Residual Femoroacetabular Impingement Research Articles

Radiographic and Dynamic Assessment for Resection of Cam Lesions in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement

Cam-type femoroacetabular impingement is characterized by a pathologic asphericity of the femoral head-neck junction, and arthroscopic femoral osteoplasty is indicated to correct the bony abnormality and restore normal hip mechanics when symptomatic. Residual femoroacetabular impingement deformity after arthroscopy is a leading cause of failure, and it is therefore critical to perform a thorough fluoroscopic and dynamic assessment when addressing cam deformities arthroscopically. The fluoroscopic assessment uses 6 anteroposterior views, including 3 in hip extension (30°internal rotation, neutral rotation, and 30° external rotation) and 3 in 50° flexion (neutral rotation, 40° external rotation, 60° of external rotation), performed before, during, and after the femoral resection. The dynamic assessment includes evaluation of impingement-free range of motion and "end feel" (a subjective description of the tactile feedback during assessment of hip motion), and should be performed before and after the femoral resection in 3 specific positions (extension/abduction, flexion/abduction, and flexion/internal rotation). Although the anterior aspect of the head-neck junction is readily accessed through standard arthroscopic portals with the hip in 30 to 50° of flexion, the posterolateral, posteromedial, and posterior extent of the femoral head-neck junction are challenging to address. The natural external rotation of the proximal femur during flexion and internal rotation during extension can be used to gain posterior lateral and medial access. Antero/posteromedial femoral access can be obtained with >50° of hip flexion with the burr in the anteromedial portal. Posterolateral femoral access is achieved with hip extension with the burr in the anterolateral portal, and further posterolateral access can be achieved with the addition of traction, allowing resection of posterolateral deformities extending beyond the lateral retinacular vessels while remaining proximal to the vessels. This comprehensive intraoperative fluoroscopic and dynamic assessment and surgical technique can lead to a predictable correction of most cam-type deformities.

Poster 221: Revision Hip Arthroscopy Outcomes at an Average 5 year Follow-Up: FAI and Capsular Complications

Objectives: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) has become an increasingly recognized diagnosis contributing to morbidity in the adolescent and young adult population over the past decade. Our ability to treat such pathology with hip arthroscopy has grown in parallel. As the number of hip arthroscopy cases performed annually continues to rise, so will the number of patients requiring revision surgery. Trending outcomes and indications for revision hip arthroscopy is essential to improve surgical techniques, facilitate accurate diagnoses and address pathology appropriately. The purpose of this study was to report outcomes for revision hip arthroscopy and assess if outcomes vary by indication. Methods: A single-center hip preservation registry was reviewed to identify patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy for the treatment of FAI between 2012 and 2019. Patient demographics and primary indications for revision hip arthroscopy were determined, patient reported outcomes were collected preoperatively and at an average follow-up of 5.2 years post-operatively. Results: A total of 239 patients met inclusion criteria for this study. The top 4 primary indications for revision were: Residual FAI 67.8%, instability 14.6%, heterotopic ossification (HO) 4.6% and adhesions 4.2%, trends in indication did not vary over time. On average patients improved significantly from pre- to post-operatively in mHHS 20.4(95% CI: 16.6 - 24.1), HOS ADL 15.0 (95%CI: 11.9 -18.2), HOS SS 23.8 (95% CI: 18.8 – 28.9), iHOT-33 30.2 (95% CI: 26.0 – 34.3), p<0.001. Rates of achieving MCID varied from 62.9%-78.3%, SCB 44.9-56.6% and SCB by absolute value at final follow-up of 32.1-65.9%. In a subgroup analysis, significantly lower pre-operative function was noted in the instability cohort compared to the impingement cohort as measured by HOS SS only, p=0.004. Post-operatively this instability cohort demonstrated significantly worse outcomes as measured by mHHS, HOS ADL and iHOT33. Rate of re- revision arthroscopy was 6.4% and 8.7% of patients required THA or were planning soon. Conclusions: The most common indication for revision hip arthroscopy in the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement remains residual impingement. Capsular complications have significant consequence for function and may represent a subset of patients who demonstrate more dysfunction both before and after revision arthroscopy. Lastly, heterotopic ossification is third most common reason for revision hip arthroscopy underlining the importance of postoperative prophylaxis.

