Search

Purpose: To characterize the risk of revision hip arthroscopy or conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) among patients with a history of lumbar fusion undergoing primary hip arthroscopy., Methods: We used the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System, an administrative database including all ambulatory and inpatient surgery encounters in New York, to identify all patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement between 2010 and 2020. Patients with previous lumbar fusion were identified using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision, coding definitions. Patients with and without previous fusion were matched in a 1:5 ratio according to age and comorbidity burden. The number of levels fused was defined in the following fashion: (1) no fusion, (2) 1-2 levels, or (3) ≥3 levels. Patients were followed for 2 years to evaluate the rate of revision hip arthroscopy or conversion to THA. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to measure the association between number of levels fused and revision hip arthroscopy or conversion to THA., Results: Between 2010 and 2020, there were 23,277 patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy in New York state. Of these, 348 (1.4%) had a previous lumbar fusion. After matching for age and comorbidities, the composite rate of revision hip arthroscopy or conversion to THA was greater in patients with previous lumbar fusion compared with patients without (16.5% vs 8.5%; P < .001). This risk increased with the number of levels fused (1-2 levels: 15.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval 1.3-2.6; vs ≥3 levels: 26.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval 1.7-7.0)., Conclusions: Patients with a history of lumbar fusion had significantly greater rates of revision hip arthroscopy and conversion to THA compared with patients without previous fusion. The risk of revision hip arthroscopy or conversion to THA was increased approximately 2-fold in patients with 1 to 2 levels fused and 3-fold in patients with 3 or more levels fused., Level of Evidence: Level III, prognostic retrospective matched comparative case series., Competing Interests: Disclosures All authors (A.C., K.Y., M.H.N., T.I., G.G., A.S.R.) declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Advances in the ability to treat various soft-tissue and osseous pathologic conditions of the hip arthroscopically have been predicated on an improved exposure of the pathology of the central, peripheral, and peritrochanteric compartments. The management of the capsule is critical and must allow for an improved exposure without compromising stability and kinematics of the hip. Described approaches have included capsulectomy, limited capsulotomy, extensile capsulotomy, capsular plication, and capsular shift. The selected approach must consider various factors, including symptomatic complaints, underlying hyperlaxity, specific mechanical pathology, and surgical expertise. Universally using a single technique without consideration of the complex mechanical and anatomic factors unique to each patient may result in incomplete treatment of the pathoanatomy or iatrogenic instability. This article reviews the anatomy of the hip capsule and provide a diagnosis-based consideration of capsular management during hip arthroscopy. The senior author's preferred techniques are also presented., (Copyright © 2011 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)