Revision Hip Arthroscopic Surgery Research Articles

Paper 16: Long-term Outcomes of Primary Hip Arthroscopy: Multicenter Analysis at Minimum 10-Year Follow-Up with Attention to Labral and Capsular Management

Objectives: Hip arthroscopy is rapidly advancing, with literature increasingly reporting positive outcomes at short- and mid-term follow-up; however, available long-term data remains limited. The purpose of this study is to evaluate long-term outcomes of primary hip arthroscopy at minimum 10-year follow-up at two academic centers by describing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and determining reoperation, revision, and total hip arthroplasty (THA) rates. Methods: Primary hip arthroscopies performed between January 1988 and April 2013 at 2 academic centers were evaluated for postoperative PROs including Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Tegner Activity Scale score, Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living and Sport Scale (HOS-ADL/HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), surgery satisfaction, function, and reoperations. Results: Two-hundred ninety-four primary hip arthroscopies with a mean age of 40±14 years; 66% female; and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 27±6 kg/m2 were followed for mean 12±3 years (range: 10-24). Labral debridement and repair were performed in 41% and 59% of patients, respectively. All patients underwent interportal capsulotomy and 2% underwent T-capsulotomy. Eleven percent of patients underwent capsular repair. At final follow-up, patients reported mean VAS at rest of 2±2, with use of 3±3, iHOT-12 of 68±27, NAHS of 81±18, mHHS of 79±17, HOS-ADL of 82±19, and HOS-SS of 74±25. Mean surgical satisfaction was 8.4±2.4 (Table 1). Sixty-five hips (23%) underwent THA and 33 (11%) underwent revision arthroscopy (Table 2). Risk factors for THA included older age (p<0.001), higher BMI (p<0.001), lower lateral center-edge angle (p=0.039), larger alpha angle (p=0.001), higher Tönnis grade (p=0.011), labral debridement (p=0.004), and capsular nonrepair (p=0.030). Patients undergoing combined labral and capsular repair demonstrated a THA conversion rate of 3% compared to 31% for patients undergoing combined labral debridement and capsular nonrepair (p=0.006) (Table 3). Labral repair trended towards increased 10-year THA-free survival (84% vs. 77%, p=0.085) while capsular repair demonstrated significantly increased 10-year THA-free survival (97% vs 79%, p=0.032) (Figure 1). Conclusions: At minimum 10-year follow-up, patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy demonstrated high rates of satisfaction and acceptable outcome scores. In total, 11% of patients underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery with a THA conversion rate of 23%. Conversion to THA was associated with patient factors including older age and higher Tönnis grade as well as potentially modifiable surgical factors including labral debridement and capsular nonrepair.

Hip Arthroscopic Surgery With Chondrolabral Refixation, Osteochondroplasty, and Routine Capsular Closure for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: Clinical Outcomes at a Minimum 10-Year Follow-up

Background: Hip arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) has proven to be an effective surgical intervention, with high rates of return to sport and work as well as favorable outcomes at short- and midterm follow-up. However, limited data exist on outcomes at long-term follow-up. Purpose: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at a minimum 10-year follow-up after primary hip arthroscopic surgery including labral repair, femoral osteochondroplasty, acetabular osteochondroplasty, and capsular closure for FAIS. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS between June 2012 and January 2013 were identified. PROs were collected preoperatively and at a minimum of 10 years postoperatively, including the Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score–Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), International Hip Outcome Tool–12 (iHOT-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and satisfaction. Unique minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds were calculated, and their rates of achievement were analyzed. An alpha level of <.05 was used to determine statistical significance. Results: A total of 94 patients (55 female; mean age, 34.3 ± 12.4 years) were analyzed with a mean follow-up of 10.1 ± 0.3 years (range, 10.0-10.7 years). Patients demonstrated significant 10-year improvement across all PRO measures (P < .001). MCID and PASS thresholds were calculated as follows: HOS-ADL (10.4 and 85.3, respectively), HOS-SS (14.6 and 60.2, respectively), mHHS (8.8 and 76.0, respectively), VAS pain (14.6 and 27.5, respectively), and iHOT-12 (PASS: 71.4). The majority of patients achieved the MCID and PASS for each PRO measure: HOS-ADL (73.4% and 70.9%, respectively), HOS-SS (78.5% and 77.2%, respectively), mHHS (81.0% and 70.9%, respectively), VAS pain (88.6% and 70.9%, respectively), and iHOT-12 (PASS: 73.4%). Overall, 9 patients (9.6%) underwent subsequent revision hip arthroscopic surgery at a mean 4.9 ± 3.7 years (range, 1.1-10.1 years) postoperatively, and 6 patients (6.4%) underwent conversion to total hip arthroplasty at a mean 4.1 ± 3.1 years (range, 0.9-9.3 years) postoperatively. Conclusion: Patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS utilizing contemporary methods of labral repair, acetabular and/or femoral osteochondroplasty, and capsular closure commonly experienced sustained clinical improvement and reported high levels of satisfaction at a minimum 10-year follow-up with low rates of reoperation.

