Search

Objectives: To compare minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes and achievement of clinically significant outcomes in flexibles athletes with and without borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) with capsular plication. Methods: Data was prospectively collected for patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS with borderline hip dysplasia (BHD), defined as a lateral center edge angle (LCEA) of 18° to 25°, with primary participation in a sport with high flexibility requirement including dance, gymnastics, figure skating, yoga, cheerleading, and martial arts. These patients were matched 1:2 to flexible athletes with an LCEA >25° controlling for age, sex, body mass index (BMI) and follow up duration. Preoperative and minimum 2-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes included: Hip Outcome Score (HOS) Activities of Daily Living, HOS Sports Scale, International Hip Outcome Score 12, modified Harris Hip Score, and Visual Analog Scale for Pain. Cohort-specific Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were calculated and compared between groups. Results: Fifty-two flexible athletes with BHD were matched to 104 flexible athletes without BHD. Similar sport participation (45% dance vs. 41%, p=0.874) and level of competition (74% vs. 74% recreational, p=0.877) were observed. Preoperative LCEA (22.2° ± 1.6 vs. 31.5° ± 3.9, p < 0.001) and Tönnis angle (10.9 °± 3.7 vs. 5.8° ± 4.4, p < 0.001) differed significantly between groups. Capsular plication was performed in all cases (100% and 100%, p = 1.000). Both groups achieved significant improvement in all PROs (p ≤ 0.001) with no differences in PROs between groups (p ≥ 0.147). High MCID (95.7%, 94.8%) and PASS (71.7%, 72.2%) achievement for any PRO was observed with no differences between groups (p ≥ 0.222). Conclusions: Flexible athletes with BHD achieve successful and similar outcomes to those without BHD after primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS with capsular plication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Previous studies have reported outcomes after revision hip arthroscopy at mid-term follow-up. These studies demonstrate that patients can expect clinical improvement and low rates of reoperation following their revision surgery. However, in comparison to primary hip arthroscopy patients they experience worse outcomes. The purpose of this study was (1) To evaluate long-term outcomes after revision hip arthroscopy and (2) to identify factors that contribute to poorer outcomes. Methods: Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy for FAIS between 1/2012-9/2015 were reviewed. Patients were excluded if they underwent revision hip arthroscopy for a reason other than FAIS, underwent staged or prior PAO, had Tönnis grade > 1, had a history of congenital hip disorder (e.g., slipped capital femoral epiphysis), or were missing 8+ year follow-up. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures were collected both pre- and post-operatively including Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and Sports Scale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12). Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds were calculated using the distribution and anchor methods, respectively. Rates of MCID and PASS achievement were then evaluated. Rates of reoperation including repeat revision hip arthroscopy and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were evaluated. Patients were also divided into clinical successes and failures and compared. A clinical failure was defined as failure to achieve MCID or PASS for any PRO or undergoing a reoperation. Results: A total of 43 patients (72% female; age: 30.1 ± 10.3 years; BMI: 25.8 ± 6.0 kg/m2) met criteria for inclusion. Average follow-up was 9.3 years. At last follow-up there were significant improvements across all PROs (p < 0.001, for all). MCID achievement at final follow-up for each PRO was ≥ 56.5%, with achievement of MCID in any PRO occurring in 73.9% of patients. PASS achievement at final follow-up for each PRO was ≥ 29.6%, with achievement of PASS in any PRO occurring in 63.0% of patients. PASS achievement was 75.7% at two years and 75.8% at five years. Incidence of secondary revision hip arthroscopy was 23.3% and THA was 14.0%, occurring at mean 3.9 ± 2.8 years and 4.2 ± 3.0 years following index revision, respectively. 22 patients were considered clinical successes, and 21 patients were determined to be clinical failures. Both groups demonstrated similar age (28.6 ± 8.5 years vs 31.6 ± 11.9, p = 0.351), sex (77.3% female vs 66.7% female, p = 0.438), and BMI (25.7 ± 7.9 vs 25.9 ± 3.6, p = 0.915). Additionally, clinical successes and failures had similar preoperative PROs (p ≥ 0.133, for all). Presence of preoperative pain for over two years occurred more frequently in clinical failures (45.5% vs 76.2%, p = 0.039). Tönnis grade 1 was also present at a higher rate amongst clinical failures (0% vs 23.8%, p = 0.015). Conclusions: Patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy can see significant clinical improvement, particularly within the first five years following surgery. However, some patients may see clinical decline beyond eight years post-operatively. Revision hip arthroscopy is associated with relatively high reoperation rate. Those with greater Tönnis grade on preoperative radiographs and increased prevalence of chronic preoperative pain were less likely to achieve a clinical success. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The management of borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) remains an area of interest in the field of hip preservation. The purpose of this study was to (1) evaluate mean 2-year outcomes for patients with BHD treated with staged hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) to those who underwent hip arthroscopy alone, and (2) evaluate rates of complications, hardware removal, reoperations, conversions to total hip arthroplasty (THA), along with conversions to PAO. Methods: Hips with a lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) values 18° ≤ LCEA < 25° that underwent a hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) between January 2018 and June 2022 were reviewed. Patients who underwent staged periacetabular osteotomy and hip arthroscopy were identified. Staged hips were propensity-matched 1:4 to other borderline dysplastic hips that underwent hip arthroscopy alone. Matching was performed based on age, sex, and body-mass index (BMI). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected, including Hip Outcome Score – Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), HOS-Sports Specific (HOS-SS) subscale, 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) questionnaire, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI) subscale, and PROMIS-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) subscale. Cohort-specific minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds were calculated. Postoperative PROs, rates of MCID/PASS achievement, and rates of reoperation and conversion to THA were compared. Results: Twenty-four patients who underwent staged hip arthroscopy and PAO were successfully matched to 96 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy alone. Both groups were similar in terms of age, sex, and BMI. The patients who underwent a PAO had smaller LCEAs and larger Tönnis angles (21.0° vs. 23° and 11.6° vs. 9.1°, respectively). Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in PROs at minimum 1-year postoperatively (p < 0.001, for all). There were no significant differences in postoperative PRO scores between the groups (p ≥ 0.223, for all). There were no significant differences in MCID/PASS achievement (p ≥ 0.224. for all). There were no reoperations or conversion to THA in the staged hip arthroscopy and PAO group. In the hip arthroscopy alone cohort, reoperation rates were 5.2% and conversion to THA occurred in 1% of the patients. There were no significant differences in secondary surgery rates between the groups (p = 1.000). Three patients in the hip arthroscopy alone group ultimately underwent PAO, 1 underwent a proximal femoral osteotomy (PFO), and one underwent a revision hip arthroscopy. These female patients were young and athletic with an LCEA < 20°. Conclusions: Patients undergoing staged PAO and hip arthroplasty and isolated hip arthroplasty for treatment of BHD demonstrate similar clinical improvement. Rates of revision surgery and conversion to THA were similarly low. A small subset of patients who were initially treated arthroscopically ultimately received a PAO. This group was entirely made up of young, athletic female patients. This is encouraging early data and more long-term data is needed to evaluate the differences in survivorship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]