Capsular Complications and Subsequent Instability on the Rise as Indications for Revision Hip Arthroscopy (140)

Objectives:Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) has become an increasingly recognized diagnosis contributing to morbidity in the adolescent and young adult population over the past decade. Our ability to treat such pathology with hip arthroscopy has grown in parallel. As the number of hip arthroscopy cases performed annually continues to rise, so will the number of patients be requiring revision surgery. Continuing to reassess trends in the indications for revision hip arthroscopy is critical to improve primary surgery techniques and accurately address pathology at the time of revision surgery. As such, the purpose of this study is to determine the trends in indications for revision hip arthroscopy.Methods:A single-center hip preservation registry was reviewed to identify patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement between 2012 and 2019. Patient demographics and primary indications for revision hip arthroscopy were determined. Trends in the indications for revision hip arthroscopy were compared.Results:A total of 229 patients met inclusion criteria for this study. Residual FAI in our cohort was the primary indication for revision with 68.1% of cases and remained the primary indication for revision in all years of the study (Figure 1). The second most common indication for revision was instability at 14.8%, third heterotopic ossification (HO) at 4.8% and fourth was adhesions at 3.9% (Table 1). In cases in which instability was present, 39.4% were secondary to traumatic capsular deficiency, 34.2% were attributed to atraumatic capsular deficiency and 26.3% were attributed to borderline dysplasia, Numerous other findings were noted at the time of revision arthroscopy, 100% of patients were noted to have synovitis, in 97.8% loose osteochondral fragments were noted, 90.8% had labral tears, 47.6% had adhesions and 24.5% had heterotopic ossification (Table 2).Conclusions:The most common indication for revision hip arthroscopy in the treatment of FAI remains residual impingement. However, capsular complications are increasingly recognized as an indication for revision hip arthroscopy highlighting the need for careful attention to capsular management, post-operative protection during the healing period, and preoperative recognition of hip instability. Lastly, heterotopic ossification is third most common reason for revision hip arthroscopy underlining the importance of postoperative prophylaxis.

Complications of hip preserving surgery

Preoperative evaluation of the pathomorphology is crucial for surgical planning, including radiographs as the basic modality and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and case-based additional imaging (e.g. 3D-CT, abduction views).Hip arthroscopy (HAS) has undergone tremendous technical advances, an immense increase in use and the indications are getting wider. The most common indications for revision arthroscopy are labral tears and residual femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).Treatment of borderline developmental dysplastic hip is currently a subject of controversy. It is paramount to understand the underlining problem of the individual hip and distinguish instability (dysplasia) from FAI, as the appropriate treatment for unstable hips is periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) and for FAI arthroscopic impingement surgery.PAO with a concomitant cam resection is associated with a higher survival rate compared to PAO alone for the treatment of hip dysplasia. Further, the challenge for the surgeon is the balance between over- and undercorrection.Femoral torsion abnormalities should be evaluated and evaluation of femoral rotational osteotomy for these patients should be incorporated to the treatment plan.Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:472-486. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210019

Intraoperative Guidance for the Surgical Correction of Cam Deformities Using Hip Arthroscopy Based on Alpha Angle Measurement

Residual femoroacetabular impingement syndrome due to incomplete resection of a cam deformity is the leading cause of failed hip arthroscopy. The reliability of the alpha angle has been shown for quantifying cam deformities in femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. An intraoperative navigation tool that provides the ability to compare alpha angle measurements side by side on pre- and post-resection fluoroscopic images has recently been introduced. This tool uses fluoroscopic images obtained in 6 different hip positions. The reliability of these standardized hip positions has been shown by correlation with computed tomography in localization and visualization of cam deformities. The purpose of this Technical Note is to give technical tips about the application of this tool.

Clinical outcomes after revision hip arthroscopy in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) are inferior compared to primary procedures. Results from the Danish Hip Arthroscopy Registry (DHAR).