Survivorship, Outcomes, and Risk Factors for Conversion to Total Hip Arthroplasty After Revision Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in Obese Patients: Results at a Minimum 5-Year Follow-up.

There is a paucity of literature reporting outcomes after revision hip arthroscopic surgery in obese patients. To report the minimum 5-year survivorship, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), clinical benefit, and risk factors for conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) in obese patients after revision hip arthroscopic surgery. Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery by a single surgeon between April 2010 and August 2016. Inclusion criteria were a body mass index ≥30 and baseline and minimum 5-year postoperative values for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1 and hip dysplasia. Survivorship was defined as no conversion to THA. Clinical benefit was measured using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Survivors and nonsurvivors underwent further bivariate and regression analyses to determine the predictors of conversion to THA. Included were 24 hips in 24 patients. The mean patient age was 39.3 ± 12.7 years, and the mean follow-up was 83.9 ± 26.5 months. The survivorship rate was 75.0%, and patients demonstrated a significant improvement in all PROs (P < .01). At 5-year follow-up, the MCID for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS was achieved by 70.6%, 94.1%, 92.9%, and 64.7%, respectively, of the patients. Older age, higher grade ligamentum teres tears, and acetabuloplasty were significant on bivariate analysis for conversion to THA, and increased age was identified as a significant variable for conversion to THA on regression analysis (odds ratio, 1.297 [95% CI, 1.045-1.609]; P = .018), with a 29.7% greater risk for every additional year of age at the time of revision. In this study, 25.0% of obese patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery required conversion to THA. The study patients who did not need conversion to THA had a significant improvement in all PROs, with >90% achieving MCID for one or more outcome measures. Older age was identified as a significant predictor of conversion to THA.

Outcomes for Treatment of Capsulolabral Adhesions With a Capsular Spacer During Revision Hip Arthroscopy

Background: The presence of adhesions is a common source of pain and dysfunction after hip arthroscopic surgery and an indication for revision surgery. The placement of a capsular spacer in the capsulolabral recess after lysis of adhesions has been developed to treat and prevent the recurrence of adhesions. Purpose: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship at a minimum of 2 years after revision hip arthroscopic surgery with capsular spacer placement for capsular adhesions. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Between January 2013 and June 2018, a total of 95 patients (99 hips) aged ≥18 years underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery for the treatment of capsular adhesions with the placement of a capsular spacer. Overall, 53 patients (56 hips) met the inclusion criteria and had a minimum 2-year follow-up, forming the cohort of this study. Exclusion criteria included confounding metabolic bone diseases (eg, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, Marfan syndrome), labral deficiency, or advanced osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade 2 or 3). Preoperative and postoperative outcome scores (modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS], Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living [HOS-ADL], Hip Outcome Score–Sport-Specific Subscale [HOS-SSS], 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12], and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]) were collected and compared in addition to the revision rate, conversion to total hip arthroplasty, and patient satisfaction. Results: The mean age of the cohort was 32 ± 11 years, with 32 female hips (57%) and a median number of previous hip arthroscopic procedures of 1 (range, 1-5). The arthroplasty- and revision-free survivorship rate at 2 years was 91%. Overall, 5 patients (6 hips; 11%) underwent revision surgery at a mean of 2.4 ± 1.4 years after capsular spacer placement, with symptomatic capsular defects being the most common finding. There were 4 patients (7%) who converted to total hip arthroplasty. For hips not requiring subsequent surgery (n = 46), there was a significant improvement in outcome scores except for the SF-12 Mental Component Summary, with rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference of 70%, 70%, and 65% for the mHHS, HOS-ADL, and HOS-SSS, respectively. Conclusion: Capsular spacers, as part of a systematic approach including lysis of adhesions with early and consistent postoperative physical therapy including circumduction exercises, resulted in improved PROs as well as high arthroplasty– and revision-free survivorship (91%) at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Capsular spacers should be considered in revision hip arthroscopic procedures when an adequate labral volume remains but adhesions continue to be a concern.

Effect of Anchor Density on Functional Outcomes After Arthroscopic Hip Labral Repair

