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

Osteochondral Allograft or Autograft Transplantation of the Femoral Head Leads to Improvement in Outcomes but Variable Survivorship: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To review patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship in patients undergoing osteochondral autograft or allograft transplantation (OAT) of the femoral head.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Center for Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus databases were searched in November 2022 with an updated search extending to December 2023 using criteria from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the following keywords: (hip OR femoral head) AND (mosaicplasty OR osteochondral allograft OR osteochondral autograft OR osteochondral lesion). Articles were included if they evaluated postoperative PROs in patients who underwent OAT of the femoral head and had a study size of 5 or more hips (n ≥ 5). Survivorship was defined as freedom from conversion to total hip arthroplasty. For PROs evaluated in 3 studies or more, forest plots were created and I2 was calculated.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in this review, with a total of 156 hips and a mean follow-up time ranging between 16.8 and 222 months. In total, 104 (66.7%) hips were male while 52 (33.3%) were female. Age of patients ranged from 17.0 to 35.4 years, while body mass index ranged from 23.3 to 28.1. Eight studies reported on osteochondral autograft transplantation and 4 studies on osteochondral allograft transplantation. Three studies reported significant improvement in at least 1 PRO. Survivorship ranged from 61.5% to 96% at minimum 2-year follow-up and from 57.1% to 91% at minimum 5-year follow-up. At a follow-up of less than 5 years, osteochondral allograft transplantation studies showed 70% to 87.5% survivorship, while autograft varied from 61.54% to 96%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with osteochondral lesions of the femoral head who underwent osteochondral autograft or allograft transplantation demonstrated improved PROs but variable survivorship rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.

Incidence of heterotopic ossification following hip arthroscopy is low: considerations for routine prophylaxis

PURPOSE

This scoping review aims to map and summarise the available literature on heterotopic ossification (HO) following hip arthroscopy, with particular focus on incidence, distribution as per Brooker classification, efficacy of prophylactic measures and factors that may influence the likelihood of production of HO.

METHODS

A computer-based search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cinahl, ISI web of science and Scopus using the terms 'heterotopic ossification' and 'hip arthroscopy'. Articles reporting heterotopic ossification following hip arthroscopy for any condition were included after two-stage title/abstract and full-text screening.

RESULTS

Of the 663 articles retrieved, 45 studies were included. The proportion of patients with HO ranged from 0 to 44%. The majority of the cases were either Brooker grade I or II. Of the six studies investigating the effect of NSAID prophylaxis, five reported a significantly lower incidence of heterotopic ossification associated with its use. Weak evidence suggests that an outside-in arthroscopic approach, no capsular closure, male sex and mixed cam and pincer resection may be associated with an increased risk of HO.

CONCLUSION

Although there is a large variation in rates of HO following hip arthroscopy in the current literature, the majority of studies report a low incidence. Evidence exists advocating the administration of post-operative NSAIDs to reduce the incidence of HO following hip arthroscopy. This, combined with the low risk of complications, means there is a favourable risk-benefit ratio for prophylactic NSAID used in HA. Future research should work to identify patient clinical and demographic factors which may increase the risk of development of HO, allowing clinicians to risk stratify and select only specific patients who would benefit from receiving NSAID prophylaxis.

Multicenter Outcomes After Revision Hip Arthroscopy: Comparative Analysis of 2-Year Outcomes After Labral Repair Versus Labral Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of literature evaluating patient outcomes in patients undergoing revision labral repair and labral reconstruction.

PURPOSE

To compare outcomes in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for treatment of labral tears by labral repair or labral reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multicenter database of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy was performed. An a priori power analysis determined that a total of 62 patients were required. Patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for labral tears with completed 2-year outcome scores were included. Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy, labral debridement, concomitant gluteal repair, and patients with hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <20°) were excluded. Patients were grouped into revision labral repair and labral reconstruction groups. Patient demographics and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including Hip Outcome Score - Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score - Sport Subscale, modified Harris Hip Score, international Hip Outcome Tool-12, visual analog scale for pain and satisfaction, and achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients underwent revision labral repair and 55 patients underwent labral reconstruction. Patients undergoing revision labral repair were younger (mean age, 30.0 ± 10.7 years vs 34.4 ± 9.7 years; P = .048), had lower rates of labral degeneration (25.0% vs 62.7%; P = .004), and had lower rates of severe complexity of tears (21.1% vs 66.0%; P = .003). However, the labral repair group had higher rates of articular cartilage damage (62.5% vs 33.3%; P = .009). There were no differences in any preoperative or 2-year postoperative PROs. Furthermore, no differences were seen in achievement of MCID or PASS in any PRO.

