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 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.

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 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]

Revision Hip Arthroscopy in High-Level Athletes: Minimum 2-Year Outcomes Comparison to a Propensity-Matched Primary Hip Arthroscopy Control Group

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110417
Author(s):  
Peter F. Monahan ◽  
Andrew E. Jimenez ◽  
Jade S. Owens ◽  
Benjamin R. Saks ◽  
David R. Maldonado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Matched Control ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Matched Control Group ◽  
Functional Scores ◽  
High Level

Background: Outcomes of revision hip arthroscopy in the athletic population have not been well established. Purpose: (1) To report clinical outcomes for high-level athletes undergoing revision hip arthroscopy in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) or labral tears and (2) to compare these outcomes against a propensity-matched group of high-level athletes undergoing primary hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data for professional, college, and high school athletes were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed between January 2012 and October 2018. Patients were included if they underwent revision or primary hip arthroscopy and had preoperative and minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores for modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. The findings and outcomes of revision athletes were compared with a propensity-matched control group of high-level athletes undergoing primary hip arthroscopy. Results: A total of 32 hips (29 patients) undergoing revision hip arthroscopy and 92 hips (88 patients) undergoing primary hip arthroscopy were included in our final analysis with a median follow-up time of 29.5 months (95% CI, 27.2-32.1 months) and 36.5 months (95% CI, 33.5-37.7 months), respectively. Athletes undergoing revision surgery showed significant improvement in all recorded PRO measurements and achieved patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for mHHS at high rates (80.6% and 83.9%, respectively). When compared with a propensity-matched primary control group, patients undergoing revision surgery demonstrated lower preoperative and postoperative scores for mHHS, NAHS, and HOS-SSS, but the magnitude of improvement in functional scores was similar between groups. Athletes undergoing revision surgery achieved PASS for HOS-SSS at lower rates than the control group ( P = .005), and they were less likely to attempt to return to sport compared with the control group (62.5% vs 87.0%; P < .01). Conclusion: Revision hip arthroscopy is a viable treatment option to improve PROs in high-level athletes at minimum 2-year follow-up. The study group showed significant improvement in functional scores and a high rate of successful outcomes. They experienced similar magnitude of improvement as that of a propensity-matched control group; however, they achieved lower postoperative PRO scores and attempted to return to sport at lower rates.

No Correlation Between Depth of Acetabuloplasty or Postoperative Lateral Center-Edge Angle on Midterm Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy With Acetabuloplasty and Labral Repair

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam M. Johannsen ◽  
Joseph J. Ruzbarsky ◽  
Lauren A. Pierpoint ◽  
Rui W. Soares ◽  
Karen K. Briggs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Center Edge ◽  
Lateral Center Edge Angle ◽  
Resection Depth ◽  
Center Edge Angle

Background: The treatment of pincer deformity in hip arthroscopy remains controversial, with some authors advocating that over resection may risk early joint deterioration. The role of acetabular resection depth and postoperative acetabular morphology on postoperative outcomes has yet to be defined. Purpose/Hypothesis: This study measures the influence of acetabular resection depth and postoperative lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) on minimum 5-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs), revision rates, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty using a single surgeon’s prospective database. We hypothesized that patients with acetabular resections >10°, as measured by LCEA, or patients with postoperative LCEA outside the normal range of 25° to 35° would have lower PROs, higher revision rates, and higher conversion to total hip arthroplasty at midterm follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A total of 192 patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with acetabuloplasty and labral repair by a single surgeon with a minimum 5-year follow-up met the inclusion criteria. Preoperative and postoperative LCEAs were measured on supine anteroposterior radiographs, and patients were divided into cohorts based on LCEA and acetabular resection depth. Cohorts for postoperative LCEA were <20° (dysplasia), 20° to 25° (borderline dysplasia), 25° to 35° (normal), and >35° (borderline overcoverage). Cohorts for acetabular resection depth were <5°, 5° to 10°, and >10° difference from preoperative to postoperative LCEA. Outcome measures included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score, satisfaction scores, revision rates, and conversion to arthroplasty rates. Results: Patients significantly improved in all outcome score measures at final follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in PRO scores or conversion to total hip arthroplasty between any cohorts in the postoperative LCEA group. There were more revisions in the 25° to 35° cohort than the other cohorts ( P = .02). The 5-10° resection depth cohort demonstrated a higher postoperative WOMAC score ( P = .03), but otherwise no statistically significant differences were seen between resection depth cohorts in the remaining postoperative outcomes scores, revision rates, or conversion to total hip arthroplasty rates. Conclusion: Patients with postoperative LCEA values outside the normal reference range and with large resections perform similar to those with normal postoperative LCEA values and smaller resections at a minimum 5-year follow-up.

scholarly journals Across the Spectrum from Borderline Dysplasia to Global Pincer Femoroacetabular Impingement: Arthroscopic Outcomes from a Large Hip Arthroscopy Study Group

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (7_suppl6) ◽  
pp. 2325967120S0034
Author(s):  
Benjamin Kivlan ◽  
Shane Nho ◽  
Andrew Wolff ◽  
John Salvo ◽  
John Christoforetti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
Acetabular Coverage ◽  
Repeated Measures Anova ◽  
Edge Angle ◽  
Center Edge ◽  
Lateral Center Edge Angle ◽  
Center Edge Angle ◽  
Acetabular Overcoverage