Background: While labral repair has been widely adopted as the first line treatment for labral injury during hip arthroscopy, there is no widespread consensus on the procedural technique, including the number of anchors that should be used to avoid recurrent instability and revision surgery. Purpose: To determine if anchor density can predict patient-reported outcomes after arthroscopic labral repair in the hip. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients aged 18 to 50 years who underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery with labral repair between January 2011 and December 2016 were identified from a prospectively collected database. Exclusion criteria consisted of previous ipsilateral surgery, osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade >1), and severe cartilage defects (Outerbridge grade III/IV) or concomitant labral reconstruction, capsular reconstruction, or microfracture. Minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes (modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS], Hip Outcome Score [HOS]–Activities of Daily Living [ADL], HOS–Sport Specific Subscale [SSS], 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12]), rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for each score, revision surgery rate, and rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were compared based on anchor density (number of anchors per millimeter of labral tear). Results: A total of 634 hips (575 patients) with a mean age of 30.4 ± 9.5 years (range, 18.0-49.9 years) met inclusion criteria. The mean labral tear size was 31 ± 11 mm (range, 2-70 mm) with a median number of anchors used for labral repair of 3 (range, 1-7) and mean anchor density of 0.11 ± 0.08 anchors (range, 0.03-1.33) per millimeter of labral tear. Hips with a minimum 2-year follow-up (451/634 [71.1%]) had significant improvements on the mHHS, HOS-ADL, HOS-SSS, and SF-12 Physical Component Summary (P < .001 for all). There was no significant correlation detected between anchor density or number of anchors used and postoperative scores (correlation coefficient range, –0.05 to 0.17; P > .05 for all). The rate of revision surgery was 6.4% (28 patients), with 8 hips found to have labral tears and/or deficiency on revision. Additionally, 6 hips (1.3%) had to undergo THA at a mean of 3.6 ± 2.1 years (range, 2.0-5.5 years). Conclusion: Anchor density did not have a correlation with postoperative outcomes, achieving the MCID or PASS, revision hip arthroscopic surgery, complications, or conversion to THA.

Arthroscopic Circumferential Acetabular Labral Reconstruction for Irreparable Labra in the Revision Setting: Patient-Reported Outcome Scores and Rate of Achieving the Minimal Clinically Important Difference at a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Background: There is a paucity in the literature reporting patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after revision hip arthroscopic surgery with circumferential labral reconstruction. Purpose: To report minimum 2-year PRO scores and the rate of achieving the MCID in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery with circumferential labral reconstruction in the setting of irreparable labral tears. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Data were retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery between February 2016 and November 2017. Patients were included if they had undergone circumferential labral reconstruction and had preoperative and postoperative scores for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey physical and mental components (SF-12 P and SF-12 M, respectively), Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey physical and mental components (VR-12 P and VR-12 M, respectively), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, fractures, hip dysplasia, or revision labral treatment different from circumferential labral reconstruction. The MCID was calculated. Secondary surgical procedures were documented. Results: A total of 26 hips (26 patients; 61.5% female) were included. The mean age and body mass index were 33.2 ± 10.4 years and 25.5 ± 4.9, respectively. Significant improvements were reported for the mHHS (17.0 ± 19.5; P = .0002), NAHS (17.9 ± 16.7; P < .0001), HOS-SSS (21.7 ± 23.1; P = .0005), VAS (–2.2 ± 3.0; P = .006), iHOT-12 (25.8 ± 32.5; P = .0007), SF-12 P (8.5 ± 11.2; P = .001), and VR-12 P (8.9 ± 11.6; P = .001). Rates of meeting the MCID for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, iHOT-12, and VAS were 76.9%, 80.0%, 65.0%, 62.5%, and 69.2%, respectively. No case of re-revision arthroscopic surgery was documented, but 1 case of conversion to total hip arthroplasty was documented at 38.6 months. Conclusion: In the setting of revision hip arthroscopic surgery and irreparable labral tears, circumferential labral reconstruction resulted in significant improvements in all PRO and VAS scores at a minimum 2-year follow-up with a high rate of achieving the MCID.

Outcomes of Revision Hip Arthroscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: While the indications for primary hip arthroscopic surgery in treating femoroacetabular abnormalities continue to be defined, the indications and outcomes for revision hip arthroscopic surgery remain ambiguous. However, revision hip arthroscopic surgery is performed in 5% to 14% of patients after their index procedure. While patient-reported outcomes (PROs) generally improve after revision procedures, the extent of their improvement is not well defined. Purpose: To determine the outcomes and efficacy of revision hip arthroscopic surgery in patients who remain symptomatic after their index procedure. Study Design: Meta-analysis and systematic review. Methods: The terms “hip arthroscopy,”“revisions,”“outcomes,” and “femoroacetabular impingement” were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. After screening, 15 studies were included for review. In addition to hip-specific metrics, functional outcome measures were included. Pooled estimates and 95% CIs were calculated using inverse variance methods. Results: A total of 4765 hips in 4316 patients were identified. The most common indication for revision surgery was inadequate bony resection during the index procedure. Meta-analysis showed that all PROs improved significantly from baseline to final follow-up after revision hip arthroscopic surgery. Notably, the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) increased a mean of 17.20 points after revision hip arthroscopic surgery, the Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) improved by 13.98, and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain decreased by 3.16. However, when compared with primary hip arthroscopic surgery, the mean PRO scores after revision hip arthroscopic surgery were lower. After revision hip arthroscopic surgery, the rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty ranged from 0% to 14.3%, and the rates of further arthroscopic revision ranged from 2% to 14%. Conclusion: Inadequate bony resection represents the most common indication for revision hip arthroscopic surgery. PROs improve significantly after revision hip arthroscopic surgery but remain lower than those of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery.

