Indications and Outcomes of Secondary Hip Procedures After Failed Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review

Editorial Commentary: In Cases of Cam Over-resection and Irreparable Hip Labral Tear Requiring Revision, Acetabular Circumferential Labral Reconstruction with Larger Graft Width Is Indicated

Hip arthroscopy technique and innovation has revolutionized the surgical approach to femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Arthroscopic labral reconstruction is the gold-standard treatment for irreparable acetabular labral tears in FAIS surgery, and backed by robust long-term clinical data. However, cam-over-resection has become a prevalent complication, often co-occurring with irreparable labral tears in revision FAIS surgery. Revision, circumferential labral reconstruction, is a promising solution, particularly from a biomechanical perspective, in restoring the suction seal. Larger graft width is indicated in these cases.

Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy With Labral Reconstruction or Labral Repair and Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Background

Compromise of the acetabular labrum can lead to pain and loss of critical intra-articular fluid pressure. Revision labral preservation poses unique challenges due to adhesions and compromised tissue quality.

Purpose/Hypothesis

The purpose of the study was to evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with either labral reconstruction or labral repair after primary hip arthroscopy for labral tear. It was hypothesized that both procedures would lead to improved PROs.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was conducted with the following keywords: (revision) AND (hip OR femoroacetabular impingement) AND (arthroscop*) AND (reconstruction OR repair) in PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus in August 2023 using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria, yielding 2002 initial records. Only studies comparing PROMs between revision labral reconstruction or revision labral repair after primary hip arthroscopy for labral tear were included. Background article information was recorded, including article title, author, study design, level of evidence, patient demographics, radiographic information, intraoperative data, PROMs, psychometric thresholds, and secondary surgeries. Secondary surgery in our study was defined as any open or arthroscopic hip surgery secondary to the initial revision surgery. Forest plots were created for pre- and postoperative outcomes present in ≥3 studies. Heterogeneity was calculated using I 2 values.

Results

Four studies, including 215 revision labral reconstructions and 115 revision labral repairs of the hips, were included in this systematic review. All studies were level 3 evidence, and study periods ranged between 2009 and 2019. Mean follow-up for the reconstruction and repair groups ranged from 26.3 to 36.6 months and 30.7 to 56.4 months, respectively. The mean age for the reconstruction and repair groups varied between 27 to 34.6 years and 27.5 to 30 years, respectively. Mean postoperative modified Harris Hip Scores for the reconstruction and repair cohorts ranged from 72.0 to 81.2 and 70.8 to 84.1, respectively (I 2 = 0%). Mean visual analog scale for pain scores for the reconstruction and repair cohorts ranged from 3 to 3.5 and 2.3 to 3.9 (I 2 = 33%). Overall secondary surgery rates ranged from 10.0% to 26.7% in the labral reconstruction cohort, compared with 10.0% to 50.0% in the labral repair cohort. One study reported superior outcomes in the revision labral repair group, with 3 studies finding no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the groups.

Conclusion

Our systematic review showed that patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction demonstrated significant improvement in postoperative outcome measures. Postoperative outcomes were similar to those of a benchmark control group of patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy and labral repair. Labral reconstruction in the revision setting appears to be an effective treatment in clinically indicated patients.

Editorial Commentary: Primary Treatment of Hip Labral, Osseous, Chondral, Capsular, and Extra-Articular Pathology Is Essential: Outcomes Following Revision Are Less Predictable

Appropriate labral management is one of many procedures during hip arthroscopy that affects postoperative outcomes and revision rates. Both primary labral repair and reconstruction have been shown to have superior clinical and functional outcomes compared with labral debridement when treating unstable labral tears. Arthroscopic labral reconstruction is one of the most powerful techniques in the arsenal of complex hip-preservation surgeons, and although often reserved for the revision setting, when the native labrum is irreparable, a primary reconstruction may be indicated when the only alternatives are selective labral debridement or a suboptimal repair. Labral reconstruction, either in primary or revision procedures, is indicated when the existing labrum is deemed irreparable based on an intraoperative evaluation. Current indications for primary labral reconstruction, either in the primary or revision setting, include a calcified labrum, an irreparable mixed Seldes type 1 and 2 tear, or a hypoplastic labrum with less than 3 mm of viable tissue. Primary hip arthroscopy has been shown to have superior outcomes compared with revision hip arthroscopy, whether with labral repair or reconstruction. Finally, appropriate labral management is necessary but not always sufficient. Hip arthroscopy requires management of osseous deformities, with care taken to avoid under- and over-resection during both femoroplasty and acetabuloplasty; management of chondral injury; and management of the hip capsule with repair or plication. Consideration also must be given to potential extra-articular pain generators, such as abductor insufficiency, ischiofemoral impingement, lumbar spine disease, as well as deformities requiring open surgical correction such as acetabular dysplasia or pathologic femoral version. The primary goal is getting it right the first time.

