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]

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.

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.

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.

Clinical and Radiographic Presentation of Capsular Iatrogenic Hip Instability After Previous Hip Arthroscopy

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (12) ◽  
pp. 2927-2932
Author(s):  
Dillon C. O’Neill ◽  
Alexander J. Mortensen ◽  
Peter C. Cannamela ◽  
Stephen K. Aoki
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Daily Living ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Hip Instability ◽  
Computer Adaptive Test ◽  
Adaptive Test ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Modified Harris Hip Score

Background: The clinical and radiographic features of iatrogenic hip instability following hip arthroscopy have been described. However, the prevalence of presenting symptoms and associated imaging findings in patients with hip instability has not been reported. Purpose: To detail the prevalence of clinical and magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) findings in a cohort of patients with isolated hip instability and to determine midterm patient-reported outcomes in this patient population. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed patients from 2014 to 2016 who underwent an isolated capsular repair in the revision hip arthroscopy setting. Patients were excluded if they underwent any concomitant procedures, such as labral repair, reconstruction, femoral osteoplasty, or any other related procedure. Several clinical data points were reviewed, including painful activities, mechanical symptoms, subjective instability, Beighton scores, axial distraction testing (pain, toggle, and apprehension), and distractibility under anesthesia. Patient-reported outcomes—including modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score–Sports Subscale, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Computer Adaptive Test, and a return patient hip questionnaire—were collected pre- and postoperatively. Pre-revision radiographs were obtained, and lateral center-edge angle and alpha angle were measured on anteroposterior and frog-leg lateral views, respectively. Pre-revision MRAs were reviewed and evaluated for capsular changes. Capsular changes were defined as follows: 0, normal; 1, capsular redundancy; 2, focal capsular rent; and 3, gross extravasation of fluid from the capsule. Results: A total of 31 patients met inclusion criteria (5 male, 26 female; 14 right and 17 left hips). The mean age of patients was 36 years (range, 20-58 years). Overall, 27 (87%) reported hip pain with activities of daily living, and 31 (100%) experienced pain with sports or exercise. In addition, 24 (77%) had at least 1 positive finding on axial distraction testing. All patients had evidence of capsular changes on review of pre-revision MRAs. Out of 31 patients, 23 (74%) were available for follow-up at a minimum of 3.3 years and a mean ± SD of 4.6 ± 0.8 years. On average, modified Harris Hip Score improved by 20.3, Hip Outcome Score–Sports Subscale by 25.1, and PROMIS Physical Function Computer Adaptive Test by 6.4. Additionally, 20 (87%) patients reported improved or much improved physical ability, and 18 (78%) reported improved or much improved pain. Conclusion: The current study suggests that patients with hip instability demonstrate high rates of pain with activities of daily living and exercise, positive findings on axial distraction testing, and evidence of capsular changes on magnetic resonance imaging. Furthermore, these patients improve with revision surgery for capsular repair at midterm follow-up.

scholarly journals Return to Sport Rates and Functional Outcomes Following Bilateral Hip Arthroscopy in High-Level Athletes

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (7_suppl6) ◽  
pp. 2325967120S0043
Author(s):  
Benjamin Domb ◽  
Cynthia Kyin ◽  
Jacob Shapira ◽  
David Maldonado ◽  
Ajay Lall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Professional Athlete ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
High Level ◽  
Modified Harris Hip Score

Objectives: To determine the rate of return to sport (RTS) in high-level athletes undergoing bilateral hip arthroscopy and report minimum 1-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for this cohort. We hypothesized that RTS rates, as well as sport-specific PROs, will be lower than the rates and scores previously reported in the literature for unilateral hip arthroscopy. Methods: Data were prospectively collected on all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy at our institution from November 2011 to July 2018. Patients were included if they underwent bilateral hip arthroscopy and were either a high school, collegiate, or professional athlete prior to their first surgery. RTS was defined as a patient’s return to competitive participation in their respective sport. Additional PROs, including modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), nonarthritic hip score (NAHS), and Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), as well as complication rates and future surgeries were documented and compared for all patients. Results: A total of 87 patients met inclusion criteria, for which follow-up was available for 82 (94.3%). At latest follow-up, 44 (53.7%) patients returned to sport. Of patients returning, 56% did so at the same level or higher. The most common reasons for not returning to sport were due to graduation/lifestyle change (47.4%) and hip symptoms (44.7%). Patients returning to sport had significantly higher PROs at latest follow-up relative to those who did not return, including for mHHS (93.7 vs. 87.5), NAHS (94.4 vs. 88.2), HOS-SSS (90.9 vs. 78.2) (P < 0.05). Rates of achieving PASS and MCID for mHHS were not significantly different. However, for HOS-SSS, patients who returned had significantly higher rates of achieving the MCID and PASS. Conclusion: Rates of RTS after bilateral hip arthroscopy are lower than those after unilateral hip arthroscopy. When comparing patients that returned to sports and those who did not return, we show that although both groups show a significant improvement in PROs following surgery, those that returned to sport achieved significantly higher scores in all outcome measures. In addition, patients returning to sports showed a significantly higher rate of attaining MCID and PASS scores for the HOS-SSS, possibly attesting to the validity of this score and its thresholds.