Understanding Preoperative Demographics and Risk Factors for Early Revision Surgery in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopic Surgery: A Large Database Study.

Background:Hip arthroscopic surgery has become an increasingly common surgical technique to diagnose and treat various hip abnormalities. While increased efficacy has been reported, debate remains regarding appropriate surgical indications. Multiple factors including patient demographics, surgical procedure, and underlying disease have been associated with poor surgical outcomes. Preoperative diagnostic and treatment interventions including physical therapy and injections may affect surgical indications and outcomes.Purpose:To identify patient characteristics and preoperative factors associated with an increased risk of early revision surgery and/or extended postoperative medical care after index hip arthroscopic surgery.Study Design:Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:Utah’s All Payer Claims Database, a state-mandated registry containing data from all payers, including private insurance, Medicare Advantage, and Medicaid, was queried to identify patients who underwent hip arthroscopic surgery during a 3-year period (January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015). Demographics, comorbidities, nonoperative care modalities, pain medications, and revision procedures were collected using claims data at 6 months preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively.Results:A total of 1283 patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery were analyzed, of whom 57.6% (n = 739) were female. Within 1 year of index surgery, 7.8% and 2.1% of patients underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), respectively. Patients older than 60 years and male patients were more likely to undergo revision arthroscopic surgery (odds ratio [OR], 0.89; P < .001 and OR, 1.59; P = .04, respectively) and convert to THA (OR, 1.03; P = .01 and OR, 2.25; P = .05, respectively). Preoperative opioid use was significantly associated with increased odds of revision surgery (OR, 1.64; P = .05) and THA (OR, 2.70; P = .03). No significant relationship existed between preoperative physical therapy or intra-articular hip injections and revision hip arthroscopic surgery (OR, 1.20; P = .45 and OR, 1.18; P = .52, respectively) or conversion to THA (OR, 0.89; P = .79 and OR, 0.71; P = .46, respectively).Conclusion:This study showed that predictable patient factors can effectively guide preoperative decision making and may improve prognosis. Certain patient pools require optimization preoperatively, and a subset of patients appears to require additional surgical indications.

Patient-Specific Parameters Associated With Traction in Primary and Revision Hip Arthroscopic Surgery.

Background:Distraction of the hip joint is a necessary step during hip arthroscopic surgery. The force of traction needed to distract the hip is not routinely measured, and little is known about which patient factors may influence this force.Purpose:To quantify the force of traction required for adequate distraction of the hip during arthroscopic surgery and explore the relationship between hip joint stiffness and patient-specific demographics, flexibility, and anatomy.Study Design:Case series; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:A total of 101 patients (61 female) undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery were prospectively enrolled. A load cell attached to the traction boot continuously measured traction force. Fluoroscopic images were obtained before and after traction to measure joint displacement. The stiffness coefficient was calculated as the force of traction divided by joint displacement. Relationships between the stiffness coefficient and patient demographics and clinical parameters were investigated using a univariable regression model. The regression analysis was repeated separately by patient sex. Variables significant at P < .05 were included in a multivariable regression model.Results:The instantaneous peak force averaged 80 ± 18 kilogram-force (kgf), after which the force required to maintain distraction decreased to 57 ± 13 kgf. In univariable regression analysis, patient sex, alpha angle, hamstring flexibility, and Beighton hypermobility score were each correlated to stiffness. However, patient sex was the only significant variable in the multivariable regression model. Intrasex analysis demonstrated that increased hamstring flexibility correlated with decreased final holding stiffness in male patients and that higher Beighton scores correlated with decreased maximal stiffness in female patients.Conclusion:Male patients undergoing primary arthroscopic surgery have greater stiffness to hip distraction during arthroscopic surgery compared with female patients. In male patients, stiffness increased with decreasing hamstring flexibility. In female patients, increased Beighton scores corresponded to decreased stiffness. The presence of a labral tear was not correlated with stiffness to distraction. These data may be used to identify patients in whom a specific focus on capsular repair and/or plication may be warranted.

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.

Hip Arthroscopic Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement With Capsular Management: Factors Associated With Achieving Clinically Significant Outcomes