As many as 10% of primary hip arthroscopies end up with a revision arthroscopy procedure when treating patients suffering from femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). In general, revision procedures are indicated because of residual impingement, but only a few studies present outcome data from revision hip arthroscopy after failed FAIS surgical treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes after revision hip arthroscopy in a FAIS cohort and compare outcomes with a primary FAIS hip arthroscopy cohort and describe potential causes of failure after the primary hip arthroscopy. It was hypothesized that subjective outcomes improve after revision hip arthroscopy although outcomes were expected to be inferior to primary hip arthroscopic outcomes. Three-hundred and thirty-one arthroscopic revision hip FAIS patients were included from the Danish Hip Arthroscopy Registry (DHAR). Patient-related outcome measures (PROM's), Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Scores (HAGOS), Hip Sports Activity Scale (HSAS), EQ-5D and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain, were assessed in the study cohort prior to the primary procedure and at revision and at follow-up one year after the revision procedure. These data were compared with 4154 primary hip arthroscopic FAIS patients. One-year after revision surgery, mean follow-up (in months ± SD): 12.3 ± 1.6, significant improvements (p < 0.05) in all PROMs was demonstrated, but FAIS patients in the primary hip arthroscopic cohort demonstrated significantly higher outcomes, in all PROMs, when compared at one-year follow-up. Scar tissue, residual osseous impingement and insufficient healing of the labral repair were reported as the main reasons for revision surgery. The conversion to total hip arthroplasty was low (6.4%). Revision hip arthroscopy in FAIS patients improves subjective outcomes significantly, although they are poorer than after primary FAIS hip arthroscopy. Main reasons for revision arthroscopy was scar tissue, residual femoroacetabular impingement and insufficient healing of labral repair. Level III.

Findings on repaired full-thickness acetabular articular cartilage defects during revision hip arthroscopy allowing a second look.

Full-thickness acetabular articular cartilage defects (FAACD) are found on most hips with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) with a wave sign in the acetabulum. When not repaired it can produce pain and catching sensation. Multiple arthroscopic techniques for repairing this chondral lesion exist, but only few show the quality of the repair on a second look. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of the repaired cartilage during revision hip arthroscopy (RHA) allowing a second look in patients treated of FAACD. A total of 13 hips with FAACD repaired in the past underwent RHA for ongoing pain. Signs of persistent chondral defects or the ability to elevate the articular cartilage from subchondral bone were evaluated by zones. Those with persistent defects were re-repaired. All patients had FAACD lesions in zones I, II and III diagnosed in the index hip arthroscopy. The most common finding at the RHA was the presence of bone growth or residual impingement. Before FAACD repair, 11 (85%) hips had the wave sign, while 2 (15%) hips had it in RHA. Five (38%) hips had residual delamination in the second look, these patients had residual FAI, were ≥58 years or waited >6 months to be revised. The wave sign was not observed in 85% of the revised hips, indicating the technique was successful in most cases and was not the principal cause of their ongoing pain. This technique achieved the stated goal of stabilizing the articular cartilage seen in the wave sign.

Clinical outcomes and causes of arthroscopic hip revision surgery

Hip arthroscopic surgery has become a common technique during the past decade, leading to an increased number of arthroscopic hip revision surgeries. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes in a series of revision hip arthroscopies to analyse the causes of reoperation in the short to medium-term follow-up. We retrospectively analysed 22 patients who underwent arthroscopic hip revision surgery in our institute. All patients accepted a detailed physical examination and obtained radiographs to measure the centre edge angle, the alpha angle and the offset. Three-dimensional computed tomography was used to evaluate the deformities. The modified Harris Hip Score, visual analogue scale and patient self-reported satisfaction were collected and analysed preoperatively and postoperatively. Our results demonstrated that the modified Harris Hip Score improved from 52.8 to 81.6, and the visual analogue scale decreased from 5.0 to 1.1. Patient self-reported satisfaction was 8.5. In conclusion, patients who underwent arthroscopic hip revision surgery exhibited significant improvement in patient-centred outcomes in the short- to medium-term follow-up, and the outcomes indicated the effectiveness of revision surgery. Residual femoroacetabular impingement and extra-articular impingement are common reasons for arthroscopic hip revision surgery. Misdiagnosis of osteoid osteoma and relapse of synovial chondromatosis are also important reasons for revision.

Early Outcomes After Arthroscopic Hip Capsular Reconstruction Using Iliotibial Band Allograft Versus Dermal Allograft