Secondary Hip Labral Reconstruction Yields Inferior Minimum 2-Year Functional Outcomes to Primary Reconstruction Despite Comparable Intraoperative Labral Characteristics

PURPOSE

To compare intraoperative labral characteristics and minimum 2-year functional outcomes of allograft labral reconstruction in primary versus revision hip arthroscopy across multiple orthopaedic centers.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter hip arthroscopy registry was queried for patients with completed labral reconstruction surgeries from January 2014 to March 2023 with completed 2-year international Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) reports. Age, sex, and major intraoperative variables also were collected. Patients were placed in cohorts based on whether their arthroscopic allograft labral reconstruction was a primary procedure or secondary procedure (reconstruction following failed hip arthroscopy). One-way analysis of variance was performed on continuous variables. χ2 test was performed on categorical variables. Achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) also was assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 77 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and had complete information. The primary reconstruction group (n = 50) was significantly older than the secondary reconstruction group (n = 27) (47.5 ± 10.5 vs 39.1 ± 8.8 years; P = .001). In both cohorts, most patients had labral bruising, advanced labral degeneration, and/or grade III complexity of labral tearing. There was no difference in any recorded intraoperative findings (P = .160, P = .783, P = .357, respectively). Each cohort experienced significant improvement in iHOT-12 scores (P < .0001). However, patients undergoing secondary labral reconstruction reported inferior iHOT-12 scores (60.1 ± 29.2 vs 74.8 ± 27.0; P = .030). Patients undergoing primary reconstruction were more likely to reach MCID, PASS, and nearly normal SCB (92 vs 66.7%, P = .024; 68.0 vs 40.7%, P = .021; 76.0 vs 48.1%, P = .014, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary and secondary allograft labral reconstruction show clinical improvement, but primary reconstruction demonstrates better outcomes and greater percentage of patients reaching MCID, PASS, and nearly normal SCB than reconstruction in the revision setting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic case-control study.

Posterolateral Acetabular Labral Repair: Drilling Using a Percutaneous Posterolateral Portal

Acetabular labral tears are commonly diagnosed in patients with hip or groin pain, most of which occur anterosuperiorly. In some cases, operative intervention in the form of arthroscopic labral repair may be necessary to restore labral function. Posterolateral tears can be technically challenging when using traditional modified anterior portal and anterolateral (AL) portal access owing to a suboptimal drill trajectory. In this article, we describe the establishment of a posterolateral (PL) portal 1 to 2 cm posterior to the tip of the greater trochanter, mirroring the distal-to-proximal trajectory of the AL portal and entering the capsulotomy at the 10-o'clock position. This method highlights that the PL portal is used for drilling and anchor placement, whereas the remaining work is performed through the AL portal. This avoids the use of any shavers or burrs in the PL portal near important neurovascular structures, including the sciatic nerve. Addressing posterolateral labral tears in the 9- to 11-o'clock position using a PL portal can enhance labral fixation, thereby mitigating the risk of suboptimal repairs that can negatively impact postoperative outcomes.