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.

scholarly journals Preoperative Symptom Duration Is Associated With Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryce A. Basques ◽  
Brian R. Waterman ◽  
Gift Ukwuani ◽  
Edward C. Beck ◽  
William H. Neal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Outcome Scores

Background: Prolonged disease chronicity has been implicated as a cause of suboptimal clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS), possibly due to disease progression, deconditioning, and the development of compensatory pathomechanics. Purpose: To evaluate the effect of increasing duration of preoperative symptoms on patient-reported outcomes, reoperation, and clinical failure of hip arthroscopy for FAIS. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed to identify all patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy between January 1, 2012, and July 30, 2014, by a single surgeon, with minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patient demographics, comorbid medical conditions, and preoperative outcome scores were compared between patients with preoperative symptoms lasting less than 2 years and those with symptoms lasting 2 years or longer. Multivariate regressions were used to compare Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score Sport-Specific (HOS-SS), and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) between the 2 cohorts at 2 years of follow-up. Results: A total of 624 patients were included, with an average age of 34.0 ± 13.5 years; 235 (37.7%) patients had experienced preoperative symptoms 2 years or longer. Patients with symptoms lasting less than 2 years had statistically significant higher outcome scores than those with symptoms lasting 2 or more years for the HOS-ADL (86.3 ± 16.4 vs 80.3 ± 19.9, respectively), HOS-SS (75.0 ± 25.3 vs 65.1 ± 29.0), and mHHS (79.1 ± 16.6 vs 74.0 ± 18.8), as well as higher satisfaction (82.1 ± 30.7 vs 71.1 ± 31.6) and lower pain scores (2.6 ± 2.3 vs 3.5 ± 2.6). On multivariate analysis, patients with symptoms 2 years or longer had significantly higher visual analog scale–Pain score (β = 0.6, P = .039) and lower HOS-ADL (β = −3.4, P = .033), HOS-SS (β = −6.3, P = .012), and satisfaction (β = −6.7, P = .028) at 2-year follow-up. Patients with longer duration of symptoms also demonstrated less improvement in HOS-SS (β = −10.3, P = .001) at 2 years after surgery. Patients with symptoms for 2 years or longer were significantly less likely to achieve a patient acceptable symptomatic state for HOS-ADL (relative risk [RR] = 0.8, P = .024) and HOS-SS (RR = 0.8, P = .032) at 2 years of follow-up. Patients with symptoms 2 years or longer also demonstrated significantly higher rates of revision arthroscopy (RR = 10.1, P = .046). Conclusion: Patients with untreated, FAIS-related symptoms lasting 2 years or longer before arthroscopic management had significantly worse patient-reported outcomes and higher rates of reoperation at 2 years after surgery when compared with those patients with a shorter duration of preoperative symptoms.

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]

Acetabular microfracture in hip arthroscopy: clinical outcomes with minimum 5-year follow-up

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 649-656 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin G Domb ◽  
Danil Rybalko ◽  
Brian Mu ◽  
Jody Litrenta ◽  
Austin W Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Significant Deterioration ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Outcome Tool ◽  
Modified Harris Hip Score ◽  
Mid Term Results

Introduction: There is a paucity in the literature regarding mid-term results of microfracture in hip arthroscopy. We aim to assess 5-year outcomes of patients who underwent acetabular microfracture for full-thickness chondral lesions as a part of hip arthroscopy. Methods: Between August 2008 and September 2011, data were prospectively gathered for patients undergoing acetabular microfracture during hip arthroscopy with minimum 5-year follow-up. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively, with modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score – Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS). International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) and satisfaction were collected postoperatively. Exclusion criteria included previous hip conditions, or preoperative Tönnis grade ≥2. Results: Fifty three hips were eligible for this study. Of these, 43 (81.1%) hips in 42 patients had follow-up. The study group had a male majority (65.1%) and an average age of 44.4 ± 9.5 years. There was statistically significant improvement in all patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and VAS at follow-up. Patient satisfaction was 7.6 ± 2.6. A comparison of 2-year to minimum 5-year follow-up results identified no statistically significant deterioration in PROs, VAS, and patient satisfaction. Survivorship was 72.1% with 12 patients converted to total hip arthroplasty (THA). 4 patients (10.8%) underwent secondary arthroscopy. Conclusions: In the mid-term, microfracture as a part of hip arthroscopy demonstrated favourable outcomes and 72% survivorship. Careful patient selection is warranted to limit the risk of conversion to THA.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document