To compare the clinical outcomes between 2 groups of patients who underwent arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction with the same surgical technique with an iliotibial band (ITB) allograft versus dermal allograft tissue. From March 2013 to October 2015, patients who were 18years of age or older and who underwent revision arthroscopic hip surgery with capsular reconstruction by the senior author were identified. Patients who were younger than 18years old, had a lateral center-edge angle <20° or Tonnis osteoarthritis grade 2 or 3, or refused to participate were excluded. Patients were assigned to 2 groups based on whether an ITB (ITB group) or a dermal allograft (dermal group) was used to reconstruct the capsule. The ITB graft was used initially, then the dermal graft was used when it was available. The dimensions were based on the intraoperative measurement of the capsular defect, and the thickness was 3mm. Other treatments included labral debridement, repair, or reconstruction; treatment of residual femoroacetabular impingement; and treatment of cartilage damage. Clinical outcome scores including the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activity of Daily Living scale (primary outcome measure), modified Harris Hip Score, HOS-Sports scale, SF-12, and Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were compared between the groups in addition to the failure rate (conversion to total hip arthroplasty, revision hip arthroscopy) and patient satisfaction rate with the outcome (range, 1-10). Thirty-six patients (9 men and 27 women) met the inclusion criteria. Each group consisted of 18 patients (18hips) with a mean age of 30.9 ± 9.4years in the ITB group and a mean age of 29.8 ± 9.4years in the dermal group (P= .718). There were no differences in patient demographics, physical examination findings, or imaging characteristics. The procedure failed for 8 patients (4 in the ITB group and 4 in the dermal group), and another surgery was required (P=1.0). Additional surgeries included 3 total hip arthroplasties, 1 periarticular osteotomy, and 4 revision arthroscopies. The mean follow-up time was 25months (range, 18-38months) in both groups (P= .881). At follow-up, the HOS-Activity of Daily Living scale, SF-12, modified Harris Hip Score, and HOS-Sports scale measures were significantly higher in the ITB group than in the dermal group (P < .05). A greater percentage of patients reached minimum clinically important difference in the ITB group for Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and HOS scales with the minimum clinically important difference for HOS-Sports scale being significantly higher in the ITB group (P=.04). Patient satisfaction scores were 8 and 6 in the ITB and dermal groups, respectively. At a mean follow-up time of 25months, hip capsular reconstruction with an ITB allograft results in improved clinical outcomes compared with the dermal allograft. A similar failure rate was noted in both groups, but a greater percentage of patients in the ITB group achieved clinical improvement.

In Search of the Spherical Femoroplasty: Cam Overresection Leads to Inferior Functional Scores Before and After Revision Hip Arthroscopic Surgery

Background: Femoroplasty performed for the treatment of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) has become a common procedure. Underresection may result in residual FAI. Conversely, overresection may disrupt the labral seal, which is responsible for chondroprotective fluid dynamics of the hip. Hypothesis/Purpose: It was hypothesized that cam overresection negatively affects hip function. The purpose was to examine the effect of the accuracy of previous femoroplasty on hips presenting for revision hip arthroscopic surgery. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were prospectively collected for patients presenting for revision hip arthroscopic surgery between June 2010 and August 2014. On the basis of measurements on Dunn view radiographs, cases were divided into 3 groups: overresection (OR group) in which overresection measured over 5% of the diameter of the femoral head, underresection (UR group) in which there was a residual cam lesion (alpha angle >60°), and neutral resection (neutral group). Data collection included the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score–Sports-Specific Subscale, and visual analog scale at presentation and at a minimum 2-year follow-up after revision hip arthroscopic surgery and rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). Results: One hundred thirty hips (120 patients) were included. Twenty hips (15.4%) were classified as the OR group, 16 (12.3%) as the UR group, and 94 (72.3%) as the neutral group. The mean follow-up was 39.6 ± 15.9 months. The mHHS and NAHS values at presentation were lower in the OR group compared with the UR group (50.2 ± 15.5 vs 64.7 ± 19.4 [P = .033] and 48.5 ± 18.6 vs 63.0 ± 19.1 [P = .044], respectively). The mHHS value at a minimum 2-year follow-up after revision was lower for the OR group (66.7 ± 19.8) than for the UR group (81.0 ± 14.5) (P = .031). Conversion to THA was more common in the OR group than in the UR group (30% vs 0%, respectively; P = .024). Fifty percent of cases in the OR group, 69.9% in the neutral group, and 75% in the UR group met the minimal clinically important difference for the mHHS (Δ). The latest mHHS value reached the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) in 35% of the cases in the OR group, 53.2% in the neutral group, and 75% in the UR group. Hips in the OR group had a significantly lower chance of reaching the PASS than the UR group (odds ratio, 0.1795 [95% CI, 0.0418-0.7711]; P = .0209). Conclusion: Cam overresection of more than 5% of the diameter of the femoral head on the Dunn view predicts inferior clinical outcomes compared with cam underresection in this population. Furthermore, overresection predicts inferior outcomes after revision hip arthroscopic surgery and higher rates of conversion to THA.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit After Revision Hip Arthroscopy

