Patients Underwent Revision Hip Arthroscopy Research Articles

Does Primary Hip Arthroscopy Result in Improved Clinical Outcomes?

Background: Hip arthroscopy has gained increasing popularity over the past decade. The need to develop metrics to evaluate success and complications in primary hip arthroscopy is an important goal. Purpose: To evaluate 2-year patient-related outcome (PRO) scores and patient satisfaction scores for a single surgeon at a high-volume referral center for all primary hip arthroscopy procedures performed. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: During the study period between April 2008 and October 2011, data were collected on all patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively with 4 PRO measures: the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and Hip Outcome Score–Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS). Pain was estimated on the visual analog scale (VAS), and satisfaction was measured on a scale from 0 to 10. The number of patients who underwent revision arthroscopy, total hip arthroplasty (THA), or a resurfacing procedure during the study period was also reported. Results: A total of 595 patients were included in the study. The score improvement from preoperative to 2-year follow-up was 61.29 to 82.02 for mHHS, 62.79 to 83.05 for HOS-ADL, 40.96 to 70.07 for HOS-SSS, 57.97 to 80.41 for NAHS, and 5.86 to 2.97 for VAS. All scores were statistically significantly different (P < .0001). Overall patient satisfaction was 7.86 ± 2.3 (range, 1-10). Forty-seven (7.7%) patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy, and 54 (9.1%) patients underwent either THA or the hip resurfacing procedure during the study period. The multivariate regression analysis showed that increased age at time of surgery was a significant risk factor for conversion to THA, revision arthroscopy, and change in NAHS <10 points. Acute injury, acetabuloplasty, iliopsoas release, and patient sex were significant for 2 of these 3 types of failure. Conclusion: Primary hip arthroscopy for all procedures performed in aggregate had excellent clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction scores at short-term follow-up in this study. More studies must be conducted to determine the definition of a successful outcome. There was a 6.1% minor complication rate, which was consistent with previous studies. Patients should be counseled regarding the potential progression of degenerative change leading to arthroplasty as well as the potential for revision surgery.

Arthroscopic Acetabuloplasty and Labral Refixation Without Labral Detachment

Background: Arthroscopic acetabuloplasty was initially described with detachment of the labrum to access the acetabular rim for resection, followed by labral refixation. Recent technical improvements have made it possible to perform acetabuloplasty and labral refixation without labral detachment when the chondrolabral junction is intact. Purpose: To compare outcomes for patients undergoing arthroscopic acetabuloplasty and labral refixation without labral detachment (study group), as well as compare this with a group of patients who underwent acetabuloplasty with labral refixation and labral detachment (control group) with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: During the study period, data were prospectively collected on all patients treated with hip arthroscopy. Inclusion criteria for the study group were acetabuloplasty and labral refixation without detachment, performed in cases with an intact chondrolabral junction. Patients were then compared with a control group of patients who had acetabuloplasty with labral detachment and refixation. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively using 4 patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, as well as monitored for revision surgery. Results: In the study group, the preoperative to postoperative score changed from 64.2 to 86.6 for modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 60.5 to 83.8 for Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), 65.3 to 87.3 for Hip Outcome Score–Activity of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), 45 to 75.1 for Hip Outcome Score–Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and 5.7 to 2.6 for VAS. In the control group, the preoperative to postoperative score changed from 61.2 to 84.4 for mHHS, 59 to 84 for NAHS, 62.7 to 86.2 for HOS-ADL, 40.1 to 74.1 for HOS-SSS, and 6.3 to 2.8 for VAS. There was no difference between preoperative and postoperative PRO scores. The preoperative VAS score was lower in the study group than in the control group (P = .04). The control group demonstrated larger mean preoperative anterior center edge angles (ACEA) (33.8° vs 29.5°) and mean alpha angles (60.5° vs 53.5°) than the study group (P < .05). There was no statistically significant difference in the change in PRO or VAS scores between groups. Both groups demonstrated significant improvement from preoperative to 2-year follow-up for all 4 PRO scores (P < .05) and decrease in VAS (P < .05). One patient in the study group converted to total hip arthroplasty. Seven patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy in the study group, and 8 patients in the control group underwent revision hip arthroscopy. There was no difference in revision rates between groups. Conclusion: Treatment of pincer- and combined-type impingement with arthroscopic acetabuloplasty and labral refixation without detachment, when possible, resulted in similar patient outcomes compared with acetabuloplasty with labral detachment. We may conclude that in cases where the chondrolabral junction remains intact, acetabuloplasty and labral refixation without detachment is a viable option.

Evidence of capsular defect following hip arthroscopy

The purpose of this study is to identify the incidence of capsular defects in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy. A radiographic and anatomical analysis of MR arthrograms of patients undergoing revision arthroscopy was performed to assess for the presence of capsular defect. Intra-operative images and findings were reviewed. Patients with persistent cam and pincer lesions were excluded. From October 2011 to October 2012, 25 patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy surgery, and 9 patients met our inclusion criteria. Within this series, all patients had post-surgical capsular irregularities and seven patients (78 %) had radiographic evidence of capsule and iliofemoral defects on MR arthrogram. Gross capsular defects were confirmed at revision surgery in two patients. The findings of this study demonstrate post-surgical radiographic and anatomical evidence of capsular defects in a select group of patients following hip arthroscopy.

Can Microfracture Produce Repair Tissue in Acetabular Chondral Defects?

The purpose of this study was to investigate percent fill and repair grade of microfractured lesions of the acetabulum. Nine patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy for a variety of procedures after undergoing microfracture for treatment of a full-thickness chondral defect of the acetabulum at primary arthroscopy. The size of the chondral defect was measured during primary arthroscopy, and the percent fill of the defect and repair grade were noted at revision hip arthroscopy. Mean time from primary arthroscopy to revision was 20 months (range, 10 to 36 months). The average percent fill of the acetabular chondral lesions at second-look was 91% (range, 25% to 100%). Eight of the patients had grade 1 or 2 repair product at second-look. The 1 patient with 25% fill and grade 4 repair product had diffuse osteoarthritis on the femur and acetabulum at primary microfracture. One patient required total hip arthroplasty 66 months after the index microfracture. In this study, 8 of 9 patients had 95% to 100% coverage of an isolated acetabular chondral lesion or acetabular lesion associated with a femoral head lesion, with grade 1 or 2 appearance of the repair product at an average of 20 months follow-up. One patient who had diffuse osteoarthritis failed, with only 25% coverage with a grade IV appearance of the repair product 10 months after index arthroscopy. Level IV, therapeutic case series.