Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in the Context of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome, Labral Tear, and Acetabular Overcoverage: Minimum 5-Year Outcomes With a Subanalysis Against Patients Without Overcoverage

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Maldonado ◽  
Samantha C. Diulus ◽  
Jacob Shapira ◽  
Philip J. Rosinsky ◽  
Cynthia Kyin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Center Edge ◽  
Labral Tears ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome ◽  
Age At Surgery ◽  
And Control ◽  
Lateral Center Edge Angle ◽  
Acetabular Overcoverage

Background: Improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been reported in the short term after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and labral tear in the setting of acetabular overcoverage. Yet, there is a paucity of information in the literature on midterm PROs. Purpose: To (1) report minimum 5-year PROs in patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS and acetabular labral tears in the context of acetabular overcoverage and (2) compare outcomes with those of a propensity-matched control group without acetabular overcoverage. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed on all patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS and labral tears between February 2008 and November 2013. Inclusion criteria were lateral center-edge angle >40° and minimum 5-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and the Hip Outcome Score–Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS). Exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions, active workers’ compensation claims, or lack of minimum 5-year outcomes. A 1:1 propensity-matched comparison was made between the study group and a control group without acetabular overcoverage (lateral center-edge angle, 25°-40°) based on age at surgery, sex, body mass index, Tönnis grade, laterality, and follow-up time. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, and NAHS. Secondary surgical procedures were recorded. Results: A total of 54 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria for the study group, of whom 45 (83.3%; 45 hips) had a minimum 5-year follow-up and were matched without differences in age at surgery, sex, body mass index, or follow-up time. The study and control groups demonstrated significant and comparable improvements for the mHHS (mean ± SD Δ, 24.06 ± 24.19 vs 26.33 ± 17.27; P = .625), NAHS (Δ, 31.22 ± 25.31 vs 27.15 ± 17.61; P = .399), and HOS-SSS (Δ, 33.16 ± 34.73 vs 34.75 ± 26.15; P = .557). The rates for achieving the MCID were similar for the study and control groups for the mHHS (76.7% vs 84.2%; P = .399), HOS-SSS (79.1% vs 75.8%; P = .731), and NAHS (81.4% vs 84.2%; P = .738). Need for revision surgery was similar ( P = .748). A lower conversion rate to total hip arthroplasty was reported for the study than for the control group (2.2% vs 15.6%; P = .026). Conclusion: In the context of FAIS, labral tears, and acetabular overcoverage, patients who underwent hip arthroscopy reported significant improvement in several PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up. Moreover, outcomes were comparable with those of a propensity-matched control group without acetabular overcoverage. Furthermore, the rate of achieving the MCID for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, and NAHS was similar between these groups.

scholarly journals Is Hip Arthroscopy Effective in Patients With Combined Excessive Femoral Anteversion and Borderline Dysplasia? A Match-Controlled Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin O. Chaharbakhshi ◽  
David E. Hartigan ◽  
Itay Perets ◽  
Benjamin G. Domb
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Femoral Anteversion ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Edge Angle ◽  
Center Edge ◽  
Modified Harris Hip Score ◽  
Lateral Center Edge Angle ◽  
Center Edge Angle

