benjamin G. Domb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Treatment Technique ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Acetabular Cartilage ◽  
Cartilage Lesions ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Grade 3

Objectives: Hip arthroscopy is becoming more advanced and commonly performed. However, significant controversy exists regarding whether high grade acetabular cartilage lesions should be treated with debridement or microfracture. In addition, patients treated with microfracture are subject to extended partial weight-bearing rehabilitation in order to mitigate risk of subchondral plate fracture and protect fibrocartilage tissue formation. The purpose of this study was to determine the mid-term patient-reported outcomes and failure rate and patient-reported outcomes of Grade 3 and 4 acetabulum labrum articular disruption (ALAD) lesions managed with microfracture or debridement. Methods: Primary arthroscopic labral repair cases at two centers from November 2008 to April 2016 were reviewed in patients aged < 55 years with unipolar ALAD Grade 3 and 4 pathology. Patients undergoing microfracture and debridement were compared using visual analog pain scale (VAS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Hip Outcome Score - Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) to determine predictors of outcomes and failure. Results: 127 hips in 123 patients (47 M, 76 F, mean age 34.7 ± 11.1) undergoing debridement (n = 95) or microfracture (n = 32) were followed for a mean of 4.9 years (range 2.0 - 8.5). Patients undergoing debridement achieved 3.5 point mean improvements in VAS (p < 0.01), 20.9 point improvements in mHHS (p < 0.01), and 25.5 point improvements in HOS-SSS (p < 0.01), which was statistically similar to that observed in microfracture patients (p ≥ 0.19). Five-year survival free of revision surgery was 83.0% in the debridement group and 85.6% in the microfracture group (p = 0.85). Cartilage treatment technique was found not to be predictive of revision risk during both univariate (p = 0.84) and multivariate (p = 0.84) analysis. Conclusion: Patients undergoing debridement of high grade unipolar acetabular cartilage lesions demonstrate similar patient reported outcome scores and revision rates compared to patients undergoing microfracture. These outcomes support debridement of acetabular lesions in order to optimize recovery while maintaining established positive outcomes following hip arthroscopy. [Table: see text]

Multicenter Outcomes After Revision Hip Arthroscopy: Comparative Analysis of 2-Year Outcomes After Labral Repair Versus Labral Reconstruction

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110305
Author(s):  
Blake M. Bodendorfer ◽  
Thomas D. Alter ◽  
Andrew B. Wolff ◽  
Dominic S. Carreira ◽  
John J. Cristoforetti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Cartilage Damage ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Center Edge ◽  
Labral Tears ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: There is a paucity of literature evaluating patient outcomes in patients undergoing revision labral repair and labral reconstruction. Purpose: To compare outcomes in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for treatment of labral tears by labral repair or labral reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multicenter database of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy was performed. An a priori power analysis determined that a total of 62 patients were required. Patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for labral tears with completed 2-year outcome scores were included. Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy, labral debridement, concomitant gluteal repair, and patients with hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <20°) were excluded. Patients were grouped into revision labral repair and labral reconstruction groups. Patient demographics and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including Hip Outcome Score – Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score – Sport Subscale, modified Harris Hip Score, international Hip Outcome Tool-12, visual analog scale for pain and satisfaction, and achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were analyzed. Results: A total of 40 patients underwent revision labral repair and 55 patients underwent labral reconstruction. Patients undergoing revision labral repair were younger (mean age, 30.0 ± 10.7 years vs 34.4 ± 9.7 years; P = .048), had lower rates of labral degeneration (25.0% vs 62.7%; P = .004), and had lower rates of severe complexity of tears (21.1% vs 66.0%; P = .003). However, the labral repair group had higher rates of articular cartilage damage (62.5% vs 33.3%; P = .009). There were no differences in any preoperative or 2-year postoperative PROs. Furthermore, no differences were seen in achievement of MCID or PASS in any PRO. Conclusion: In this multicenter study on revision hip arthroscopy, patients undergoing revision labral repair were younger and had better labral characteristics but greater cartilage damage compared with patients undergoing labral reconstructions. Despite these differences, patients who underwent labral repair reported similar outcomes to those undergoing labral reconstruction.