CONCLUSION

In this multicenter study on revision hip arthroscopy, patients undergoing revision labral repair were younger and had better labral characteristics but greater cartilage damage compared with patients undergoing labral reconstructions. Despite these differences, patients who underwent labral repair reported similar outcomes to those undergoing labral reconstruction.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy in the Native Hip: A Review of Contemporary Evaluation and Treatment Options

Hip arthroscopy is a reproducible and efficacious procedure for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Despite this efficacy, clinical failures are observed, clinical entities are challenging to treat, and revision hip arthroscopy may be required. The most common cause of symptom recurrence after a hip arthroscopy that leads to a revision arthroscopy is residual cam morphology as a result of inadequate femoral osteochondroplasty and restoration of head–neck offset, though several other revision etiologies including progressive chondral and labral pathologies also exist. In these cases, it is imperative to perform a comprehensive examination to identify the cause of a failed primary arthroscopy as to assess whether or not a revision hip arthroscopy procedure is indicated. When a secondary procedure is indicated, approaches may consist of revision labral repair, complete labral reconstruction, or labral augmentation depending on labral integrity. Gross instability or imaging-based evidence of microinstability may necessitate capsular augmentation or plication. If residual cam or pincer morphology is present, additional resection of the osseous abnormalities may be warranted. This review article discusses indications, the evaluation of patients with residual symptoms after primary hip arthroscopy, and the evaluation of outcomes following revision hip arthroscopy through an evidence-based discussion. We also present a case example of a revision hip arthroscopy procedure to highlight necessary intraoperative techniques during a revision hip arthroscopy.

Minimum 5-Year Outcomes for Revision Hip Arthroscopy With a Prospective Subanalysis Against a Propensity-Matched Control Primary Group

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of midterm outcome data on hip revision arthroscopic surgery.

PURPOSE

(1) To report minimum 5-year patient-reported outcome measurement scores (PROMSs) in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy, (2) to compare minimum 5-year PROMSs with a propensity-matched control group that underwent primary hip arthroscopy, and (3) to compare the rate of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at minimum 5-year follow-up between the revision group and the propensity-matched control primary group.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected between June 2008 and April 2014. Patients were included who underwent revision hip arthroscopy with preoperative and minimum 5-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patients with Tönnis grade >1 or with hip conditions such as avascular necrosis, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and pigmented villonodular synovitis were excluded. A subanalysis was performed against a propensity-matched control group that underwent primary surgery. Groups were propensity matched in a 1:2 ratio for sex, age, body mass index, and follow-up time.

RESULTS

A total of 127 revision arthroscopies (113 patients) were included, and the mean ± SD follow-up time was 72.8 ± 23.3 months. The revision group was 74.0% female, and the average age and body mass index were 34.9 ± 12.4 years and 24.8 ± 4.2, respectively. The revision group demonstrated improvement for all PROMSs and reached the MCID for the mHHS (66.1%), HOS-SSS (68.4%), NAHS (66.9%), and VAS (80.0%). All revision cases were propensity matched to 254 primary arthroscopy cases. PROMSs in the revision group were lower than those of the control group before and after surgery. Delta values were similar between groups for all PROMSs. There were no differences in rates of achieving the MCID. The relative risk of arthroplasty conversion was 2.6 (95% CI, 1.5-4.6) for the revision group as compared with the primary group.

CONCLUSION

Significant improvement in all PROMSs, including the VAS, and high patient satisfaction at minimum 5-year follow-up were reported after revision hip arthroscopy. A high proportion of patients in the revision cohort reached the MCID for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, NAHS, and VAS, with similar rates and magnitudes of improvement relative to the control group. As expected, these data indicate that patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy have higher PROMSs before and after surgery and lower rates of conversion to arthroplasty.

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)

PURPOSE

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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%).