To define minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) in revision hip arthroscopy. The modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Hip Outcome Score (HOS), and the international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) were administered to revision hip arthroscopy patients. At 1year postoperatively, patients graded their hip function based on anchor responses. SCB was defined as both a net change and an absolute value. Receiver operating characteristic analysis with area under the curve was used to confirm psychometric values. A distribution-based method was used for MCID. Forty-nine patients were included with a mean age of 29.7 (±8.6) years. The most common indication for revision hip arthroscopy was residual femoroacetabular impingement (FAI; N= 34; 69.4%) followed by capsular management (N= 8; 16.3%). At 1-year follow-up, 34 patients reported feeling improved. Outcome score change corresponding to MCID and SCB net change for the mHHS, HOS Activities of Daily Living (ADL), HOS Sports, and iHOT-33 was 7.9/23.1, 7.9/16.2, 13.1/25.0, and 12.8/25.5, respectively. A higher proportion of patients with residual FAI achieved MCID compared with patients with other diagnoses. On the preoperative HOS ADL, HOS Sports, and iHOT-33, patients scoring below 67.7 (0.78), 55.6 (0.81), and 35.7 (0.73) were significantly more likely to achieve SCB postoperatively. Thirty-four patients (73.9%) were classified as receiving physical function improvement, and on the HOS Sports, MCID was achieved by 65% whereas 43% met the SCB criteria. MCID values ranged from 7.9 on the mHHS and the HOS ADL to 13.1 on the HOS Sports. SCB net change ranged from 16.2 on the HOS ADL to 25.2 on the iHOT-33, whereas absolute SCB ranged from 82.4 on the iHOT-33 to 84.7 on the mHHS. Residual FAI and capsular management were the most common indications for revision surgery with patients who underwent surgery for the former found to be most likely to achieve clinically significant improvement. Level IV, case series.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy After Labral Reconstruction Using Iliotibial Band Autograft: Surgical Findings and Comparison of Outcomes With Labral Reconstructions Not Requiring Revision

To determine the causes of revision hip arthroscopy in patients who underwent labral reconstruction and to compare outcomes of these patients with patients who did not require a revision following reconstruction. Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy after previous labral reconstruction from 2006 to 2014 were included. Patients with less than 2-year follow-up, preoperative joint space of ≤2mm, or who underwent other reconstructive procedures at the time of labral reconstruction were excluded. Each patient was matched by year of surgery, age, gender, and the number of previous surgeries with 2 patients that underwent labral reconstruction but did not require a revision following the reconstruction. Preoperatively and at a minimum 2-year follow-up, outcome scores were collected including the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and HOS-Sports Scale, modified Harris Hip Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC), the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Summary, and the patient satisfaction outcome were collected. Differences between the preoperative and the postoperative outcomes score of each patient in the 2 groups was assessed using the paired t test. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the 2 groups. From 347 patients who underwent iliotibial band autograft labrum reconstruction from 2006 to 2014, 28 hips (8%) in 26 patients (18 females and 8 males) had revision arthroscopy after labral reconstruction. The mean age was 32years (range: 16-64). The mean number of hip surgeries prior to the labral reconstruction was 1.9 ± 1.2. The average time from the last labral reconstruction procedure to revision labral reconstruction was 27months (range: 5-59). Procedures performed at revision included lysis of adhesions (100%), additional femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) correction (50%), ligamentum teres debridement (50%), psoas release (29%), labral augmentation or reconstruction (14%), and others. Following revision surgery after previous labral reconstruction, 4 patients (14%) underwent total hip arthroplasty and 2 (7%) patients required a subsequent revision arthroscopy (age 67 and 23) at 15months and 16months. The average follow-up time was 3.6 years ± 1year after revision following labral reconstruction and after labral reconstruction in the nonrevision group. No significant difference was detected in the outcome scores and postoperative satisfaction between the 2 groups. The HOS-ADL improved 16 points in the nonrevision group and 19 points in the revision group. Patients who underwent revision surgery after labral reconstruction were mostly female, with 2or more surgeries prior to reconstruction, and 14% required THA and 7% had recurrent scarring. In those who did not fail, outcomes significantly improved and were similar with patients who did not need revision. Adhesions and residual FAI were the most common findings during revision labral reconstruction. Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Revision hip arthroscopy: findings and outcomes.