Comparing Midterm Outcomes of High-Level Athletes Versus Nonathletes Undergoing Primary Hip Arthroscopy: A Propensity-Matched Comparison With Minimum 5-Year Follow-up

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110417
Author(s):  
Andrew E. Jimenez ◽  
Peter F. Monahan ◽  
David R. Maldonado ◽  
Benjamin R. Saks ◽  
Hari K. Ankem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Arthroscopic Surgery ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
High Level

Background: High-level athletes (HLAs) have been shown to have better short-term outcomes than nonathletes (NAs) after hip arthroscopy. Purpose: (1) To report midterm outcomes of HLAs after primary hip arthroscopy and (2) to compare their results with a propensity-matched cohort of NA patients. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed between February 2008 and November 2015 for HLAs (professional, college, or high school) who underwent primary hip arthroscopy in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). HLAs were included if they had preoperative, minimum 2-year, and minimum 5-year follow-up data for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and Hip Outcome Score Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS). Radiographic and intraoperative findings, surgical procedures, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and return to sport were reported. The HLA study group was propensity-matched to a control group of NA patients for comparison. Results: A total 65 HLA patients (67 hips) were included in the final analysis with mean follow-up time of 74.6 ± 16.7 months. HLAs showed significant improvement in all PROs recorded, achieved high rates of MCID and PASS for mHHS (74.6% and 79.4%, respectively) and HOS-SSS (67.7% and 66.1%, respectively), and returned to sport at high rates (80.4%). When compared with the propensity-matched NA control group, HLAs reported higher baseline but comparable postoperative scores for the mHHS and NAHS. HLA patients achieved MCID and PASS for mHHS at similar rates as NA patients, but the HLA patients achieved PASS for HOS-SSS at higher rates that trended toward statistical significance (66.1% vs 48.4%; P = .07). NA patients underwent revision arthroscopic surgery at similar rates as HLA patients (14.9% vs 9.0%, respectively; P = .424). Conclusion: Primary hip arthroscopy results in favorable midterm outcomes in HLAs. When compared with a propensity-matched NA control group, HLAs demonstrated a tendency toward higher rates of achieving PASS for HOS-SSS but similar arthroscopic revision rates at minimum 5-year follow-up.

scholarly journals Return to Play After Hip Arthroscopy Among Tennis Players: Outcomes with Minimum Five-Year Follow-up

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Maldonado ◽  
Mitchell J. Yelton ◽  
Philip J. Rosinsky ◽  
Jacob Shapira ◽  
Mitchell Meghpara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Cartilage Damage ◽  
Arthroscopic Surgery ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Return To Play ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Tennis Players ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background: Playing tennis is associated with various movements that can lead to labral injuries and may require arthroscopic surgery. While hip arthroscopies have demonstrated good outcomes in athletes, there is limited literature reporting Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) and return to play in competitive or recreational tennis players after hip arthroscopic surgery. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to (1) report minimum five-year PROs and return to sport in tennis players who underwent hip arthroscopic surgery and (2) compare outcomes between recreational and competitive tennis players.Methods: Data for patients who underwent hip arthroscopy surgery in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and labral tears between March 2009 and January 2014 and who played tennis at any level within one-year of surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with preoperative and minimum five-year postoperative scores for the following PROs were included: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patients with preoperative Tönnis osteoarthritis Grade >1, Workers’ Compensation claims, age > 60 years old, or previous ipsilateral hip surgeries or conditions were excluded. Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (PASS) and Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for mHHS and HOS-SSS were calculated. Results: Of 28 patients, 31 hips met all inclusion and exclusion criteria of which 28 (90.3%) had minimum 5-year follow-up (mean: 72.8 ± 13.9 months). There were 3 professional, 3 collegiate, 2 high school, 2 organized amateur, and 18 recreational level tennis players. All PROs significantly improved at latest follow-up: mHHS from 67.0 to 86.7 (P < 0.001), NAHS from 65.9 to 87.2 (P < 0.001), HOS-SSS from 50.0 to 77.9 (P = 0.009), and VAS from 5.4 to 1.8 (P < 0.001). There was a 75.0% return to sport rate. Additionally, 66.7% of patients achieved MCID and 83.3% achieved PASS for mHHS, and 63.6% achieved MCID and 58.3% achieved PASS for HOS-SSS.Conclusion: Regardless of the level of participation, tennis players who underwent hip arthroscopic surgery reported statistically significant PRO improvements. A favorable rate of return to sport was also achieved by players with a continued interest in playing. The severity of cartilage damage was shown to not influence rate of returned to sport nor PROs in this population. The data here may be useful in counseling tennis players of various levels who are considering arthroscopic treatment of a hip injury. Level of Evidence: IV