CONCLUSION

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 OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Hip arthroscopy in France: An epidemiological study of postoperative care and outcomes involving 3699 patients

BACKGROUND

Hip arthroscopy is a surgical procedure that is becoming more and more prevalent in France. Even though indications are now well-established little is still known about patient outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of our retrospective study was to: (1) describe the circumstances in which hip arthroscopies are being performed; (2) study arthroscopy and arthroplasty reoperation rates; (3) assess the incidence of readmissions for complications.

HYPOTHESIS

Hip arthroscopy in France produced similar results to those observed in other countries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a cohort study from January 2008 to December 2014 in the French population using the national hospital discharge database called "Programme de médicalisation des systèmes d'information (PMSI)." We included all admissions that had a hip arthroscopy code and analyzed readmissions for conversion to hip arthroplasty, revision hip arthroscopy and complications (without being able to provide detailed descriptions). Risk factors associated with conversion, revision and readmission for complications were studied after performing a population analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 3,699 patients were included over a period of seven years. The mean age was 40 years, with women being significantly older (mean age of 43 years) than men (38 years) (p<0.05). The number of procedures increased from 240 in 2008 to 702 in 2014. Synovectomies (67.9%; 2514/3699) and surgical bone procedures (acetabuloplasty or femoroplasty) (47.3%; 1751/3699) were the main procedures performed during the primary arthroscopy. In total, 410 patients underwent a conversion to arthroplasty, 231 patients had a revision arthroscopy, and 126 patients suffered a complication. Five years after the index procedure, the conversion rate was 16.3%, revision rate was 8.2%, and readmission rate for a postoperative complication was 5%. The main risk factor associated with conversions was [Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% Confidence Index (CI)] an age between 40 and 79 years during the first arthroscopy [3.04 (2.40; 3.87) compared with the reference class of 25-39 years]. Patients between ages 16 to 24 years during the first arthroscopy (0.35 [0.20; 0.61] compared with the reference class of 25-39 years) had a decreased risk of conversion (HR and 95% CI). The main risk factors associated with revisions were: synovectomies [1.90 (1.34; 2.70)] and surgical bone procedures on the femoral neck and/or the acetabulum [1.82 (1.36; 2.4)]. The risk factor associated with complication-related readmissions was an age greater than 40 years [2.23 (1.43; 3.49)].

CONCLUSION

Unlike the international literature, our study population was largely male. The rates of revision (8.2% after five years) and conversion to arthroplasty (16.3% after five years) were relatively low and comparable to the different international studies. This procedure, which is not widely performed, is growing in popularity, has low morbidity and remains an interesting approach given the revision and conversion rates after five years. The implementation of specific coding for arthroscopic hip procedures and the pathologies to be treated seems warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; descriptive epidemiological study.

Survivorship Following Hip Arthroscopy: Lessons Learned from a Comprehensive Database

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hip arthroscopy and its indications continue to expand. Understanding the durability of hip arthroscopic procedures remains important not only for counseling patients, but also for determining the success of certain procedures or in certain populations. Survivorship is defined as the proportion of hip arthroscopy patients who have not yet gone on to periacetabular osteotomy (PAO), total hip arthroplasty (THA), and/or revision surgery. The purpose of this review is to summarize the recent literature pertaining to survivorship after certain hip arthroscopic procedures and certain special populations.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is yet to be level 1 evidence published with relation to survivorship following hip arthroscopy. The best evidence in the recent literature is contained in just rew long-term prospective studies demonstrating good to excellent survivorship following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Unfortunately, the follow-up for other conditions treated by hip arthroscopy is more limited. In summary, hip arthroscopy indications continue to expand. The most common indication for surgery is FAI, and its recently published long-term survivorship demonstrates excellent durability. Other hip arthroscopic procedures, including labral reconstruction, adjunctive procedures such as capsular closure, and special populations such as athletes, also demonstrate excellent survivorship in shorter term follow-up. Further prospective research is needed to further define survivorship of various hip conditions, associated procedures, and special populations commonly treated with hip arthroscopy.

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.

Predictors of Persistent Postoperative Pain at Minimum 2 Years After Arthroscopic Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement

BACKGROUND

Hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) is a rapidly expanding field, and preoperative factors predictive of persistent postoperative pain are currently unknown.