Inside-Out Anchor Placement: A Technique to Instrument Far Medial Anchors in Acetabular Labral Repair

Labral tears most commonly occur anteriorly between the 12- and 3-o'clock positions, with the 12-o'clock position denoted as superior and the 3-o'clock position denoted as anterior. When approaching the 3-o'clock position and beyond, suture anchor placement becomes difficult given the challenging arthroscopic trajectory and an overall thin anterior rim of cortical bone for anchor purchase, resulting in a narrow angle of safe drilling. The purpose of this technical note is to present a safe and reproducible method of suture anchor placement during acetabular labral repair approaching the 3- and 4-o'clock positions, with the 12-o'clock position representing the superior anatomic location and the 3-o'clock position representing the anterior anatomic location regardless of hip laterality. We use an inside-out anchor placement technique to place far medial anchors, which differs from the conventional techniques (e.g., outside-in technique) in which anchor placement is performed along the external margin of the acetabular labrum.

Defining the Percent Thresholds for Achieving the Maximum Outcome Improvement of the Modified Harris Hip Score, the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, the Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale, the Visual Analog Scale for Pain, and the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 in Revision Hip Arthroscopy at Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To determine the respective percent thresholds for achieving the maximal outcome improvement (MOI) for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), the Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (HOS-SSS), the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) that were associated with satisfaction following revision hip arthroscopy, and to identify predictors for achieving the MOI.

METHODS

An anchor question was provided to patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between April 2017 and July 2020. Patients were included for the final analysis if they answered the anchor question and had minimum 2-year follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the thresholds for the percentage of the MOI predictive of satisfaction. A P-value of < .05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

In total, 318 patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy. Of those patients, 292 (91.8%) had minimum 2-year follow-up. Of this cohort, 68 answered the anchor question, with 49 (72.1%) female and 19 (27.9%) male patients. The mean age, and body mass index time were 32.9 ± 13 years and 25.4 ± 5.1, respectively. It was determined that 42.1%, 50%, 48.1%, 50%, and 50% of MOI were the thresholds for maximal predictability of satisfaction for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SS, VAS for pain, and the iHOT-12, respectively. The presence of unaddressed subspine impingement was a significant predictor for achieving the MOI threshold for the VAS (odds ratio 1.40; 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.95; P = 0.0273).

CONCLUSIONS

Following revision hip arthroscopy, the percent thresholds for achieving the MOI at a minimum 2-year follow-up for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SS, VAS for pain, and iHOT-12 were 42.1%, 50%, 48.1%, 50%, and 50.9%, respectively. Addressing residual subspine impingement was identified as significant positive predictor for achieving the MOI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case-series.

Defining Thresholds and Predictors for Achieving the Patient Acceptable Symptom State for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Revision Hip Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) after primary hip arthroscopy has been determined; nonetheless, the PASS still needs to be defined for revision hip arthroscopy.

PURPOSE

To define minimum 2-year follow-up PASS thresholds for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) after revision hip arthroscopy, and to identify predictors of achieving the PASS.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between April 2017 and July 2020. Patients were included if they had baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up scores for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS for pain, and iHOT-12. PASS was calculated using the anchor-based method. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the thresholds for the PASS. A multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors for achieving the PASS.

RESULTS

A total of 318 patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy met the inclusion criteria. Of those patients, 292 (91.8%) had baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up. Of this group, 68 patients (72.1% female and 27.9% male; mean age, 32.9 years) answered the PASS anchor question. Achievement PASS rates were 58.8%, 41.2%, 52.9%, 60.3%, and 52.9% for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS, and iHOT-12, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) values for the PASS for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS, and iHOT-12 were 0.912, 0.888, 0.857, 0.903, and 0.871, respectively, indicating excellent discrimination. The PASS for the mHHS was 76 (sensitivity, 0.809; specificity, 0.905), for the NAHS was 86.3 (sensitivity, 0.660; specificity, 1), for the HOS-SSS was 64.3 (sensitivity, 0.745; specificity, 0.905), for the VAS was 3 (sensitivity, 0.830; specificity, 0.905), and for the iHOT-12 was 64.3 (sensitivity, 0.745; specificity, 0.905). Body mass index (BMI) was identified as a significant predictor of achieving PASS for the NAHS (OR, 0.967; 95% CI, 0.940-0.996; P = .027), as patients with a BMI ≤25.4 had 1.03 times higher odds ratio of achieving PASS for the NAHS.

