Repaired or unrepaired capsulotomy after hip arthroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 256-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yipeng Lin ◽  
Tao Li ◽  
Xinghao Deng ◽  
Xihao Huang ◽  
KaiBo Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Narrative Analysis ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Published Evidence

Purpose: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the surgical techniques, clinical outcomes, rates of revision and conversion to arthroplasty and complications between a repaired and unrepaired capsulotomy after hip arthroscopy. Methods: A search of the PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases was performed to identify comparative articles published prior to 10 July 2019 that reported the capsule management strategy and clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy. A narrative analysis and meta-analysis were performed to integrate and compare the results of the 2 groups. Results: 12 comparative studies ( n = 1185 hips) with an average (methodological index for non-randomized studies) MINORS score of 17.45 ± 2.02 were identified for analysis, of which 5 were included in the meta-analysis. The pre- to postoperative improvements in the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score–Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SS), and Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) revealed no significant differences between the repaired and unrepaired groups ( p = 0.40, 0.26 and 0.61, respectively). The risk ratio of the revision rate for the 2 groups was 0.66 ( p = 0.21). Evaluation of the MRI scans and the rate of heterotopic ossification also showed no significant differences. The most preferred capsulotomy techniques were interportal and T-shape. No postoperative hip instability was reported in any of the 12 studies. Conclusion: The currently published evidence is still not strong enough to confirm the superiority of repairing the capsule after hip arthroscopy; hence, routine repair of the capsule during surgery cannot be suggested.

Return to Play After Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (11) ◽  
pp. 2780-2788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaela O’Connor ◽  
Anas A. Minkara ◽  
Robert W. Westermann ◽  
James Rosneck ◽  
T. Sean Lynch
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Return To Play ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Rehabilitation Protocols ◽  
The Mean

Background: The use of arthroscopic treatment for intra-articular hip pathology has demonstrated improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with a lower rate of complications, reoperation, and patient morbidity as compared with traditional methods. Although the use of this minimally invasive approach has increased in prevalence, no evidence-based return-to-play (RTP) criteria have been developed to ensure an athlete’s preparedness for sporting activities. Purpose: To determine if there exists sufficient evidence in the literature to support an RTP protocol and functional assessment after hip arthroscopy, as well as to assess the mean rate and duration of RTP. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The search terms “hip arthroscopy,” “return to play,” and 10 related terms were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, yielding 263 articles. After screening, 22 articles were included. RTP timeline, rehabilitation protocols, and conditional criteria measures were assessed with previously established criteria. Pooled estimates were calculated for RTP rate and duration, and weighted mean scores were determined for PROs. Results: A total of 1296 patients with 1442 total hips were identified. Although 54.5% (12 of 22) of studies did not provide a guideline for RTP duration after hip arthroscopy, 36.4% (8 of 22) recommended a duration of 4 months, while 9.1% (2 of 22) recommended 3 months. The most frequently described postoperative rehabilitation protocols were weightbearing guidelines (15 studies) and passive motion exercises (9 studies). Only 2 studies satisfied the criteria for a sufficient RTP protocol, and 3 provided a specific replicable test for RTP. The mean RTP duration was 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.1-8.8 months), and the return rate was 84.6% (95% CI, 80.4%-88.8%; P = .008) at a mean ± SD follow-up of 25.8 ± 2.4 months. Mean modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) improved from 63.1 to 84.1 postoperatively (+33.3%), while Non-arthritic Hip Score improved from 61.7 to 86.8 (+40.7%). A lower preoperative mHHS was significantly associated with a higher postoperative improvement ( r = −0.95, P = .0003). Conclusion: Significant variability exists in RTP protocols among institutions owing to a lack of standardization. Despite a high overall rate of RTP and improvement in PROs after hip arthroscopy, the majority of rehabilitation protocols are not evidence based and rely on expert opinion. No validated functional test currently exists to assess RTP.

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

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

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

Outcomes of Arthroscopic Decompression of the Anterior Inferior Iliac Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2022 ◽  
pp. 036354652110629
Author(s):  
Andrew L. Schaver ◽  
Steven M. Leary ◽  
Jacob L. Henrichsen ◽  
Christopher M. Larson ◽  
Robert W. Westermann
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postoperative Complications ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Hip Pain ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Anterior Inferior Iliac Spine ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
The Mean