PURPOSE

To identify predictors for persistent postoperative pain at the site of surgery after hip arthroscopy for FAIS.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS and had a minimum 2-year follow-up with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were included in this study. Patients with previous open hip surgery and diagnoses other than FAIS were excluded. Patients were grouped by visual analog scale scores for pain as limited (<30) and persistent (≥30). Patient factors and outcomes were analyzed with univariate and correlation analyses to build a logistic regression model to identify predictors of persistent postoperative pain.

RESULTS

The limited pain (n = 514) and persistent pain (n = 174) groups totaled 688 patients (449 females). There was a statistically significant difference in age between groups, with the persistent pain group being older than the low pain group (35.9 ± 12.2 vs 32.4 ± 12.6, respectively; P = .002). Patients with persistent postoperative pain demonstrated significantly lower preoperative PRO scores in the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (57.6 ± 21.2 vs 67.7 ± 16.8), Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific (35.9 ± 23.9 vs 44.1 ± 22.7), modified Harris Hip Score (51.6 ± 16.2 vs 59.6 ± 12.9), and International Hip Outcome Tool (32.0 ± 16.8 vs 40.0 ± 17.82) but no significant differences in preoperative visual analog scale scores for pain (7.3 ± 1.8 vs 7.2 ± 1.7). Mean postoperative PRO differences between pain groups were all statistically significant. Bivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that history of anxiety or depression (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.02-3.32; P = .042), revision hip arthroscopy (odds ratio, 8.6; 95% CI, 1.79-40.88; P = .007), and a low preoperative modified Harris Hip Score (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-0.99; P = .30) were predictors of persistent postoperative pain.

CONCLUSION

Independent predictors for persistent postoperative pain include revision hip arthroscopy and mental health history positive for anxiety and depression. Our analysis demonstrated significant improvements in pain and functional PROs in the limited pain and persistent pain groups; however, those with persistent pain demonstrated significantly lower PRO scores.

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.

In Revision Hip Arthroscopy, Labral Reconstruction Can Address a Deficient Labrum, but Labral Repair Retains Its Role for the Reparable Labrum: A Matched Control Study

BACKGROUND

Revision hip arthroscopy is increasingly common and often addresses acetabular labrum pathology. There is a lack of consensus on indications or outcomes of revision labral repair versus reconstruction.

PURPOSE

To report clinical outcomes of labral reconstruction during revision hip arthroscopy at minimum 2-year follow-up as compared with pair-matched labral repair during revision hip arthroscopy (control group) and to suggest a decision-making algorithm for labral treatment in revision hip arthroscopy.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction were matched 1:2 with patients who underwent revision arthroscopic labral repair. Patients were matched according to age, sex, and body mass index. Outcome scores, including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale, and a visual analog scale for pain, were collected preoperatively and at minimum 2-year follow-up. At latest follow-up, patient satisfaction on a 0-10 scale and the abbreviated International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) were collected. Complications, subsequent arthroscopies, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty were collected as well.

RESULTS

A total of 15 revision labral reconstructions were pair matched to 30 revision labral repairs. The reconstructions had fewer isolated Seldes type I detachments ( P = .008) and lower postoperative lateral center-edge angle, but there were otherwise no significant differences in demographics, radiographics, intraoperative findings, or procedures. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in all outcomes and visual analog scale at minimum 2-year follow-up. The revision repairs trended toward better preoperative scores: mHHS (mean ± SD: 59.3 ± 16.5 vs 54.2 ± 16.0), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (61.0 ± 16.7 vs 51.2 ± 17.6), Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (39.6 ± 25.1 vs 30.5 ± 22.1), and visual analog scale (5.8 ± 1.8 vs 6.2 ± 2.2). At follow-up, the revision repair group had significantly higher mHHS (84.1 ± 14.8 vs 72.0 ± 18.3, P = .043) and iHOT-12 (72.2 ± 23.3 vs 49.0 ± 27.6, P = .023) scores than the reconstruction group. The magnitudes of pre- to postoperative improvement between the groups were comparable. The groups also had comparable rates of complications: 1 case of numbness in each group ( P > .999), subsequent arthroscopies (repair: n = 2, 6.5%; revision: n = 3, 20%; P = .150), and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (1 patient in each group, P > .999).