CONCLUSION

After revision hip arthroscopy, the minimum 2-year follow-up PASS thresholds for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS for pain, and iHOT-12 were 76, 86.3, 64.3, 3, and 64.3, respectively. The odds ratio of achieving PASS for the NAHS was 1.03 times higher for patients with a BMI ≤25.4.

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

Background

There is a paucity of literature reporting outcomes after revision hip arthroscopic surgery in obese patients.

Purpose

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.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.

Computer-Assisted and Hip Arthroscopy for Avascular Necrosis of the Femoral Head With Femoroacetabular Impingement

Avascular necrosis of the femoral head with femoroacetabular impingement is a disabling disease. Without early treatment and intervention, its further development will even lead to hip osteoarthritis and hip dysfunction. This technical note aims to introduce a computer-assisted precise core decompression of the femoral head, followed by injection of platelet-rich plasma and bone marrow aspirate concentrate. Then, the autologous ipsilateral iliac bone is transplanted to the core decompression area. Thereafter, under hip arthroscopy, the injured glenoid lip of the hip joint is repaired, and the cam deformity of the femoral head/neck junction is polished and formed. The advantages of this technique include accurately locating the core decompression area, combined with autologous cells and bone transplantation, being able to delay the process of avascular necrosis of the femoral head, and evaluating articular cartilage injury, subchondral collapse, and guidance during reaming and curettage.

Arthroscopic Capsular Suture-Lifting Technique for Treating Femoroacetabular Impingement Patients With a High Risk of Postoperative Anterior Instability

With the increasing popularity of hip arthroscopy, postoperative iatrogenic instability due to bony and soft-tissue issues has been noted by more orthopaedic surgeons. Although there is a low risk of serious complications in patients with normal hip joint development even without suturing of the joint capsule, for patients with a preoperative high risk of anterior instability-including those with excessive anteversion of the acetabulum or femur, borderline dysplasia of the hip, and hip arthroscopic revision surgery with an anterior defect of the joint capsule-capsulotomy without repair will result in postoperative anterior instability of the hip joint and related symptoms. Capsular suturing techniques that provide anterior stabilization will be of great help for these high-risk patients and reduce the possibility of postoperative anterior instability. In this Technical Note, we introduce the arthroscopic capsular suture-lifting technique for treating femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) patients with a high risk of postoperative hip instability. In the past 2 years, the capsular suture-lifting technique has been used to treat FAI patients with borderline dysplasia of the hip and excessive femoral neck anteversion, and clinical results have shown that the suture-lifting technique provides a reliable and effective solution for FAI patients with a high risk of postoperative anterior hip instability.

Lateral to Medial Joint Space Ratio is Predictive of Survivorship After Primary Hip Arthroscopy

PURPOSE

To assess whether preoperative joint space measures would be predictive of survivorship in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy (HA) for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).

METHODS

Data on consecutive patients who underwent hip arthroscopy between February 2008 and February 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. To be eligible for final analysis, patients were required to have preoperative radiographs for joint space measurements and data indicating conversion to a total hip arthroplasty (THA), hip resurfacing, or neither; at a minimum of 2 years after primary hip arthroscopy. Survivorship following HA was defined as remaining conversion free and served as the primary outcome. A multivariate logistic regression analysis and receiver operator curve (ROC) were used to evaluate the correlation between joint space measurements and survivorship following HA.

RESULTS

A total of 1,885 primary arthroscopy cases were included in this study. The multivariate regression analysis found preoperative lateral-to-medial joint space ratio (L/M ratio) to be the strongest predictive factor of survivorship after primary hip arthroscopy (OR = 2.084, CI_95% = 1.239-3.503; P = .006). The ROC curve for the model demonstrated acceptable discrimination with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.792. Patients with an L/M ratio ≥0.75 had a survivorship rate of 91.7% compared to a rate of 75% for patients with an L/M ratio <0.75 (OR: 3.68).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that, of the factors evaluated in this study, the most significant factor in predicting survivorship at 2 years after undergoing primary hip arthroscopy was a larger lateral-to-medial joint space ratio. This may suggest an initiation of primary arthritis at the edge-loading area of the lateral acetabulum. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative observation study.