The purpose of this study is to report on the operative findings and the outcomes of revision hip arthroscopy. All hip arthroscopy cases are prospectively assessed with a modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) preoperatively and postoperatively. This study consists of 190 consecutive hips (186 patients) who underwent revision arthroscopy with minimum 2-year follow-up. There were 69 males and 117 females with a mean age of 32.7 (14–64). The mean time from index to revision procedure was 24.5 months (3–146). Common diagnoses included labral tears (102) and unaddressed or residual femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) (49 cam, 11 pincer, and 20 combined). In addition to FAI correction, there were 82 labral debridements, 28 repairs/refixations, and 6 excisions of labral calcifications. Ninety-three underwent various amounts of synovectomy and 21 underwent iliopsoas release/debridement. At a mean follow-up of 46.9 months, 84.5% of patients reported symptomatic improvement. Twenty patients underwent subsequent surgery at mean of 51 months (11 repeat arthroscopy and 9 THA). Among 166 patients who had no further surgery, the mHHS had improved 27.1.8 points from a preoperative mean of 54.5 to 81.6. Patients who underwent treatment of FAI demonstrated a mean mHHS improvement of 25.7 points. Complications included two cases of transient pudendal neurapraxia, one case of transient quadriceps weakness, one case of retroperitoneal extravasation, and one case of perioperative myocardial infarction. In conclusion, for properly selected patients with persistent or recurrent symptoms following previous hip arthroscopy, revision surgery can result in favorable outcomes with an acceptably low complication rate.

Outcomes of Revision Hip Arthroscopy: 2-Year Clinical Follow-up

To evaluate clinical outcomes, pain, and patient satisfaction following revision hip arthroscopy with a minimum2-year follow-up. From April 2008 to October 2011, data were prospectively collected on all patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively with 4 patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: 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 subscales (HOS-SSS). Pain was estimated on the visual analog scale (VAS). Patient satisfaction was measured on a scale from 0 to 10. The number of patients who underwent subsequent revision arthroscopy or total hip arthroplasty during the study period is also reported. Eighty-seven patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy during the study period. Seventy (80.5%) patients were included in our study. Average follow-up time was 28months (range, 20 to 47.4months). In terms of residual femoroacetabular impingement morphology, 45.7% of patients had preoperative alpha angles ≥ 55°, and 7.14% of patients had a lateral center-edge angle ≥ 40°. The score improvement from preoperative to 2-year follow-up was 57.84 to 73.65 for mHHS, 62.79 to 83.04 for HOS-ADL, 37.33 to 54.93 for HOS-SSS, and 55.65 to 70.79 for NAHS. VAS decreased from 6.72 to 4.08. All scores demonstrated statistically significant improvement (P < .001). Overall patient satisfaction was 7.67. Our success rate was 74.58%. Ten (14.29%) patients underwent total hip arthroplasty during the study period. Our hip survivorship was 85.7%. Five (7.14%) patients underwent secondary revision hip arthroscopy during the study period. We found an overall minor complication rate of 10%. Revision hip arthroscopy for all procedures performed on aggregate has improved clinical outcomes for all PROs, high survivorship, and high patient satisfaction scores at short-term follow-up. Patients should be counseled regarding the potential progression of degenerative change leading to arthroplasty and the potential for revision surgery. Level IV retrospective case series.

Capsular Plication for Treatment of Iatrogenic Hip Instability

The most commonly reported reasons for persistent hip pain after hip arthroscopy are residual femoroacetabular impingement, dysplasia and dysplasia variants, or extra-articular impingement. There are some cases in which the underlying osseous pathomorphology has been appropriately treated, and the cause of persistent hip pain can be soft-tissue injuries such as chondrolabral tears or capsular abnormalities. Capsular defects after hip arthroscopy may suggest an alteration of the biomechanical properties of the iliofemoral ligament and lead to iatrogenically induced hip instability. There are a growing number of biomechanical and clinical studies showing the importance of capsular management during hip arthroscopy. We describe the workup, examination under anesthesia, diagnostic arthroscopy, and technique of capsular plication for iatrogenic instability of the hip.

Residual deformity is the most common reason for revision hip arthroscopy: a three-dimensional CT study.