CONCLUSION

Labral reconstruction safely and effectively treats irreparable labra in revision hip arthroscopy. However, labral repair is another treatment option for reparable labra, yielding similar magnitude of improvement. A proposed algorithm may assist in surgical decision making to achieve optimal outcomes based on the condition and history of each patient's acetabular labrum.

Surgical Trends in Arthroscopic Hip Surgery Using a Large National Database

PURPOSE

To assess the practice trends in hip arthroscopy, including femoroplasty, acetabuloplasty, and labral repair Current Procedure Terminology, 4th edition (CPT-4), codes that have been implemented since many of the previous studies were published, without concerns for Hawthorne or observer effect as can be seen during a board collection window, and in a larger volume of patients with a more comprehensive database than previous published data.

METHODS

The MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database was searched using CPT-4 codes to identify patients who underwent any arthroscopic hip procedure from 2008 to 2013. Patients identified were characterized by gender, age group, and year of the initial procedure. Regression analysis was used to evaluate differences in surgical trends between individual patient groups delineated by age and gender. The Cochran-Armitage trend test was used to identify significant differences in surgical trends seen yearly.

RESULTS

A total of 62,782 arthroscopic hip procedures in 31,569 surgeries in 27,997 patients were identified and included from 2008 through 2013. The number of surgeries in the database increased every year. After changes to CPT coding in 2011, femoroplasty became the most common procedure in 2012, comprising 28% of all procedures performed in 2013. Patients ages 40 to 49 underwent the most procedures (7,467, 27%). Females were more likely to undergo any arthroscopic procedure during the study period (.068% vs .041%, P < .0001). A total of 2,754 patients (10%) underwent a second surgery during the study period. A total of 1,625 patients (6%) underwent a total hip arthroplasty following an arthroscopic procedure during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic hip procedures continue to increase, with femoroplasty, labral repair, and acetabuloplasty being the 3 most common procedures performed. Females are more likely to undergo any procedure, and labral repair is now performed more commonly than labral debridement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, cross-sectional study.

Editorial Commentary: Revision Hip Arthroscopy Provides Clinically Meaningful Improvements

Revision hip arthroscopy, like primary hip arthroscopy, is being performed more frequently. Questions remain regarding the clinical value of this surgical intervention, especially considering previous studies that demonstrate lower baseline patient-reported outcomes scores before and after surgery. Evaluation of the clinical utility and value of revision hip arthroscopy, and indeed all surgical interventions, need be performed using validated patient-reported outcomes in light of these clinically significant thresholds and changes, beyond just statistical differences.

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

PURPOSE

To define minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) in revision hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

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 1 year 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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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 OF EVIDENCE

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

PURPOSE

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.

METHODS

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 ≤2 mm, 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.

RESULTS

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 32 years (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 27 months (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 15 months and 16 months. The average follow-up time was 3.6 years ± 1 year 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent revision surgery after labral reconstruction were mostly female, with 2 or 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 OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Reasons for and functional results of repeated hip arthroscopy: A continuous prospective study of 17 revisions out of 295 primary hip arthroscopies at mean 28months' follow-up

INTRODUCTION

The rate of iterative arthroscopy has been increasing over the last decade as the technique has grown. The results of and reasons for these revision procedures, however, are not exactly known. We therefore conducted a prospective study to shed light on: 1) functional results and patient satisfaction following repeated arthroscopy, and 2) the relevant indications.

HYPOTHESIS

Functional scores and patient satisfaction increase following repeated arthroscopy. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A single-center continuous prospective study without control group included patients undergoing repeated hip arthroscopy between September 2010 and September 2014, with a mean 28months' follow-up (median, 23.3months; range, 12-62months). Preoperative and follow-up functional assessment used the modified Harris hip, WOMAC and Christensen (NHAS) questionnaires, and a satisfaction scale. On etiological analysis, repeated arthroscopy was indicated if a cause of recurrent or persistent pain accessible to arthroscopic treatment was identified.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients were included out of 295 primary arthroscopies (5.7%): 9 male, 8 female; median age, 29.6years (range, 16-48years). Indications for primary arthroscopy comprised 13 cases of femoroacetabular impingement, 3 labrum lesions with instability, 1 chondromatosis and 1 case of osteoarthritis. Eleven of the 17 primary lesions showed persistence, including 9 of the 13 cases of femoroacetabular impingement. There were 3 failures in 17 repeated arthroscopies. All functional scores improved, with a gain of 7 points (P<0.06) on modified Harris hip score, 25 points (P<0.0006) on WOMAC score, and 27 points (P<0.001) on NHAS score. Ten of the 17 patients were satisfied or very satisfied with the repeated arthroscopy (59%).