Primary Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome in Adolescents Improves Outcomes and Clinical Benefit Achievement Rates at Short-Term Follow-Up. A Multicenter Analysis

PURPOSE

To report minimum 2-year follow-up patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) and rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), the patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and the maximal outcome improvement (MOI) on adolescents following primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Second, to determine risk factors for revision surgery.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from two high-volume hip arthroscopy centers were retrospectively reviewed on adolescents (≤19 years old) who underwent primary hip arthroscopy between November 2008 and February 2019. Adolescents with a minimum 2-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were included regardless of their growth plate status. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, lateral center edge-angle <18°, and previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions. Preoperative and postoperative radiographic data, MCID, PASS, MOI, secondary surgeries, and complications were reported. A multivariable survival analysis for risk factors for secondary surgery was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 287 hips (249 patients) were included (74.9% females). The mean values for age, body mass index, and follow-up were 16.3 ± 1.3 years, 22.3 ± 3.5, and 26.6 ± 9.4 months, respectively. Further, 88.9% underwent labral repair, 81.5% femoroplasty, and 85.4% capsular closure. Improvement for all PROs was reported (P < .001) with high patient satisfaction (8.8 ± 1.5). Achievement for the MCID was 71.7%, 83.0%, 68.1%, and 79.5% for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and iHOT-12, respectively. Achievement for the PASS was 68.3% for the mHHS and 73.2% for the NAHS. The MOI for mHHS, NAHS, and VAS was 58.3%, 77.0%, and 59.6%, respectively. Rates of revision hip arthroscopy, cam recurrence, and heterotopic ossification were 5.8%, 1.7%, and 5.5%, respectively. Acetabular retroversion was found to be a risk factor for revision surgery (P = .03).

CONCLUSION

The results of this multi-center study demonstrated that adolescents who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS reported significant improvement in all PROs, with satisfactory achievement rates for the MCID, PASS, MOI, and high patient satisfaction at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective multicenter study.

Comparable Torque to Failure Using the Simple Stich Versus the Figure-of-Eight Configuration for Hip Capsular Closure Following an Interportal Capsulotomy: A Cadaveric Study

PURPOSE

To measure and compare the torque to failure and stiffness of the capsular repair construct consisting of four-suture simple stitches to a two-figure of eight stitches repair construct in external rotation following an interportal capsulotomy.

METHODS

Six pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric hemipelves were divided into two capsular repair groups. All hips underwent a 40-mm interportal capsulotomy from the 12 o'clock position to the 3 o'clock position. Capsular closure was performed using either the two stitches in a figure of eight or with four simple stitches. Afterward, each hemipelvis was securely fixed to the frame of a mechanical testing system with the hip in 10° of extension and externally rotated to failure. Significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

The average failure torque was 86.2 ± 18.9 N·m and 81.5 ± 8.9 N·m (P = .57) for the two stitches in a figure of eight and the four simple stitches, respectively. Failure stiffness was also not statistically different between groups and both capsular closure techniques failed at similar degrees of rotation (P = .65).

CONCLUSION

Hip capsular repair using either the four simple stitch or two-figure of eight configurations following interportal capsulotomy demonstrated comparable failure torques and similar stiffness in a cadaveric model.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Adequate and comprehensive capsular management in hip arthroscopy is critical. Capsular repair following capsulotomy in femoroacetabular impingement surgery has been associated with higher patient-reported outcomes when compared to capsulotomy without repair. Therefore, determining which capsular closure construct provides the higher failure torque is important.

Editorial Commentary: Hip Central Acetabular Osteophyte Treatment Improves Outcome: Flip Your Arthroscope 90° and Look Down!

Three goals are at the top of our minds when achieving optimal outcomes for the arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome in the primary setting: (1) accurate bony correction, (2) labral function restoration-typically with labral repair-and (3) comprehensive capsular management-which involves capsular preservation and closure. Notwithstanding, additional intra-articular concomitant conditions require our attention as well. Central acetabular impingement is characterized by the presence of central acetabular osteophytes at the cotyloid fossa. It has been proposed that central acetabular osteophytes lead to lateralization of the femoral head with relative femoroacetabular incongruency that increases contact force and mechanical cartilage abrasion.