Background: There has been increasing interest in defining clinically meaningful outcomes in patient reported outcomes following orthopaedic surgery. Little is known about the factors associated with clinically meaningful outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Purpose: To report on a large, prospectively collected consecutive series of patients who underwent comprehensive arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and capsular management with greater than 2-year follow-up. The objectives were to determine (1) what percentage of patients achieve clinically significant outcomes after hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI as determined by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and (2) what factors are associated with achieving the MCID and PASS. Methods: Data from an institutional repository of consecutive patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery with routine capsular closure for FAI that had failed nonsurgical management between January 2012 and January 2014 were prospectively collected and analyzed. Of 474 patients during the enrollment period, 386 (81.4%) patients were available for a minimum 2-year follow-up. Demographics, radiographic measurements, intraoperative characteristics, and patient-reported outcome scores were collected. The primary outcome measure was achieving published thresholds for the MCID and PASS for the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)–Activities of Daily Living (ADL) in patients with FAI. The HOS–Sport-Specific Subscale (SSS), complications, and reoperations were secondary outcome measures. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with achieving the MCID and PASS. Results: At a minimum of 2-year follow-up, the patients had statistically significant improvements in all patient-reported outcomes (HOS-ADL, HOS-SSS, and modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS]; P < .001 for all), with a 1.2% rate of revision hip arthroscopic surgery and 1.7% rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty. The MCID was achieved by 78.8% of patients for the HOS-ADL, and the PASS was achieved by 62.5% for the HOS-ADL. Younger age (P = .008), Tönnis grade 0 (P = .022), and lower preoperative HOS-ADL score (P < .001) were associated with successfully achieving the MCID for the HOS-ADL. Younger age (P < .001), larger medial joint space width (P = .028), and higher preoperative HOS-ADL score (P < .001) were associated with achieving the PASS for the HOS-ADL. Younger age (P < .001), lower body mass index (P = .006), non–workers’ compensation status (P = .020), and lower preoperative HOS-SSS score (P < .001) were associated with achieving the MCID for the HOS-SSS. Younger age (P = .001), Tönnis grade 0 (P = .014), running (P = .008), and higher preoperative HOS-SSS score (P < .001) were associated with achieving the PASS for the HOS-SSS. Overall, 49.4% of patients achieved all 4 clinically significant outcomes: both the MCID and PASS for the HOS-ADL and HOS-SSS. Conclusion: The majority of patients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery with routine capsular closure for FAI experienced clinically significant outcomes that met the MCID or PASS criteria, with low rates of revision and conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Factors associated with these successful outcomes on multivariate analyses included younger age with a normal joint space. Patients with lower preoperative HOS scores were more likely to achieve the MCID, whereas patients with higher preoperative HOS scores were more likely to achieve the PASS.

Minimum 2-Year Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in Patients With Acetabular Overcoverage and Profunda Acetabulae Compared With Matched Controls With Normal Acetabular Coverage

Background: Advancements in instrumentation and techniques have extended the scope of hip arthroscopic surgery to treat complex osseous deformities that were previously best addressed with an open approach. Global pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement is an example of an abnormality requiring osseous correction with a technically challenging access point. Purpose: To report on the patterns of clinical presentation and intra-articular derangements, radiological associations, and minimum 2-year outcomes after hip arthroscopic surgery in patients with a lateral center edge angle (LCEA) >40° and profunda acetabulae in comparison with matched controls with normal acetabular coverage. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were collected on all patients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery during the study period from April 2008 to April 2013. All patients who had undergone hip arthroscopic surgery for symptomatic labral tears not responsive to a minimum of 3 months of physical therapy with both an LCEA >40° and profunda acetabulae, as defined by the ilioischial line lateral to the medial border of the teardrop, and without a history of hip surgery or hip conditions were included. This group was matched in a 1-to-1 ratio with a control group that had also undergone the arthroscopic management of symptomatic labral tears refractory to a minimum of 3 months of physical therapy with an LCEA between 25° and 40° according to age within 3 years, sex, body mass index category, Tönnis grade, labral treatment, and capsular treatment. Range of motion, impingement signs, and radiographic indices of coverage and version were recorded for each group. Four patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores, the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, patient satisfaction, revision hip arthroscopic surgery, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were also recorded. Results: Thirty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria for the study (overcoverage) group, of which 36 (92.3%) patients had a minimum 2-year follow-up; 215 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria for the control (normal coverage) group, of which 183 (85.1%) had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Thirty-six patients were matched in each group using the above criteria. There was no difference with respect to range of motion and impingement signs between the groups. The study group had significantly higher radiological markers of overcoverage but not retroversion compared with the control group. The study group had a significantly higher incidence of Seldes type 2 tears compared with the control group: 50.0% versus 19.4%, respectively (P = .013). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in the mean scores of all PROs, but the study group had a lower magnitude of improvement for all the PROs compared with the control group, with the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) achieving statistical significance: 13.5 versus 21.7 points, respectively (P = .032). The study group had a significantly lower mean patient satisfaction score compared with the control group: 6.61 versus 7.91, respectively (P = .019). The study group also had a significantly higher incidence of conversion to THA compared with the control group: 4 versus 0, respectively (P = .040). Conclusion: Hip arthroscopic surgery for the management of symptomatic labral tears in patients with combined overcoverage and coxa profunda is associated with improvements in patient outcomes and pain at a minimum 2-year follow-up. However, the degree of improvement is of lower magnitude compared with a matched cohort with normal coverage undergoing the arthroscopic management of symptomatic labral tears. While hips with lateral overcoverage combined with coxa profunda may have a smaller potential for improvement compared with hips with normal coverage, this type of osseous morphology is still repairable with arthroscopic treatment.