scholarly journals Prospective Randomized Comparison of Capsule Management Techniques During Hip Arthroscopy

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3_suppl2) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kostas John Economopoulos ◽  
Christopher Y. Kweon
Keyword(s):  
Activities Of Daily Living ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Daily Living ◽  
Alpha Angle ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Management Techniques

Objectives: Capsular management during hip arthroscopy remains controversial. Studies evaluating this topic consist mostly of retrospective comparative reviews of prospectively gathered data on a large series of patients. The purpose of this study was to perform a prospective randomized trial to comparatively assess three commonly performed capsule management techniques. It was hypothesized that capsular closure during hip arthroscopy would result in superior outcomes compared to non-closing capsulotomy management techniques. Methods: Patients undergoing hip arthroscopy were randomly assigned into three groups at the time of surgery: 1) T-capsulotomy without closure (TC), 2) interportal capsulotomy without closure (IC), and 3) interportal capsulotomy with closure (CC). Inclusion criteria included patients with labral tear on advanced imaging, cam lesion with alpha angle greater than 55 degrees, center-edge angle less than 40 degrees, and Tönnis grade 0 or 1. Patients younger than 18, older than 55, or those with signs of clinical hip hypermobility or radiographic dysplasia were excluded from the trial. All patients underwent labral repair and femoral osteoplasty. Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) was obtained preoperatively and at intervals up to 2 years. Other outcomes obtained included need for future hip surgery. Results: 50 patients were randomly allocated into each group. Patient demographics, preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and radiographic measures of impingement were similar between all three groups. Revision hip arthroscopy was performed in 5 TC patients, 2 IC patients and 0 CC patients (p=0.17). Conversion to hip arthroplasty occurred in 4 patients in the TC group, none in the IC or CC groups (p=0.48). All three groups showed increased PRO scores postoperatively compared to preoperative values (p<0.01). The CC group when compared to the TC group demonstrated superior mHHS (86.2 vs 76), HOS-ADL (85.6 vs 76.8), and HOS-SSS (74.4 vs 65.3) at the final 2 year follow up (p<0.001). The IC group demonstrated more modest improvements in outcomes compared to the TC group. The CC group showed greater improvement in HOS-SSS compared to the IC group at early follow up (65.6 vs 55.1, p>.001) that was not maintained at 2 years (74.4 vs 71.4, p=.28). Conclusion: Patients undergoing capsular closure during hip arthroscopy showed improved patient-reported and surgical outcomes compared to those with unrepaired T-capsulotomy or interportal capsulotomy. These results suggest that repair after capsulotomy may be a favorable arthroscopic capsule management technique, especially in respect to optimizing postoperative activities of daily living.