Females and Males Achieved Comparable Outcomes and Clinical Benefits Following Primary Hip Arthroscopy with Labral Repair, but Age Affected Outcomes and Conversion to Total Hip Arthroplasty. A Short and Mid-Term Follow-Up Analysis with Dual Stratification

PURPOSE

To report and compare, according to sex and age, minimum 2-and minimum 5-year patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) and survivorship in a large cohort of patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

METHODS

Data from February 2008 to September 2018 were reviewed. Patients aged 60 and younger who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia, previous hip conditions, or any labral treatment different than repair. Minimum 5-year PROs were also collected. All patients included were divided into groups by sex. For further analysis, males and females were stratified according to age: < 21 years old, 21-30 years old, 31-40 years old, 41-50 years old, and 51-60 years old.

RESULTS

In total, 1,326 hips had minimum 2-year follow-up, including 860 (64.9%) females and 466 males (35.1%), with a mean age of 31.6 years (range, 12.8-60.9 years) and a mean follow-up of 58.7 ± 28.9 months. Of those, 772 had minimum 5-year follow-up, 515 females (66.7%), and 257 males (33.3%) with a mean age of 31.7 years (range, 13.1-60.7 years) and a mean follow-up of 78.5 ± 23.0 months. All patients showed significant improvements in PROs at minimum 2-and 5-year follow-up (P < .001). Between sex analysis revealed comparable PROs at latest follow-up between females and males across any age group. Within sexes, and when sexes were combined, patients <21 years old had significantly better outcomes compared to other age groups. There were more females <21 years old that required revision arthroscopy than males <21 years old (P = .015). Conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) showed no significant difference between sexes (P > .05). Rates of THA were <21 years (.8%), 21-30 years (2.1%), 31-40 years (4%), 41-50 years (8.9%), and 51-60 years (14.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Following primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS, all patients reported significant improvements in all PROs at minimum 2-and minimum 5-year follow-up, with females and males achieving similar success. Age affected outcomes, with patients under 21 years old reporting better scores regardless of sex. Although the conversion rate to THA was similar between the sexes, it was lower in the younger ages groups in both sexes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative observation trial.

After Revision Hip Arthroscopy, Patients Having Either Circumferential or Segmental Labral Reconstructions for the Management of Irreparable Labra Show Clinical Improvement Based on Proper Indications

PURPOSE

To compare a minimum of two-year follow-up patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy for acetabular circumferential labral reconstruction (CLR) and segmental labral reconstruction (SLR) using propensity-matched groups, in the setting of irreparable labral tear.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy from April 2010 to September 2018. Patients were included if they underwent labral reconstruction and had preoperative and minimum 2-year PROs. Patients unwilling to participate, with Tönnis grade >1, or hip dysplasia were excluded. Patients in the CLR group were propensity-matched on the basis of age, sex, body mass index, and Tönnis grade to patients in the SLR group in a 1:1 ratio. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) rates were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-six hips (25 patients) with CLR were propensity-matched to 26 hips (26 patients) with SRL. The mean follow-up time 25.92 and 27.78 months for the CLR and SLR, respectively (P = .845). Groups reported comparable findings for sex (P = .773), age (P = .197), body mass index (P = .124), preoperative Tönnis grade (P = .124), lateral-center edge angle (P = .144), and alpha angle (P = .264), and comparable improvement for all PROs at minimum 2-year follow-up. Patient satisfaction was similar (P = .612). Rates of achievement for the MCID and PASS were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Following revision hip arthroscopy, patients who underwent CLR or SLR for complete and segmental irreparable labral tears, respectively, reported significant and comparable postoperative improvement for all PROs and rate of achievement for the MCID and PASS at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Predictors of Achieving the Maximal Outcome Improvement Threshold for Willingness to Undergo Revision Hip Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

The maximal outcome improvement threshold for willingness to undergo revision hip arthroscopy (MOWT) has not been defined yet.

PURPOSE

To determine the percentage MOWT in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy and to identify predictors of achieving the MOWT.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

An anchor question was provided to patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between April 2008 and June 2020 who returned for follow-up between August 2019 and June 2021 at one institution. Patients were included if they underwent revision hip arthroscopy, had answered the anchor question, and had baseline and postoperative minimum 1-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia, previous hip conditions, or unwillingness to participate. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the MOWT. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine intraoperative predictors of achieving the MOWT.