Do Patients With Borderline Dysplasia Have Inferior Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopic Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement Compared With Patients With Normal Acetabular Coverage?

Background: The literature contains conflicting reports regarding whether outcomes of hip arthroscopic surgery for patients with borderline dysplasia are inferior to outcomes in patients with normal acetabular coverage. Purpose: To assess differences in the outcomes of hip arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in groups of patients with borderline dysplasia and normal coverage. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A registry of consecutive patients who had undergone primary hip arthroscopic surgery with capsular plication for FAI between January 2012 and January 2014 were divided based on the preoperative lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) into 2 distinct groups: (1) borderline dysplasia (LCEA 18°-25°) and (2) normal acetabular coverage (LCEA 25.1°-40°). There were 36 patients in the borderline dysplastic group and 312 patients in the normal coverage group. The primary outcome measure was the Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures included the HOS-Sports and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). Results: The mean preoperative LCEA differed significantly between groups (23.4° ± 1.5° for borderline dysplastic, 32.5° ± 3.8° for normal coverage; P < .001). The borderline dysplastic group had a higher percentage of female patients than the normal coverage group (27/36 [75%] vs 177/312 [57%], respectively; P = .048). There were no differences in other preoperative demographics and radiographic parameters. At a minimum 2 years after hip arthroscopic surgery (mean follow-up, 2.6 ± 0.6 years), both groups demonstrated significant improvements in all patient-reported outcome scores (P < .001 in all cases). There were no significant differences between the borderline dysplastic and normal coverage groups in final outcome scores, score improvements, or percentage of patients experiencing clinically significant improvements. One patient in the borderline dysplastic group (3%) underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery, and none underwent total hip arthroplasty during the follow-up period. There were no differences between the borderline dysplastic and normal coverage groups with regard to subsequent surgery. Female patients in the borderline dysplastic group had greater improvements in the mean HOS-ADL (25.9 ± 16.3 vs 10.8 ± 18.5, respectively; P = .05) and mHHS (27.9 ± 12.9 vs 8.1 ± 19.0, respectively; P = .005) compared with male patients in the borderline dysplastic group, but male and female patients did not differ in outcomes for the normal coverage group. Conclusion: Patients who underwent hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI with capsular plication experienced significant clinical improvements with low rates of subsequent surgery, regardless of whether their acetabulum had borderline dysplasia or normal coverage.

Clinical Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopic Surgery

Background: With the rapid increase in hip preservation procedures, revision hip arthroscopic surgery and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hip resurfacing (HR) after primary hip arthroscopic surgery have become a large focus in the recent literature. Purpose: The primary purpose was to perform a survival analysis in a large mixed cohort of patients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery at a high-volume tertiary referral center for hip preservation with a minimum 2-year follow-up. The secondary purpose was to compare clinical outcomes of primary versus revision hip arthroscopic surgery. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: From February 2008 to June 2012, data were prospectively collected on all patients undergoing primary or revision hip arthroscopic surgery. Patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively with 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 a visual analog scale (VAS). Patient satisfaction was measured with the question “How satisfied are you with your surgery results?” (1 = not at all, 10 = the best it could be). Results: There were a total of 1155 arthroscopic procedures performed, including 1040 primary arthroscopic procedures (926 patients) and 115 revision arthroscopic procedures (106 patients). Of these, 931 primary arthroscopic procedures (89.5%) in 824 patients (89.0%) and 107 revision arthroscopic procedures (93.0%) in 97 patients (91.5%) were available for follow-up and included in our study. The mean change in patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores at 2-year follow-up in the primary arthroscopic surgery group was 17.4 for the mHHS, 19.7 for the HOS-ADL, 23.8 for the HOS-SSS, 21.3 for the NAHS, and −3.0 for the VAS, and the mean change in the revision arthroscopic surgery group was 13.4, 10.9, 16.1, 15.4, and −2.7, respectively. All scores improved significantly compared with preoperatively (P < .001). PRO scores were higher at all time points for the primary group compared with the revision group (P < .05). Mean satisfaction was 7.7 and 7.2 for the primary and revision groups, respectively. Of 931 primary arthroscopic procedures, 52 (5.6%) converted to THA/HR. Of 107 revision arthroscopic procedures, 12 (11.2%) converted to THA/HR. The relative risk of THA/HR was 2.0 after revision procedures compared with primary procedures. The cumulative incidence of competing risks of conversion to THA/HR and revision hip arthroscopic surgery after primary hip arthroscopic surgery was 2.6% and 5.8%, respectively. The overall complication rate was 4.3%. Conclusion: Patients showed significant improvement in all PRO, VAS, and satisfaction scores at 2 years after hip arthroscopic surgery. Patients who underwent primary arthroscopic surgery showed higher PRO scores and a trend toward greater improvement in the VAS score compared with patients who underwent revision arthroscopic surgery. The relative risk of THA/HR was 2.0 after revision procedures compared with primary procedures.