Primary Circumferential Acetabular Labral Reconstruction: Achieving Outcomes Similar to Primary Labral Repair Despite More Challenging Patient Characteristics

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (9) ◽  
pp. 2079-2088 ◽  
Author(s):  
John P. Scanaliato ◽  
Daniel L. Christensen ◽  
Catherine Salfiti ◽  
Mackenzie M. Herzog ◽  
Andrew B. Wolff
Keyword(s):  
Short Form ◽  
Primary Repair ◽  
High Stress ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Iliotibial Band ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Visual Analog Scales ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Severe Pathology

Background: Treatment of acetabular labral tears with moderate or severe intrasubstance damage or segmental defects remains a substantial challenge. Circumferential labral reconstruction with iliotibial band allograft is a relatively new technique that has been proposed to restore stability and eliminate high-stress junction points. Purpose: To compare outcomes between hips treated with primary allograft circumferential labral reconstruction and primary labral repair. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: All consecutive hips between 2014 and 2015 that underwent primary reconstruction or primary repair by the senior surgeon were included and compared. Hips that had a prior intra-articular procedure were excluded. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores and visual analog scales were completed by patients within 1 week before surgery and between 22 and 26 months postoperatively. PROs included the modified Harris Hip Score, the International Hip Outcome Tool, and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey for physical health. Pain and satisfaction were assessed with visual analog scales. Crude and inverse probability of treatment weighting comparisons of PROs between groups were performed. Results: A total of 162 hips met the inclusion criteria for this study, including 99 labral repairs and 63 complete labral reconstructions. Patients who underwent labral reconstruction were, on average, older (43.4 vs 29.5 years; P < .01), had a slightly higher body mass index (24.6 vs 23.0; P < .01), had hips with a higher Tönnis grade (grade 1 or 2: 25% vs 9%; P < .01), had higher preoperative pain scores (49.9 vs 41.5; P = .01), and had hips with more severe pathology (68% vs 5%; P < .01) as compared with patients with labral repair hips. Five (5%) labral repair hips and 5 (8%) labral reconstruction hips failed treatment ( P = .48). Among hips that did not fail (n = 94 repairs, n = 58 reconstructions), all demonstrated statistically significant improvements in PROs, and there was no statistical difference in PROs between groups after weighting ( P > .05). Conclusion: Primary circumferential labral reconstruction is a viable treatment option with promising short-term outcomes for hips that demonstrate moderate or severe labral damage. Despite less favorable preoperative characteristics, labral reconstruction offers similar outcomes when compared with labral repair in hips with less severe pathology.

Prospective Randomized Comparison of Capsular Management Techniques During Hip Arthroscopy

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 395-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kostas J. Economopoulos ◽  
Anikar Chhabra ◽  
Christopher Kweon
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Management Technique ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Radiographic Measurements ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Management Techniques

Background: Capsular management during hip arthroscopy remains controversial. Studies evaluating this topic consist mostly of retrospective comparative reviews of prospectively gathered data on a large series of patients. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to perform a prospective randomized trial to comparatively assess 3 commonly performed capsular management techniques. It was hypothesized that capsular closure during hip arthroscopy would result in superior outcomes when compared with unclosed capsulotomy management techniques. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients (N = 150) who had hip arthroscopy with labral repairs and femoral osteoplasties performed by the senior author were randomly assigned into 3 groups at the time of their surgery: T-capsulotomy without closure (TC), interportal capsulotomy without closure (IC), and interportal capsulotomy with closure (CC). All patients underwent labral repair and femoral osteoplasty. Patient-reported outcomes were obtained preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Other outcomes obtained included the need for future hip surgery. Results: Patient demographics, preoperative patient-reported outcomes, and radiographic measurements were similar among all 3 groups. Revision hip arthroscopy was performed in 5 TC cases, 2 IC cases, and 1 CC case ( P = .17). Conversion to hip arthroplasty occurred in 4 patients in the TC group and none in the IC and CC groups ( P = .02). The CC group showed higher modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) at the 2-year follow-up when compared with the IC group ( P = .003 and P < .001, respectively). When compared with the TC group, the CC group demonstrated superior mHHS (86.2 vs 76), HOS-ADL (85.6 vs 76.8), and HOS-SSS (Hip Outcome Score–Sports-Specific Subscale; 74.4 vs 65.3) at the final 2-year follow-up ( P < .001). At the 2-year follow-up, the IC group had a higher mHHS (81.7 vs 76), HOS-ADL (82 vs 76.8), and HOS-SSS (71.4 vs 65.3; P > .001) as compared with the TC group. Conclusion: Patients undergoing complete capsular closure during hip arthroscopy showed improved patient-reported and surgical outcomes when compared with those with unrepaired T-capsulotomy or interportal capsulotomy. These results suggest that repair after capsulotomy may be a favorable arthroscopic capsular management technique.