RESULTS

In total, 153 patients (163 hips) were included, with 117 female hips (71.8%), a mean patient age of 34.3 ± 12.4 years, and an average follow-up time of 61.6 ± 42.7 months. It was determined that 77.3% of the patients reported that they would choose to undergo the revision hip arthroscopy again. The MOWT for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS was 43.1%, 53%, and 33.4%, respectively. The probability of choosing to undergo revision surgery if the MOWT was achieved was 77.5%, 77.6%, and 79.2%, for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS, respectively. Patients with residual cam-type morphology, which was addressed during the revision, were 2.3 times more likely to achieve the MOWT for the VAS (P = .014).

CONCLUSION

Patients who improved 43.1%, 53%, and 33.4% of their MOWT for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS, respectively, were likely to be willing to undergo revision hip arthroscopy again. Moreover, the presence of residual cam-type femoroacetabular impingement morphology before their revision surgery was identified as a predictor to achieve the MOWT for the VAS.

Two-Tiered Resection of Cam Lesions in Hip Femoroacetabular Impingement: Optimizing Femoral Head Sphericity

Hip arthroscopy is one of the most rapidly growing fields in orthopaedic surgery. One of the most frequent pathologies treated with hip arthroscopy remains femoroacetabular impingement, which is addressed by labral repair and femoral osteoplasty. The most commonly cited reason for failure of arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement is under-resection of the cam lesion. Surgeons frequently use evaluations of preoperative images, intraoperative fluoroscopy, and dynamic range of motion to ensure adequate resection. In this article, we describe a reproducible and standardized technique to assist in appropriate resection. This is achieved by a 2-tiered resection technique: Tier 1 aims to set the depth of resection and restore the head-neck offset. Tier 2 then matches the depth of the resection set by tier 1 and allows for retention of appropriate transition of the proximal convexity to the distal concavity seen in more ideally shaped femoral heads. With this technique, we offer a tool to avoid under-resection in the area of maximal conflict while simultaneously minimizing the risk of proximal over-resection and thus compromising the fluid seal dynamics of the joint in deeper flexion angles.

Three-Dimensional Quantification of Cam Resection Using MRI Bone Models: A Comparison of 2 Techniques

Background:

The current clinical standard for the evaluation of cam deformity in femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is based on radiographic measurements, which limit the ability to quantify the complex 3-dimensional (3D) morphology of the proximal femur.

Purpose:

To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–based metrics for the quantification of cam resection as derived using a best-fit sphere alpha angle (BFS-AA) method and using 3D preoperative-postoperative surface model subtraction (PP-SMS).

Study Design:

Descriptive laboratory study.

Methods:

Seven cadaveric hemipelvises underwent 1.5-T MRI before and after arthroscopic femoral osteochondroplasty, and 3D bone models of the proximal femur were reconstructed from the MRI scans. The alpha angles were measured radially along clockfaces using a BFS-AA method from the literature and plotted as continuous curves for the pre- and postoperative models. The difference between the areas under the curve for the pre- and postoperative models was then introduced in the current study as the BFS-AA–based metric to quantify the cam resection. The cam resection was also quantified using a 3D PP-SMS method, previously described in the literature using the metrics of surface area (FSA), volume (FV), and height (maximum [FH_max] and mean [FH_mean]). Bivariate correlation analyses were performed to compare the metrics quantifying the cam resection as derived from the BFS-AA and PP-SMS methods.

Results:

The mean ± standard deviation maximum pre- and postoperative alpha angle measurements were 59.73° ± 15.38° and 48.02° ± 13.14°, respectively. The mean for each metric quantifying the cam resection with the PP-SMS method was as follows: FSA, 540.9 ± 150.7 mm²; FV, 1019.2 ± 486.2 mm³; FH_max, 3.6 ± 1.0 mm; and FH_mean, 1.8 ± 0.5 mm. Bivariate correlations between the BFS-AA–based and PP-SMS–based metrics were strong: FSA (r = 0.817, P = .012), FV (r = 0.888, P = .004), FH_max (r = 0.786, P = .018), and FH_mean (r = 0.679, P = .047).