Background: Appropriate patient selection is critical when hip arthroscopy is considered in the setting of borderline dysplasia (BD). It is presumable that excessive femoral anteversion (EFA) and BD may contraindicate arthroscopy. Hypothesis: Patients with combined EFA and BD (EFABD) demonstrate significantly inferior short-term outcomes after arthroscopic labral preservation and capsular closure when compared with a similar control group with normal lateral coverage and femoral anteversion. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed on patients undergoing hip arthroscopy between April 2010 and November 2014. The EFABD group’s inclusion criteria were BD (lateral center-edge angle, 18°-25°), labral tear, capsular closure, and femoral version ≥20°, as well as preoperative modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale, and visual analog scale. Exclusion criteria were workers’ compensation, preoperative Tönnis grade >1, microfracture, abductor pathology, or previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions. Patients in the EFABD group were matched 1:2 to a similar control group with normal coverage and femoral anteversion by age at surgery ± 6 years, sex, body mass index ± 5, acetabular Outerbridge grade (0, 1 vs 2, 3, 4), and iliopsoas fractional lengthening. Results: Sixteen EFABD cases were eligible for inclusion, and 100% follow-up was obtained at ≥2 years postoperatively. Twelve EFABD cases were matched to 24 control cases. Mean femoral version was 22.4° in the EFABD group and 10.2° in the control group ( P = .01). Mean lateral center-edge angle was 22.1° in the EFABD group and 31.5° in the control group ( P < .0001). Acetabuloplasty was performed significantly more frequently in the control group ( P = .0006). No other significant differences were found regarding demographics, findings, procedures, or preoperative scores. At latest follow-up, the EFABD group demonstrated significantly lower mean modified Harris Hip Score (76.1 vs 85.9; P = .005), Nonarthritic Hip Score (74.8 vs 88.5; P < .0001), Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale (58.3 vs 78.4; P = .02), and patient satisfaction (7.1 vs 8.3; P = .005). There were 4 secondary surgical procedures (33.3%) in the EFABD group and 1 (4.2%) in the control group ( P = .03). One patient in each group required arthroplasty. Conclusion: Patients treated with arthroscopic labral preservation and capsular closure in the setting of EFABD demonstrated significant improvements from presurgery to latest follow-up. However, their results are significantly inferior when compared with a matched-controlled group. Consideration of periacetabular osteotomy or femoral osteotomy may be warranted in the setting of EFABD to achieve optimal benefit.

Achieving Successful Outcomes in High-Level Athletes With Borderline Hip Dysplasia Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy With Capsular Plication and Labral Preservation: A Propensity-Matched Controlled Study

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110210
Author(s):  
Andrew E. Jimenez ◽  
Peter F. Monahan ◽  
Kara B. Miecznikowski ◽  
Benjamin R. Saks ◽  
Hari K. Ankem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Matched Control ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Acetabular Coverage ◽  
Center Edge ◽  
Labral Pathology ◽  
High Level ◽  
Lateral Center Edge Angle ◽  
Center Edge Angle

Background: Return to sports (RTS) rates and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after hip arthroscopy in athletes with borderline dysplasia (BD) have not been established. Purpose: (1) To report minimum 2-year PROs and RTS rates in high-level athletes with BD who underwent hip arthroscopy for labral pathology in the setting of microinstability and (2) to compare clinical results with those of a matched control group of athletes with normal acetabular coverage. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were reviewed for surgery performed between January 2012 and July 2018. Patients were considered eligible if they received a primary hip arthroscopy in the setting of BD (lateral center-edge angle, 18°-25°) and competed in professional, collegiate, or high school sports. Inclusion criteria included preoperative and minimum 2-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris Hip Score, Non-arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score–Sport Specific Subscale, and visual analog scale for pain. Athletes with BD were matched to a control group of athletes with normal acetabular coverage (lateral center-edge angle, 25°-40°). Results: A total of 65 patients with BD were included in the study with a mean ± standard deviation follow-up of 47.5 ± 20.4 months. Athletes with BD showed significant improvement in all outcome measures recorded, demonstrated high RTS rates (80.7%), and achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the Hip Outcome Score–Sport Specific Subscale at high rates (MCID, 90.8%; PASS, 75.4%). When compared with a propensity-matched control group with normal acetabular coverage, capsular plication was performed more commonly in the BD group (93.8% vs 82.7%; P = .037). PROs and RTS, PASS, and MCID rates were similar between the BD and control groups ( P > .05). Conclusion: High-level athletes with BD who undergo primary hip arthroscopy for labral pathology in the setting of microinstability may expect favorable PROs and RTS rates at minimum 2-year follow-up. These results were comparable with those of a control group of athletes with normal coverage.