scholarly journals Minimum 5-Year Outcomes of Arthroscopic Hip Labral Reconstruction with Nested Matched-Pair Benchmarking Against a Labral Repair Control Group

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (7_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0043
Author(s):  
Benjamin G. Domb ◽  
Muriel R. Battaglia ◽  
Itay Perets ◽  
Ajay C. Lall ◽  
Austin Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Matched Pair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Labral Tears ◽  
Point Increase ◽  
Patient Reported

Objectives: Labral reconstruction has demonstrated short-term benefit for the treatment of irreparable labral tears. Nonetheless, there is a scarcity of evidence for mid-term outcomes of this treatment. The purpose of our study was to report 5-year outcomes in patients who underwent segmental labral reconstruction. In addition, we compared 5-year outcomes of patients who underwent primary segmental labral reconstruction (PLRECON) with a matched-pair control group that underwent primary labral repair (PLREPAIR). We hypothesized that arthroscopic segmental reconstruction in the setting of irreparable labral tears would show improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and high patient satisfaction at minimum 5-year follow-up. Secondly, PLRECON would experience similar improvement in PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up when compared to a matched-pair PLREPAIR control group. Methods: Data from February 2008 to April 2013 was retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if they underwent hip arthroscopy for segmental labral reconstruction in the setting of irreparable labral tear and femoro-acetabular impingement (FAI), with minimum 5-year follow-up for modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis osteoarthritis grade >1, prior hip conditions, or Workers’ Compensation claims. PLRECON were matched in a 1:3 ratio to a PLREPAIR group based on age ±5 years, gender, and body mass index (BMI) ±5 kg/m2. Results: Twenty-eight patients were eligible for the study, of which 23 (82.14%) had minimum 5-year follow-up. We found significant improvement from preoperative to latest follow-up in all outcome measures recorded: 17.8-point increase in mHHS (P=0.002), 22-point increase in NAHS (P<0.001), 25.4-point increase in HOS-SSS (P=0.003), and a 2.9-point decrease in VAS pain ratings (P<0.001). Average patient satisfaction was 7.1 out of 10. In the nested matched-pair analysis, 17 PLRECON were matched to a control group of 51 PLREPAIR patients. PLRECON demonstrated comparable survivorship and comparable improvements in all PROs with the exception of patient satisfaction. Conclusion: Hip arthroscopy with segmental labral reconstruction resulted in significant improvement in PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up. PLRECON reached comparable functional outcomes when compared to a benchmark PLREPAIR control group, but demonstrated lower patient satisfaction at latest follow-up. [Figure: see text]

Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement in Adolescents: 10-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Travis J. Menge ◽  
Karen K. Briggs ◽  
Michael D. Rahl ◽  
Marc J. Philippon
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated hip arthroscopy to be an effective treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in individuals 18 years of age and older. Long-term outcome data in the adolescent population, however, are limited. Purpose: To report 10-year outcomes after hip arthroscopy in adolescents with symptomatic FAI. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Prospectively collected data were analyzed on adolescent patients younger than 18 years of age who had hip arthroscopy between March 2005 and 2009 with a minimum 10-year follow-up. Patients were included if they were diagnosed with symptomatic FAI and an associated labral tear that was treated with repair. Patients were excluded if they had previous hip procedures, acetabular dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle, <20°), avascular necrosis, previous hip fracture or dislocation, or Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, or refused to participate. The primary patient-reported outcome measure was the Hip Outcome Score (HOS) Activities of Daily Living (ADL) subscale. In addition, the HOS—Sport, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), and patient satisfaction were collected. Failure was defined as patients having to undergo revision arthroscopy. Results: There were 60 patients (70 hips) who met inclusion criteria and had a 10-year follow-up. The mean age of the cohort was 16 ± 1.2 years, with 21 male and 49 female hips. Seven hips (10%) required revision hip arthroscopy. All revisions occurred in female patients and were associated with global laxity as well as longer duration of symptoms before time of surgery. At a mean follow-up of 12 years (range, 10-14 years), patients who did not undergo revision surgery had significant improvements from preoperatively to postoperatively in HOS-ADL (from 64 to 92; P < .01), HOS–Sport (from 40 to 86; P < .01), mHHS (from 56 to 88; P < .01), and SF-12 Physical Component Summary (from 41 to 54; P < .01). The median patient satisfaction was 10 out of 10 (very satisfied). Conclusion: Hip arthroscopy for FAI with labral repair resulted in excellent patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction at a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. There was a 10% rate of revision surgery, which was associated with global laxity and longer duration of symptoms before surgery, which should be considered in patient selection.

An Iliopsoas Impingement Lesion in the Absence of Painful Internal Snapping May Not Require Iliopsoas Fractional Lengthening

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (11) ◽  
pp. 2747-2754
Author(s):  
Mitchell B. Meghpara ◽  
Rishika Bheem ◽  
Samantha C. Diulus ◽  
Philip J. Rosinsky ◽  
Jacob Shapira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Matching Process ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Outcome Tool ◽  
Modified Harris Hip Score ◽  
Pain Patients

Background: Iliopsoas impingement (IPI) has been associated with a distinct lesion on the anterior labrum. Iliopsoas fractional lengthening (IFL) can treat IPI in instances of painful internal snapping (PIS) and mechanical groin pain. Purpose: To report minimum 2-year outcomes of patients without PIS who had an IPI lesion diagnosed intraoperatively that did not undergo IFL (+IPI –PIS –IFL) as compared with a matched group of patients with PIS and an IPI lesion that was treated with IFL (+IPI +PIS +IFL). Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data on all patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy between May 2009 and June 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if they underwent hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement–related pathology, an IPI lesion was diagnosed intraoperatively, and they had minimum 2-year postoperative scores for the following: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), iHOT-12 (International Hip Outcome Tool–12), patient satisfaction, and visual analog score (VAS) for pain. Patients were propensity score matched based on the following criteria: age, body mass index, follow-up time, sex, labral treatment, femoroplasty, and acetabuloplasty. Results: A total of 412 hips were eligible for the current study, of which 336 (81.6%) had 2-year follow-up. The matching process established 37 hips in the +IPI –PIS –IFL group and 87 hips in the +IPI +PIS +IFL group. Both groups experienced significant improvements from presurgery to latest follow-up for all recorded patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The +IPI –PIS –IFL group compared favorably with the +IPI +PIS +IFL group for mHHS (86.0 vs 86.1; P = .53), NAHS (83.0 vs 84.7; P = .40), and HOS-SSS (78.1 vs 76.5; P = .87). Additionally, iHOT-12, VAS, patient satisfaction, and rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference for mHHS, NAHS, and HOS-SSS were similar between groups at the latest follow-up. Conclusion: Patients without PIS who were diagnosed with an IPI lesion intraoperatively and did not undergo IFL had similar and favorable improvements in PROs, VAS, and satisfaction to a matched cohort with PIS who had IFL performed. Thus, an IPI lesion in the absence of PIS may not require IFL.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document