Outcomes After Revision Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in Adolescent Patients Compared With a Matched Cohort Undergoing Primary Arthroscopic Surgery

Background: The incidence of hip arthroscopic surgery is increasing in the young athlete. This has also led to increased numbers of revision hip arthroscopic surgery. Hypothesis/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe the outcomes after revision hip arthroscopic surgery in patients ≤18 years of age in comparison to a matched cohort of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery. Our hypothesis was that patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopic surgery would demonstrate similar outcomes to those patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients were included in the study if they underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery by a single surgeon and did not undergo prior open hip surgery. Each patient in the revision hip arthroscopic surgery cohort was matched with 2 patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery from the same institution. Cohorts were matched by age, sex, and year of surgery. Preoperatively and at a minimum follow-up of 2 years, outcome scores were collected. The primary outcome measure was the Hip Outcome Score for activities of daily living scale (HOS-ADL), a self-reported validated outcome instrument, in addition to the HOS for sports scale (HOS-Sport), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary (SF-12 PCS). Results: Forty-two patients were included in the revision group and were matched with 84 patients in the primary group. The mean age in both groups was 16 years (range, 14-18 years). All female patients in the study were ≥14 years of age, and all male patients were ≥16 years of age. In patients undergoing revision, 13 underwent 1 prior surgical procedure, 22 underwent 2 prior surgical procedures, and 7 underwent ≥3 prior surgical procedures. The mean time from last surgery to revision was 18.7 months (range, 4.7-74 months). Eleven patients (26%) had prior femoroacetabular impingement treated, which required osteoplasty or rim trimming at revision. Subsequent hip arthroscopic surgery was reported in 3 of 84 (4%) patients in the primary group and 6 of 42 (14%) patients in the revision group (P = .162). The mean follow-up in the revision group was 43 ± 17 months, and scores significantly improved (HOS-ADL: 59.6 to 77.6; HOS-Sport: 37.6 to 64.8; mHHS: 55.3 to 74.3; SF-12 PCS: 41.0 to 50.4; P < .05). The mean follow-up in the primary group was 45 ± 18 months, and all scores significantly improved (HOS-ADL: 65.8 to 87.4; HOS-Sport: 46.3 to 79.9; mHHS: 57.5 to 84.2; SF-12 PCS: 39.0 to 51.8; P < .05). At follow-up, there were no significant differences between the primary and revision groups for the HOS-ADL values (P = .051) and SF-12 PCS values (P = .846). Patients in the primary group had significantly higher HOS-Sport values (P = .008), mHHS values (P = .008), and patient satisfaction (P = .008). Patients who underwent 1 prior hip arthroscopic procedure had a higher mean postoperative mHHS value (79.5 vs 72, respectively), HOS-ADL value (91.2 vs 73.4, respectively), and HOS-Sport value (76 vs 60, respectively) (P < .05) compared with those who underwent more than 1 prior procedure. Median patient satisfaction was 9.0 (range, 2-10) in the primary group and 8.0 (range, 2-10) in the revision group. Conclusion: In conclusion, young patients who required revision hip arthroscopic surgery showed significant improvement in patient-reported outcome scores; however, final outcome scores in the revision group for sport activity, general health, and satisfaction were lower than those in the primary group. Patients who underwent 1 revision surgical procedure had higher outcome scores than patients who underwent more than 1 revision surgical procedure.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy

Background: As the number of hip arthroscopic surgeries being performed increases, so too does the prevalence of revision hip arthroscopic surgery. Hypothesis/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes in patients requiring revision hip arthroscopic surgery to patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery. The hypothesis was that patients undergoing revisions would demonstrate similar outcomes to those undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Included in the study were patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopic surgery who did not have a history of prior open hip surgery. Each patient in the revision cohort was matched with 2 patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery. Preoperatively and at a minimum follow-up of 2 years, outcome scores were collected, including the Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living subscale (HOS-ADL), which was the primary outcome variable; modified Harris hip score (mHHS); Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC); Hip Outcome Score–Sports subscale (HOS-Sports); and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF12). At follow-up, scores from the Tegner activity scale and patient self-reported satisfaction with surgical outcome were also collected. Results: A total of 246 patients in the revision cohort were matched with 492 patients in the primary cohort. In the revision cohort, 183 patients had 1 prior surgery, 45 had 2 surgeries, and 18 had ≥3 prior surgeries. Subsequent hip arthroscopic surgery was reported in 39 of 492 (8%) patients in the primary cohort and 5 of 246 (2%) patients in the revision cohort (P = .001). Subsequent surgery was reported in 50 of 492 (10%) patients in the primary cohort and 15 of 246 (6%) patients in the revision cohort (P = .07). Both groups saw significant improvement in outcome scores from preoperation to follow-up. The HOS-ADL was lower in the revision cohort preoperatively (65 vs 70) and postoperatively (79 vs 87) (P = .001). This was also seen in the HOS-Sports, WOMAC, and SF12 physical component scores. Patients who had 1 prior hip arthroscopic procedure had higher postoperative mHHS (81 vs 75) compared with patients with >1 hip arthroscopic procedure; however, there was no difference in postoperative mHHS between the single-revision cohort and the primary cohort. In the revision group, patients whose HOS-ADL improved ≥10 points had greater joint space. Patients with greater improvement were more likely to have had a previous labral tear that was not repaired and to require capsular plication at revision. Conclusion: Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery had significant improvement in outcome scores but did have lower scores compared with patients with primary hip arthroscopies. Patients with ≥2 revisions had lower outcomes. Improvement in the revision cohort was seen in patients with increased joint space, no prior labral repair, and capsular plication at revision.

