Hips With Acetabular Retroversion Can Be Safely Treated With Advanced Arthroscopic Techniques Without Anteverting Periacetabular Osteotomy: Midterm Outcomes With Propensity-Matched Control Group

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Background: Different options, from reverse (anteverting) periacetabular osteotomy to hip arthroscopy, have been proposed for surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) in the setting of acetabular retroversion. Purpose: (1) To report and analyze midterm patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) in patients with FAIS and labral tears in the setting of acetabular retroversion after isolated hip arthroscopy and (2) to compare these PROs with those of a propensity-matched control group without acetabular retroversion. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS and labral tear treatment between June 2008 and March 2014. Inclusion criteria were as follows: acetabular retroversion, pre- and postoperative PROs for modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Scale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS). Propensity score matching was utilized to identify a control group without acetabular retroversion matched 1:1 with similar age, sex, body mass index, acetabular and femoral head Outerbridge grade, preoperative lateral center-edge angle, and labral treatment. Patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) and/or minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, International Hip Outcome Tool–12, and VAS was calculated. Results: A total of 205 hips with acetabular retroversion were matched to a control group. The groups showed no difference in demographic variables. The retroversion group was composed of 139 female and 66 male hips, with a mean ± SD age of 23.81 ± 7.28 years and follow-up time of 65.24 ± 20.31 months. Intraoperative diagnostic data and procedures performed were similar between groups, except more femoroplasties were performed in the retroversion group. Significant improvements for the mHHS, Non-arthritic Hip Score, HOS-SSS, and VAS were seen for both groups at a mean 5-year follow-up. The proportion of patients who reached the PASS and MCID were similar. Conclusion: In the setting of FAIS and labral tears, patients with acetabular retroversion can be safely treated with advanced hip arthroscopic techniques without reverse (anteverting) periacetabular osteotomy in a high-volume surgeon’s hands. Patients with acetabular retroversion demonstrated favorable PROs at midterm follow-up. Furthermore, the proportion of patients reaching the MCID and PASS for several PROs were comparable with those of a propensity-matched control group without acetabular retroversion.