scholarly journals Achieving Successful Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy in the Setting of Generalized Ligamentous Laxity with Labral Preservation and Appropriate Capsular Management: A Matched Pair Controlled Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (7_suppl6) ◽  
pp. 2325967120S0045
Author(s):  
Benjamin Domb ◽  
Jeffrey Chen ◽  
Philip Rosinsky ◽  
Jacob Shapira ◽  
Ajay Lall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Matched Pair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Sample Population ◽  
Ligamentous Laxity ◽  
Center Edge ◽  
Labral Tears

Objectives: (1) To report minimum two-year PROs in patients with generalized ligamentous laxity (GLL) who underwent hip arthroscopy and (2) to compare clinical results to a matched-pair control group without GLL. Methods: Data from a prospectively collected database was retrospectively reviewed between August 2014 and December 2016. Patients were considered eligible if they received primary arthroscopic treatment for symptomatic labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Inclusion criteria included preoperative and minimum two-year follow-up scores for the following PROs: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Scale (HOS-SSS), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Patients were excluded if they had preoperative Tönnis ≥ 2, ipsilateral hip condition, prior hip surgery, worker’s compensation status, or dysplasia. From the sample population, two groups were created: the GLL group (Beighton ≥ 4) and the control group (Beighton < 4). Patients were matched in a 1:2 ratio via propensity-score matching according to age, gender, body mass index (BMI), acetabular and femoral head Outerbridge grade, and preoperative lateral center-edge angle (LCEA). Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (PASS) and Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for mHHS and HOS-SSS were calculated. PASS was also calculated for International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) as well as MCID for VAS. Significant differences were noted if P < 0.05. Results: 95 patients with GLL were matched to 143 control patients. Age, gender, BMI, and follow-up times were not different (P > 0.05). Preoperative radiographic measurements demonstrated no difference. Intraoperative findings and procedures between groups were similar except for capsular treatment, with the GLL group receiving more plications (P = 0.004). Both groups reported similar baseline PROs and VAS. At minimum two-year follow-up both groups showed significant improvement in PROs and VAS (P < 0.001), furthermore, the postoperative PROs at minimum two-year follow-up showed no difference (P > 0.05) and the magnitude of improvement (delta value) was similar for mHHS (P = 0.93), NAHS (P = 0.809), HOS-SSS (0.398) and VAS (P = 0.824). Moreover, groups reached comparable rates of MCID and/or PASS for mHHS, HOS-SSS, iHOT-12, and VAS. Conclusions: Patients with GLL following hip arthroscopy for symptomatic FAI and labral tears, may expect favorable outcomes with appropriate labral and capsular management at minimum two-year follow-up. When compared to a pair-matched control group without GLL, results were comparable for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS and reaching PASS and/or MCID for mHHS, HOS-SSS, iHOT-12 and VAS.

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.

Importance of Retaining Sufficient Acetabular Depth: Successful 2-Year Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy for Patients With Pincer Morphology as Compared With Matched Controls

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (10) ◽  
pp. 2471-2480 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia R. Brick ◽  
Catherine J. Bacon ◽  
Matthew J. Brick
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Acetabular Overcoverage