Objectives: Outcomes from hip arthroscopy for dysplasia and global pincer FAI have fallen short of those for patients with normal acetabular coverage, but no study has investigated arthroscopic outcomes across the spectrum of acetabular coverage. Our objective is to report comparative hip arthroscopic outcomes of patients with low (borderline dysplasia), normal, and high (global pincer FAI) lateral acetabular coverage. Methods: A retrospective analysis of prospectively-collected data from a large multi-center registry (seven United States centers) was performed. Primary hip arthroscopy patients were assigned to one of three groups based on preoperative lateral center-edge angle (LCEA): borderline dysplasia (≤25°), normal (26-38°), and pincer FAI (≥39°). Repeated measures ANOVA compared pre-operative to 2-year minimum post-operative iHOT-12 scores. Subsequent ANOVA determined the effect of acetabular coverage on magnitude of change in scores. Results: Of 437 patients, the only statistical difference between groups was lower prevalence of acetabuloplasty in the borderline dysplasia group (p=0.001). A significant improvement in the pre-operative to post-operative iHOT-12 scores for patients with normal acetabular coverage, acetabular undercoverage, and acetabular overcoverage was observed; F(1, 339)=311.06; p<0.001, with no statistical differences in pre-operative (p=0.505) and post-operative (p<0.488) iHOT-12 scores when comparing the groups based on acetabular coverage. Mean iHOT-12 scores increased from 37.3 pre-operatively to 68.7 postoperatively, p<0.001, in the borderline dysplasia group, from 34.4 to 72, p<0.001, in the normal coverage group, and from 35.3 to 69.4, p<0.001, in the pincer group. These pre-operative scores increased by 31.4, 37.8, and 34.1, respectively, with no effect for acetabular coverage on the magnitude of change from pre-operative to post-operative iHOT-12 scores, F(2,339) =1.18; p=0.310. 10 subjects (2.3%) underwent conversion arthroplasty and 19 patients (4.4%) underwent revision arthroscopy with no significant effect of acetabular coverage on the incidence of revision or conversion surgery, X2 (6,433)=11.535, P = 0.073. Conclusion: Lateral acetabular coverage did not influence outcomes from primary hip arthroscopy performed in patients with low (borderline dysplasia), normal, and high (global pincer FAI) LCEA. Borderline dysplasia and moderate global pincer FAI with no or minimal osteoarthritis do not compromise successful 2-year minimum outcomes or survivorship following primary hip arthroscopy when performed by experienced surgeons.

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.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy in the Borderline Dysplastic Population: Reporting Outcomes With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up, With a Subanalysis Against a Propensity-Matched Nondysplastic Control Group

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Maldonado ◽  
Cynthia Kyin ◽  
Jacob Shapira ◽  
Philip J. Rosinsky ◽  
Mitchell B. Meghpara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Matched Control ◽  
Arthroscopic Surgery ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Matched Control Group ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Hip arthroscopy in patients with borderline dysplasia continues to be surrounded by controversy. Even more controversial is the management of the failed hip arthroscopy in this population. There is a paucity of studies in contemporary literature regarding outcomes after arthroscopic revision surgery. Purpose: (1) To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores in patients with borderline dysplasia who underwent revision hip arthroscopy and (2) to compare these PRO scores with those of a propensity-matched control group without dysplasia who underwent revision hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were prospectively collected between August 2009 and November 2017. Inclusion criteria were revision arthroscopic surgery, capsular plication, and baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up for the following PROs: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patients with Tönnis grade >1 or previous hip conditions were excluded. Two groups were created: a study group with borderline dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA], 18°-25°) and a control group without dysplasia (LCEA, 25°-40°). Groups were propensity-matched in a 1:3 ratio for sex, age, body mass index, and follow-up time. Results: A total of 22 revision borderline dysplastic hips (21 patients) had a minimum 2-year follow-up during the study period. Patients in this group reported significant improvements for all PROs from baseline and achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the mHHS at a rate of 70%. Moreover, 21 borderline dysplastic hips (21 patients) were matched to 63 control hips (63 patients). Mean LCEA for the study and control groups was 22.6 ± 1.7 and 32.0 ± 5.0, respectively. Both groups reported similar improvement in all PROs. The rate for achieving the MCID for the mHHS and VAS was similar between groups; however, the control group had higher rates of meeting the MCID for the HOS-SSS and NAHS ( P = .042 and P = .025, respectively). The rates of conversion to hip arthroplasty were 7.9% (n = 5) in the control group and 23.8% (n = 5) in the borderline dysplasia propensity-matched group ( P = .052). The rate of re-revision arthroscopy was 11.1% (n = 7) in the control group and 19.0% (n = 4) on the borderline dysplasia group ( P = .350). Conclusion: After revision hip arthroscopy, significant improvement was obtained for all PROs in patients with borderline dysplasia at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Moreover, outcomes, patient satisfaction, the rate for achieving the MCID for the mHHS and VAS, and the rate for secondary surgery were similar to those of a propensity-matched control group without dysplasia. Nevertheless, there was a nonsignificant trend toward higher secondary procedures in the study group; therefore, arthroscopic revision surgery in the borderline patients should be approached with measured prognosis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document