Background: Anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) impingement has been increasingly recognized as a source of extra-articular impingement and hip pain. However, no aggregate data analysis of patient outcomes after AIIS decompression has been performed. Purpose: To evaluate outcomes after arthroscopic AIIS decompression. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried for all English-language studies reporting outcomes of arthroscopic AIIS decompression performed in isolation or in conjunction with hip impingement correction surgery. After screening, 10 articles were included. The indications for AIIS decompression were recorded, and weighted mean improvements in patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores, complication rates, and revision rates were calculated. Results: A total of 547 patients (311 women; 57%) were identified, with a total of 620 operative hips. The mean age was 28.42 ± 5.6 years, and the mean follow-up was 25.22 ± 11.1 months. A total of 529 hips (85%) underwent AIIS decompression, 530 hips (85%) underwent femoral osteochondroplasty, and 458 hips (74%) underwent labral repair. Of the patients, 13% underwent bilateral AIIS decompression. The mean modified Harris Hip Score improved from 61.3 ± 6.9 to 88.7 ± 4.7 postoperatively (change, 27.4 ± 5.7 points; P < .001), the Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living improved from 67.2 ± 10.6 to 91.1 ± 3.2 postoperatively (change, 24.0 ± 8.0 points; P = .001), and the Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale improved from 36.8 ± 19.2 to 82.8 ± 3.8 postoperatively (change, 46.0 ± 18.2 points; P = .002). The pooled risk of postoperative complications was 1.1% (95% CI, 0.1%-2.1%), and the pooled risk of needing revision surgery was 1.0% (95% CI, 0.1%-2.0%). No complication was directly attributed to the AIIS decompression portion of the procedure. Conclusion: PROs improved significantly after hip arthroscopy with AIIS decompression, with a low risk of postoperative complications and subsequent revision surgeries. Failure to identify extra-articular sources of hip pain in outcomes of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, including from the AIIS, could lead to poorer outcomes and future revision surgery.

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

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

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

scholarly journals Endoscopic Gluteus Medius Repair With an ITB-Sparing Versus ITB-Splitting Approach: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 232596712092219
Author(s):  
Emily A. Parker ◽  
Alex M. Meyer ◽  
Jovan R. Laskovski ◽  
Robert W. Westermann
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Visual Analog Scale ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Gluteus Medius ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Surgical Failure ◽  
Coleman Methodology Score

Background: During hip endoscopy, the iliotibial band (ITB) can be split or preserved to access the peritrochanteric workspace. To our knowledge, no comparative studies have been performed to analyze patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and surgical failure rates (gluteus medius retear and/or revision surgery rates) for ITB-sparing versus ITB-splitting approaches in endoscopic gluteus medius repairs. Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to evaluate PROs and failure rates of patients undergoing ITB-sparing versus ITB-splitting repairs of the gluteus medius. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was performed by following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) guidelines and using the PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase databases. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the modified Coleman Methodology Score. Level 1-4 studies were evaluated for endoscopic abductor repair techniques on all types of gluteus medius tears. Given the small number of studies and varying population sizes, all quantitative data were adjusted for study population size. Results: A total of 13 studies met our inclusion criteria, while more granular data, including ITB approach, were available for 8 studies. Because of the paucity of literature on the subject, all included studies were of lower quality per the modified Coleman Methodology Score. The visual analog scale for pain, the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and the surgical failure rates were compared between approaches. Patients who underwent ITB splitting had a significantly greater change in mHHS (45.5 ± 4.6 vs 27.3 ± 6.5; P < .001) and lower surgical failure rates (3.67 ± 2.33 vs 4.75 ± 2.54; P = .04). There was no significant difference in change in visual analog scale for splitting versus sparing (4.26 ± 0.41 vs 4.39 ± 0.14; P = .96). The results may have been biased by between-group differences, such as patients who undergo ITB sparing being significantly younger. Conclusion: Endoscopic gluteus medius repair is a reliable procedure to improve pain and function in appropriately selected patients. This study highlighted the lack of high-quality literature available regarding ITB approach. However, the evidence to date has suggested that ITB approach may influence hip-specific PROs. Splitting the ITB during abductor repair may be associated with a greater improvement in mHHS and lower surgical failure rates. Further prospective comparative studies are warranted to evaluate the effect of ITB approach.

scholarly journals Effect of Capsular Closure After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome on Achieving Clinically Meaningful Outcomes: A Meta-analysis of Prospective and Comparative Studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 232596712110174
Author(s):  
Kyle N. Kunze ◽  
Amar Vadhera ◽  
Annie Devinney ◽  
Benedict U. Nwachukwu ◽  
Bryan T. Kelly ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Femoroacetabular Impingement ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Impingement Syndrome ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome ◽  
Outcome Improvement ◽  
Clinically Significant

Background: Recent literature has demonstrated conflicting evidence as to whether capsular closure after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) results in superior outcomes compared with capsulotomy without repair. Additionally, these studies have not explored the effect of capsular management on clinically significant outcome improvement. Purpose: To perform a meta-analysis of prospective and comparative studies to determine whether capsular management influences the rate of clinically significant outcome improvement after hip arthroscopy for FAIS. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: PubMed, OVID/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were queried in September 2020 for studies with evidence levels 1 to 3 that directly compared capsular management cohorts and reported rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Studies of level 4 evidence, those not describing or directly comparing capsular management techniques as well as those not reporting the MCID were excluded. Methodological quality was assessed using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies tool. Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects models were constructed to quantitatively evaluate the association between capsular management and achievement of the MCID by generating effect estimates in the form of relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs. Results: A total of 6 studies with 1611 patients were included. The overall pooled rate of MCID achievement for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and HOS Sports Subscale (HOS-SS) were 84.4%, 80.3%, and 82.5%, respectively, at a mean follow-up of 40.8 months (range, 24-87.6 months). Capsular closure was associated with a significantly higher rate of MCID achievement for the mHHS (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10; P = .001) and trended toward statistical significance for the HOS-ADL (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.0-1.24; P = .055) and the HOS-SS (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.99-1.21; P = .094). Conclusion: Although capsular closure appeared to result in higher rates of clinically significant outcome improvement in hip function, there was no definitively increased likelihood of achieving clinically significant improvement in relevant hip outcome scores with capsular closure.