Background: Patients with pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement are commonly treated with arthroscopic reduction of acetabular depth as measured by the lateral center-edge angle (LCEA). The optimal amount of rim reduction has not been established, although large resections may increase contact pressures through the hip. A recent publication demonstrated inferior surgical outcomes in patients with acetabular overcoverage as compared with normal acetabular coverage. Casual observation of our database suggested equivalent improvements, prompting a similar analysis. Purpose: To analyze patient-reported outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement in patients with acetabular overcoverage who were matched with controls with normal coverage, as well as to analyze associations with reduction in LCEA. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were collected prospectively from patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up after receiving hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement by a single surgeon. Cases were reviewed to identify those with pincer-type morphology (LCEA >40°) and matched according to sex, age, chondral damage, and surgery date in a 1:1 ratio with controls with an LCEA of 25° to 40°. The surgical goal was to reduce the LCEA to the upper end of the normal range with minimal rim resection, usually 35° to 37°. Radiographic measurements of coverage, intraoperative findings, procedures, and patient-reported outcomes were recorded, including the 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool, Non-arthritic Hip Score, Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, visual analog scale for pain, rates of revision or reoperation, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Results: A total of 114 hips (93 patients) for the pincer group were matched 1:1 from 616 hips (541 patients) for the control group. The pincer group (mean ± SD age, 34.5 ± 12.2 years) did not differ in age, body mass index, or follow-up from controls. LCEA was reduced in both groups pre- to postoperatively: the pincer group from 44.0° ± 2.8° to 34.2° ± 3.5° and the controls from 32.9° ± 3.9° to 31.0° ± 3.0°. No differences in improvement were observed: iHOT-12 improved by 35.7 points in both groups ( P = .9 for analysis of variance interaction) and Nonarthritic Hip Score by 22.3 points ( P = .6). From all eligible surgical procedures, 2-year follow up rates were 2.5% and 2.6% for the pincer and control cohorts, respectively, and 1.2% and 0.3% for conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Conclusion: Arthroscopic management of acetabular overcoverage can achieve excellent results, equivalent to arthroscopy for other causes of symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement. A key finding was smaller rim resections producing a mean postoperative LCEA of 34.2° with a small standard deviation.

scholarly journals Time taken to resume driving following hip arthroscopy

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suenghwan Jo ◽  
Sang Hong Lee ◽  
Se Woong Jang ◽  
Hyun Bai Choi ◽  
Ba Rom Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Driving Simulator ◽  
Driving Performance ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Test Protocol ◽  
Surgery Group ◽  
Time Required ◽  
And Control

Abstract Background Resuming driving is a common concern among patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. The present study aimed to assess whether patients who had undergone right hip arthroscopy presented with poorer driving performance than patients with normal hips and to analyze the time required to regain preoperative driving performance. Methods Forty-seven patients who had undergone right hip arthroscopy and consented to our test protocol were included in this study. Using an immersive driving simulator, the patients were tested for their brake reaction time (BRT), total brake time (TBT), and brake pedal depression (BPD) preoperatively and postoperatively. The first postoperative assessments were conducted when the patients could comfortably sit on the driving seat, and the follow-up assessments were conducted for 6 consecutive weeks at weekly intervals. The patients were divided into the following two groups based on the type of surgery that they underwent: the femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) surgery group and the simple hip arthroscopy (SA) group. Twenty healthy volunteers underwent driving assessments thrice at weekly intervals and constituted the control group. The braking parameters were compared between preoperative and postoperative measurements and among the FAI surgery, SA, and control groups. Results The preoperative braking parameters of the patients who underwent arthroscopy did not differ significantly from those of the controls (p = 0.373, 0.763, and 0.447 for the BRT, TBT, and BPD, respectively). All braking parameters returned to normal in 2 weeks in the FAI surgery group and in 1 week in the SA group. Conclusions Our study suggests that the driving performance of patients who underwent right hip arthroscopy is comparable to that of individuals with normal hips and that the braking parameters may normalize to the preoperative state at 1 week after SA and 2 weeks after FAI surgery.

Achieving Successful Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy in the Setting of Generalized Ligamentous Laxity With Labral Preservation and Appropriate Capsular Management: A Propensity Matched Controlled Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (7) ◽  
pp. 1625-1635
Author(s):  
David R. Maldonado ◽  
Jeffery W. Chen ◽  
Mitchell J. Yelton ◽  
Philip J. Rosinsky ◽  
Jacob Shapira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Body Mass Index ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Matched Pair ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Beighton Score ◽  
Ligamentous Laxity ◽  
Labral Tears