Previous studies have reported residual deformity to be the most common reason for revision hip arthroscopy. An awareness of the most frequent locations of the residual deformities may be critical to minimize these failures. The purposes of this study were to (1) define the three-dimensional (3-D) morphology of hips with residual symptoms before revision femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) surgery; (2) determine the limitation in range of motion (ROM) in these patients using dynamic, computer-assisted, 3-D analysis; and (3) compare these measures with a cohort of patients who underwent successful arthroscopic surgery for FAI by a high-volume hip arthroscopist. Between 2008 and 2013, one senior surgeon (BTK) performed revision arthroscopic FAI procedures on patients with residual FAI deformity and symptoms after prior unsuccessful arthroscopic surgery; all of these 47 patients (50 hips) had preoperative CT scans. Mean patient age was 29 ± 9 years (range, 16-52 years). Three-dimensional models of the hips were created to allow measurements of femoral and acetabular morphology and ROM to bony impingement using a validated, computer-based dynamic imaging software. During the same time period, 65 patients with successful primary arthroscopic treatment of FAI by the same surgeon underwent preoperative CT scans for the symptomatic contralateral hip; this group of 65 patients thus fortuitously provided postoperative evaluation of the originally operated hip and served as a control group. A comparison of the virtual correction with the actual correction in the primary successful FAI treatment cohort was performed. Correspondingly, a comparison of the recommended virtual correction with the correction evident at the time of presentation after failed primary surgery in the revision cohort was performed. Analysis was performed by two independent observers (JRR, OA) and a paired t-test was used for comparison of continuous variables, whereas chi-square testing was used for categorical variables with p < 0.05 defined as significant. Ninety percent (45 of 50) of patients undergoing revision surgery for symptomatic FAI had residual deformities; the mean maximal alpha angle in revision hips was 68° ± 16° and was most often located at 1:15, considering the acetabulum as a clockface and 1 to 5 o'clock as anterior independent of side. Twenty-six percent (13 of 50) of hips had signs of overcoverage with a lateral center-edge angle greater than or equal to 40°. Dynamic analysis revealed mean direct hip flexion of 114° ± 11° to osseous impingement. Internal rotation in 90° of hip flexion and flexion, adduction, internal rotation to osseous contact were 28° ± 12° and 20° ± 10°, respectively, which were less than those in hips that had underwent hip arthroscopy by a high-volume hip arthroscopist (all p < 0.001). We found marked radiographic evidence of incomplete correction of deformity in patients with residual symptoms compared with patients with successful results with residual deformity present in the large majority of patients (45 of 50 [90%]) undergoing residual FAI surgery. We recommend careful attention to full 3-D resection of impinging structures.

Arthroscopic Hip Revision Surgery for Residual Femoroacetabular Impingement (FAI)

Background: There are limited data reporting outcomes after revision arthroscopic surgery for residual femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Hypothesis: (1) Revision arthroscopic FAI correction results in improved outcomes, but they are inferior to those of primary arthroscopic FAI correction. (2) Improved postrevision radiographic parameters are predictive of better outcomes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who underwent arthroscopic hip revision for residual FAI were reviewed. Pathomorphological findings, intraoperative findings, and preoperative and postoperative modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS), Short Form–12 (SF-12), and pain on a visual analog scale (VAS) values were evaluated. Outcomes after revision arthroscopic FAI correction were compared with outcomes of a matched cohort who underwent primary arthroscopic FAI correction. Results: A total of 79 patients (85 hips) with a mean age of 29.5 years underwent arthroscopic revision FAI correction (mean follow-up, 26 months). The labrum was debrided (27 hips), repaired (49 hips), or reconstructed (7 hips). Two labrums were stable and required no treatment. The results of revision arthroscopic FAI correction were compared with those of 220 age- and sex-matched patients (237 hips) who underwent primary arthroscopic FAI correction (mean follow-up, 23 months). The mean improvement in outcome scores after revision FAI correction was 17.8 (MHHS), 12.5 (SF-12), and 1.4 (VAS) points compared with 23.4 (MHHS), 19.7 (SF-12), and 4.6 (VAS) points after primary arthroscopic FAI correction. The mean improvement was significantly better in the primary cohort compared with the revision cohort (P < .01 for MHHS, SF-12, and VAS values). Good/excellent results were achieved in 81.7% of the primary cohort and 62.7% of the revision cohort (P < .01). Greater postoperative head-neck offset (P = .024), subspine/anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) decompression (P = .014), labral repair/reconstruction (P = .009), and capsular plication (P = .032) were significant predictors for better outcomes after revision surgery. Conclusion: Arthroscopic hip revision surgery for residual FAI yielded significantly improved outcome measures, but these were inferior to those after primary arthroscopic FAI corrective surgery. Improved femoral head-neck offset after cam decompression, identification and treatment of subspine/AIIS impingement, labral preservation/reconstruction, and capsular preservation/plication may be paramount to achieve satisfactory outcomes.