CONCLUSION

Although less good than on primary arthroscopy, functional results on repeated hip arthroscopy were satisfactory in the short term. The main reason for repeated arthroscopy was persistence of initial abnormality due to insufficient treatment.

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.

Revision Arthroscopic Acetabular Labral Treatment: Repair or Reconstruct?

PURPOSE

To compare the outcome of labral repair versus labral reconstruction in patients presenting to a single surgeon for revision hip arthroscopy following previous labral treatment.

METHODS

Patients who underwent revision labral repair or labral reconstruction using iliotibial band allograft, after previous labral debridement or repair, between 2009 and 2013 were identified. Hips that underwent revision labral reconstruction were further stratified into 2 graft groups (freeze-dried vs frozen allograft). Exclusion criteria were age <16 years, previous open hip surgery, or previous labral reconstruction. Failure was defined by subsequent intra-articular hip surgery.

RESULTS

113 hips (15 repair, 98 reconstruction) met the inclusion criteria. Patients who underwent revision labral repair were younger than patients who underwent revision labral reconstruction (27.8 years vs 34.6 years; P = .02). Follow-up was obtained from 14 (93%) labral repairs at an average of 4.7 years postoperation (range: 2.0-6.0 years) and 90 (92%) labral reconstructions at an average of 2.4 years postoperation (range: 2.0-4.0 years). Seven of 14 (50%) labral repair hips failed compared with 11/90 (12%) labral reconstruction hips (P < .01). Six of 61 (10%) frozen allografts failed compared with 5/29 (17%) freeze-dried allografts (P = .32). Patients who underwent revision labral repair were 4.1 (95% confidence interval 1.9, 8.8) times more likely to fail than patients who underwent revision labral reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent revision labral repair following previous repair or debridement were 2.6 times more likely to fail than patients who underwent revision labral reconstruction, controlling for calendar time. In addition, revision labral reconstruction with frozen allograft had lower propensity of failure than freeze-dried allograft. However, there was no statistically significant difference in patient-reported outcome scores between the 2 groups. Based on these results, complete labral reconstruction with longer, nonsegmental graft led to a lower failure rate in this study population and can be considered for treatment of patients presenting for revision labral treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Arthroscopic release of iliopsoas tendon in patients with femoro-acetabular impingement: clinical results at mid-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

The iliopsoas tendon is a recognized cause of extra-articular hip pain, and tenotomy has been described as an effective treatment in patients who do not respond to conservative treatments. Endoscopic release showed higher success rate, lower recurrence, fewer complications compared to open surgery. The aim of the study is to report the results at a mean of 4 years follow-up of a series of patients affected by femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and an associated iliopsoas tendinopathy, treated with hip arthroscopy and transcapsular tendon release.

METHODS

Fifteen patients were retrospectively reviewed. Assessment of radiographic signs of FAI was performed, the alpha angle, the femoral head-neck offset and the lateral center edge angle (LCEA) were collected. Osteoarthritis was assessed from the AP pelvic and graded according to the Tönnis classification. Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), VAIL score and VAS score were administered to all patients before surgery, at follow-up at 1 year (T1) and final follow-up (T2).

RESULTS

We found a statistical significant improvement in functional scores (mHHS and VAIL score) from the baseline to T2. According to VAS score, a statistical significant improvement was also found from T0 to T2, from a median of 5.5 (range 3-7) to 0 (range 0-5) (P<0.001). Two patients referred a recurrence of pain one year after surgery who were treated conservatively. No other complications have been reported.

CONCLUSION

Iliopsoas tendinopathy can be associated to FAI in some patients, and failure in diagnosing and treating may be the reason of poor results and a revision surgery. Arthroscopic iliopsoas tendon release seems to produce good clinical outcome, reducing pain and the rate of a revision surgeries. Level of evidence: IV case series.