Background: Association among generalized ligamentous laxity (GLL), hip microinstability, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after hip arthroscopy has yet to be completely established. Purposes: (1) To report minimum 2-year PROs in patients with GLL who underwent hip arthroscopy in the setting of symptomatic labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and (2) to compare clinical results with a matched-pair control group without GLL. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data from a prospectively collected database were retrospectively reviewed between August 2014 and December 2016. Patients were considered eligible if they received primary arthroscopic treatment for symptomatic labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement. Inclusion criteria included preoperative and minimum 2-year follow-up scores for the following PROs: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and visual analog scale for pain (VAS). From the sample population, 2 groups were created: the GLL group (Beighton score ≥4) and the control group (Beighton score <4). Patients were matched in a 1:2 ratio via propensity score matching according to age, sex, body mass index, Tönnis grade, and preoperative lateral center-edge angle. Patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for mHHS, Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Scale (HOS-SSS), and International Hip Outcome Tool–12 (iHOT-12) were calculated. Results: A total of 57 patients with GLL were matched to 88 control patients. Age, sex, body mass index, and follow-up times were not different between groups ( P > .05). Preoperative radiographic measurements demonstrated no difference between groups. Intraoperative findings and procedures between groups were similar except for capsular treatment, with the GLL group receiving a greater percentage of capsular plications ( P = .04). At minimum 2-year follow-up, both groups showed significant improvement in PROs and VAS ( P < .001). Furthermore, the postoperative PROs at minimum 2-year follow-up and the magnitude of improvement (delta value) were similar between groups for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS ( P > .05). Moreover, groups reached comparable rates of MCID and PASS for mHHS, HOS-SSS, and iHOT-12. Conclusion: Patients with GLL after hip arthroscopy for symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement and labral tears may expect favorable outcomes with appropriate labral and capsular management at minimum 2-year follow-up. When compared with a pair-matched control group without GLL, results were comparable for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS and reached PASS and/or MCID for mHHS, HOS-SSS, and iHOT-12.

scholarly journals Periacetabular osteotomy with concomitant hip arthroscopy: A case series with 24 months minimum follow-up

Medwave ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (11) ◽  
pp. e8082-e8082
Author(s):  
Cristian Barrientos ◽  
Julián Brañes ◽  
Rodrigo Olivares ◽  
Rodrigo Wulf ◽  
Álvaro Martinez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance Imaging ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Periacetabular Osteotomy ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Resonance Imaging ◽  
Edge Angle ◽  
Center Edge ◽  
Lateral Center Edge Angle ◽  
Center Edge Angle

Purpose To describe patient-reported outcomes, radiological results, and revision to total hip replacement in patients with hip dysplasia that underwent periacetabular osteotomy as isolated treatment or concomitant with hip arthroscopy. Methods Case series study. Between 2014 and 2017, patients were included if they complained of hip pain and had a lateral center-edge angle ≤ of 20°. Exclusion criteria included an in-maturate skeleton, age of 40 or older, previous hip surgery, concomitant connective tissue related disease, and Tönnis osteoarthritis grade ≥ 1. All patients were studied before surgery with an anteroposterior pelvis radiograph, false-profile radiograph, and magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to assess intraarticular lesions, and if a labral or chondral injury was found, concomitant hip arthroscopy was performed. The non-parametric median test for paired data was used to compare radiological measures (anterior and lateral center-edge angle, Tönnis angle, and extrusion index) after and before surgery. Survival analysis was performed using revision to total hip arthroplasty as a failure. Kaplan Meier curve was estimated. The data were processed using Stata. Results A total of 15 consecutive patients were included; 14 (93%) were female patients. The median follow-up was 3.5 years (range, 2 to 8 years). The median age was 20 (range 13 to 32). Lateral center-edge angle, Tönnis angle, and extrusion index correction achieved statistical significance. Seven patients (47%) underwent concomitant hip arthroscopy; three of them (47%) were bilateral (10 hips). The labrum was repaired in six cases (60%). Three patients (15%) required revision with hip arthroplasty, and no hip arthroscopy-related complications are reported in this series. Conclusion To perform a hip arthroscopy concomitant with periacetabular osteotomy did not affect the acetabular correction. Nowadays, due to a lack of conclusive evidence, a case by case decision seems more appropriate to design a comprehensive treatment.

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]

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]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document