scholarly journals Does Capsular Closure Affect Clinical Outcomes in Hip Arthroscopy? A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 232596712096311
Author(s):  
Etan P. Sugarman ◽  
Michael E. Birns ◽  
Matthew Fishman ◽  
Deepan N. Patel ◽  
Laura Goldsmith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: There is increasing concern of iatrogenic hip instability after capsulotomy during surgery. Greater emphasis is now being placed on capsular closure during surgery. There are no prospective studies that address whether capsular closure has any effect on outcomes. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient outcomes after interportal capsulotomy repair compared with no repair. We hypothesized that restoration of normal capsular anatomy with interportal repair will achieve clinical outcomes similar to those for no repair. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: Adult patients with femoral acetabular impingement indicated for hip arthroscopy were randomized into either the capsular repair (CR) or the no repair (NR) groups. All patients underwent standard hip arthroscopy with labral repair with or without CAM/pincer lesion resection. Clinical outcomes were measured via the Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) subscale, Hip Outcome Score–Sport Specific (HOS-SS) subscale, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), visual analog scale for pain, International Hip Outcome Tool, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12). Results: A total of 54 patients (56 hips) were included (26 men and 30 women) with a mean age of 33 years. The HOS-ADL score significantly improved at 2 years in both the NR group (from 68.1 ± 20.5 to 88.6 ± 20.0; P < .001) and the CR group (from 59.2 ± 18.8 to 91.7 ± 12.3; P < .001). The HOS-SS score also significantly improved in both the NR group (from 41.1 ± 25.8 to 84.1 ± 21.9; P < .001) and the CR group (from 32.7 ± 23.7 to 77.7 ± 23.0; P < .001). Improvement was noted for all secondary outcome measures; however, there was no significant difference between the groups at any time point. Between 1 and 2 years, the NR group showed significant worsening on the HOS-ADL (–1.21 ± 5.09 vs 4.28 ± 7.91; P = .044), mHHS (1.08 ± 10.04 vs 10.12 ± 11.76; P = .042), and VR-12 Physical (–2.15 ± 5.52 vs 4.49 ± 7.30; P = .014) subsets compared with the CR group. Conclusion: There was significant improvement in the VR-12 Physical subscale at 2 years postoperatively in the capsular CR group compared with the NR group. Capsular closure appears to have no detrimental effect on functional outcome scores after hip arthroscopy. We recommend restoration of native anatomy if possible when performing hip arthroscopy.

The Influence of Lumbosacral Spine Pathology on Minimum 2-Year Outcome After Hip Arthroscopy: A Nested Case-Control Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 403-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward C. Beck ◽  
Benedict U. Nwachukwu ◽  
Reagan Chapman ◽  
Anirudh K. Gowd ◽  
Brian R. Waterman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Lumbosacral Spine ◽  
Control Analysis ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome ◽  
Spine Pathology ◽  
History Of

Background: Previous literature has examined the association between lumbosacral pathology and hip pathomechanics. However, the effect of lumbosacral pathologies and previous lumbosacral surgery on achieving meaningful outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) has yet to be studied conclusively. Purpose: To determine whether a history of lumbosacral spine pathology has an influence on achieving minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) after hip arthroscopy for FAIS. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAIS by a single, fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeon between January 2012 and April 2017 with minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with a history of lumbosacral spine pathology (eg, lumbosacral fusion, disc or vertebral pathology, or history of lumbosacral fractures) were matched 1:2 by age, body mass index, and sex to patients without spine pathology. Clinical outcomes including the Hip Outcome Score–activities of daily living subscale (HOS-ADL), HOS–sports subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), international Hip Outcome Tool–12 (iHOT-12), visual analog scale (VAS) pain, and VAS satisfaction were compared between the groups using an independent t test. The threshold of every outcome score for achieving MCID was calculated separately for each group and frequencies were compared. Results: A total of 83 of 108 eligible patients with lumbosacral pathology were identified and matched to 166 patients without any spine pathology. When compared with the non–spine pathology group, the lumbosacral pathology group had significantly lower 2-year postoperative outcome score averages across all reported outcome tools (all P < .001). There were significant differences in the proportion achieving the threshold for HOS-ADL (60.6% vs 80.0%; P = .004), HOS-SS (57.6% vs 82.1%; P < .001), mHHS (66.7% vs 81.7%; P = .025), and iHOT-12 (54.8% vs 87.6%; P < .001) scores for MCID when comparing the lumbosacral and nonlumbosacral pathology groups. Conclusion: Patients with a history of lumbosacral pathology achieved significantly lower short-term meaningful clinical outcomes after undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAIS when compared with patients without spine pathology. The present study findings have implications for preoperative patient screening, shared decision-making processes/expectation management, and rehabilitation strategies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document