Arthroscopic Hip Revision Surgery for Residual FAI

Objectives:There is a steep surgical learning curve when managing femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and residual FAI can lead to continued pain and disability. There is very limited data reporting outcomes after revision arthroscopy for residual FAI.Methods:The records of patients that underwent arthroscopic hip revision surgery for residual FAI based on plain radiographs and 3D CT scans were reviewed. Pre and post-operative structural pathomorphology, intra-operative findings, and pre and post-operative outcomes measures using Modified Harris Hip Scoring (MHHS), SF-12 scoring, and pain on a visual analogue scale (VAS) were evaluated. Outcomes after revision arthroscopic FAI correction were compared to a cohort that underwent primary arthroscopic FAI correction.Results:59 patients (85 hips) underwent arthroscopic revision FAI correction (mean 20.8 months follow-up). There were 98 previous arthroscopic surgeries and 4 previous surgical dislocations. There were 39 males and 46 females with a mean age of 29.5 years (range 16 - 59). 80 hips had residual cam-type FAI, and 64 hips had residual pincer-type FAI and underwent femoral and rim resections, respectively. The labrum was debrided in 27 hips, repaired in 48 hips and reconstructed with allograft in 8 hips. Adhesions were excised for 54 hips. The results of revision arthroscopic FAI correction were compared to 154 patients (169 hips) that underwent primary arthroscopic FAI correction (mean 25.2 months follow-up). The mean improvement for outcomes scores after revision FAI correction was 18.9 points (MHHS, p<.01), 13.4 points (SF-12, p<.01), and 2.2 points (VAS, p<.01) compared to 23.7 points (MHHS, p<.01), 22.3 points (SF-12, p<.01), and 4.6 points (VAS, p<.01) after primary arthroscopic FAI correction. Most recent outcomes scores and mean improvement in outcome scores were significantly better after primary (81.1% good/ excellent results) compared to revision (69.8% good/excellent results) FAI correction (MHS (p>.05), SF-12 (p<.01), VAS (p<.01).Conclusion:With appropriate indications and expectations, arthroscopic hip revision surgery for residual FAI led to significantly improved outcome measures. Outcomes, however, were inferior to those after primary arthroscopic FAI corrective surgery.

Arthroscopic Hip Revision Surgery for Residual FAI: Surgical Outcomes (SS-35)

There is a steep surgical learning curve when managing femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and residual FAI can lead to continued pain and disability. Due to the very limited data that is currently available, the purpose of this study was to report outcomes after revision arthroscopy for residual FAI.

Why Do Hip Arthroscopy Procedures Fail?

Despite the successes of hip arthroscopy, clinical failures do occur, and identifying risk factors for failure may facilitate refinement of surgical indications and treatment. Knowledge regarding the reasons for treatment failures may also improve surgical decision making. We (1) characterized patients whose symptoms recurred after hip arthroscopy necessitating a revision hip preservation procedure or hip arthroplasty, (2) determined the etiologies of failure, (3) and reported the profile of revision surgical procedures. In a prospective database of 1724 consecutive hip surgeries, we identified 58 patients (60 hips) with a history of failed hip arthroscopy. Thirty-seven patients (38 hips) underwent revision hip preservation and 21 (22) hip arthroplasty. Thirty-nine (67%) were female. Demographics, etiology of failure, and type of revision surgery were analyzed. Patients treated with revision hip preservation were younger, had a lower BMI, and lower Tönnis osteoarthritis grade at the time of revision surgery compared to patients treated with hip arthroplasty. Common etiologies of failure were residual femoroacetabular impingement (68%) and acetabular dysplasia (24%) in patients treated with revision hip preservation and advanced osteoarthritis in patients treated with hip arthroplasty. The revision preservation procedures included arthroscopy in 16 (42%), arthroscopy with limited open capsulorraphy in two (5.3%), periacetabular osteotomy in nine (24%), and surgical dislocation in 12 (32%). Residual or unaddressed structural deformity of the hip and underlying osteoarthritis are commonly associated with failure after hip arthroscopy. Thorough patient evaluation with detailed characterization of structural hip anatomy and articular cartilage integrity are critical to the selection of proper surgical intervention and successful patient outcome.