Arthroscopic Capsular Repair for Symptomatic Hip Instability After Previous Hip Arthroscopic Surgery

Background: Management of the hip capsule has been a topic of recent debate in hip arthroscopic surgery. Postoperative instability after hip arthroscopic surgery has been reported and can lead to poor outcomes. Purpose: To determine the outcome of patients diagnosed with symptomatic instability after hip arthroscopic surgery at a minimum of 12 months and 24 months after revision surgery for capsular repair. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: In a cohort of approximately 1100 patients who underwent hip arthroscopic surgery, 33 patients (33 hips) developed symptomatic instability requiring a revision surgery. Two patients suffered anterior dislocations following their initial surgery. Radiographs were reviewed to evaluate for acetabular dysplasia. Three patients were lost to follow-up and 10 patients were excluded as they were <1 year out from the revision surgery. A total of 20 patients (18 female, 2 male) completed a preoperative and postoperative modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and Hip Outcome Score (HOS) at a minimum of 12 months. Eleven of these patients had a minimum follow-up of 24 months. All patients filled out a Likert scale of perceived improvement in physical ability at final follow-up. Results: The mean age of the patients was 29.7 years (range, 15.2-55.5 years). The mean lateral center-edge angle was 25°, and the mean acetabular index was 7° before revision. All patients underwent interportal capsulotomy during the index arthroscopic procedure. After their index arthroscopic procedures, patients had minimal improvement at a mean of 19.1 months postoperatively on the mHHS (from 57.1 to 57.6; P = .423), HOS-Activities of Daily Living (ADL) (from 62.7 to 66.4; P = .260), and HOS-Sports (from 42.0 to 39.1; P = .800). For the patients with a minimum 1-year follow-up after revision surgery (n = 20; mean follow-up, 21.3 months), the mean mHHS (from 57.6 preoperatively to 85.8 at final follow-up; P < .001), HOS-ADL (from 66.4 to 85.7; P < .001), and HOS-Sports (from 39.1 to 79.8; P < .001) all improved significantly. The results were similar when looking at only the patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up after revision surgery (n = 11; mean follow-up, 26.1 months); the mean mHHS (from 56.0 preoperatively to 91.5 at final follow-up; P = .001), HOS-ADL (from 68.3 to 89.9; P = .009), and HOS-Sports (from 35.7 to 87.9; P = .001) all improved significantly. When comparing patients with isolated capsular repair to those with additional procedures performed, there were no differences between the groups (all P > .05). At final follow-up, all but 1 patient had improved overall physical ability levels. Conclusion: Revision hip arthroscopic surgery for capsular repair in patients with symptomatic instability after hip arthroscopic surgery provides good functional outcomes at a minimum of 1 and 2 years postoperatively.

Revision hip arthroscopic surgery: outcome at three years

This study describes the medium-term results of revision hip arthroscopy. Patients with persistent hip pain and a positive impingement sign were considered for revision surgery after the exclusion of other causes of groin pain. Seventy-four consecutive patients were prospectively assessed using the modified Harris hip score for a period of 3 years after surgery. Of the 74 patients, 11 had inadequate follow-up data; thus, a total of 63 patients were qualified for the study. The mean age at index surgery was 37 years, comprising 27 males and 36 females. Revision surgery was performed at a mean of 3 years from index surgery. Chondral lesion associated with labral re-injury was the most common finding at revision arthroscopy. In contrast to other authors, however, only 31 % of our patients underwent revision for persistent femoroacetabular impingement. The mean pre-operative mHHS for all 63 patients was 54 (SD 14.5). The mean post-operative mHHS was 53 (SD 14.9) at 6 weeks, 62 (SD 17.5) at 6 months, 63 (SD 16.5) at 1 year, 64 (SD 16.5) at 2 years and 59 (SD 16.5) at 3 years (p = n.s., 0.02, 0.045, 0.039 and n.s., respectively). Revision arthroscopy results in improvement in outcome in the first 3 years after revision surgery with a success rate of 63.4 % at 1 year, falling to 55.6 % by 3 years.