Conclusion:

Strong positive correlations were appreciated between the BFS-AA and PP-SMS methods quantifying the cam resection.

Clinical Relevance:

The utility of the BFS-AA technique is primarily during preoperative planning. The utility of the PP-SMS technique is in the postoperative setting when evaluating the adequacy of resection or in patients with persistent hip pain with suspected residual impingement. In combination, the techniques allow surgeons to develop a planned resection while providing a means to evaluate the depth of resection postoperatively.

Editorial Commentary: Postoperative Alpha Angle and Return to Sport: One Piece of the Puzzle

Return-to-sport rates following arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement are high; however, the predictors of failure to return to sport must be elucidated. Recent data suggest that the postoperative alpha angle may be a significant predictor of return to sport in athletes, despite the fact that the role of radiographic measurements on postoperative outcomes is debated in the literature. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on surgeons to fully understand the unique biomechanics of the hip in each sport and consider each patient's unique anatomy when undertaking cam resection. Recreation of the motion at-risk during a careful intraoperative dynamic examination is imperative to ensure that all areas of impingement have been eradicated while attentively avoiding over-resection. While the postoperative alpha angle is an important metric for surgeons to keep in mind, it may only represent one piece of the puzzle.

Minimum 2-Year Outcomes Following Arthroscopic Hip Labral Reconstruction in Adolescents and Young Adults

BACKGROUND

Labral repair is generally preferred when facing labral tears. When an irreparable labral tear in the context of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is present, arthroscopic labral reconstruction has been proven to be a valid option for labral restoration. However, data on this procedure for the adolescent population is scarce. The purpose of the present study was to report minimum 2-year follow-up patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on adolescents and young adults following arthroscopic acetabular labral reconstruction.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed on adolescents and young adults who underwent hip arthroscopy between March 2009 and June 2018. Inclusion criteria were labral reconstruction, baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up PROMs. Patients were excluded if they were unwilling to participate in the study, had Tönnis grade >1, or dysplasia.

RESULTS

Twenty-three hips (22 patients) that underwent labral reconstruction were included. Ten hips (10 patients) underwent primary labral reconstruction, and 13 hips (12 patients) underwent revision reconstruction. The mean age was 19.3 years and 56.5% of patients were males. All patients improved significantly at minimum 2 years for all PROMs (P<0.001) with high satisfaction. Patients in both groups demonstrated improvement for all PROMs, patient satisfaction, and a rate of achieving the minimal clinically important difference.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic labral reconstruction in adolescents and young adults demonstrated significant improvement and high patient satisfaction at minimum 2-year follow-up in the setting of irreparable labral tear. Favorable outcomes, high patient satisfaction, and high achievement rate for the minimal clinically important difference were obtained following labral reconstruction in this population the primary and revision scenarios.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case-series.

Editorial Commentary: Repeat Revision Hip Arthroscopy: Unaddressed Femoroacetabular Impingement, Labral Damage, and Capsular Deficiency Are Commonly Encountered

The increasing use of hip arthroscopy has been accompanied by an associated increase in revision hip arthroscopy. The results of revision surgery are generally inferior to primary hip arthroscopy. When revision hip arthroscopy fails, repeat revision hip arthroscopy may be indicated. Addressing the etiology of failure of the primary and first revision surgery is fundamental to achieving optimal outcomes in repeat revision cases. Unfortunately, poorly executed previous surgery is the leading etiology of failure, with unaddressed femoroacetabular impingement, labral damage, and capsular deficiency most commonly encountered during repeat revision surgery. Complex secondary soft-tissue procedures may be required to address capsular and labral deficiency from previous surgery. Despite clinically significant improvement in repeat revision cases, results are inferior to those after primary hip arthroscopy. The best opportunity for a patient to achieve an optimal outcome is a well-executed primary surgery.

Three-Dimensional Measures of Bony Resection During Femoral Osteochondroplasty Are Related to Alpha Angle Measures: A Cadaveric Study

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical Relevance

Labral Tear Management in Patients Aged 40 Years and Older Undergoing Primary Hip Arthroscopy: A Propensity-Matched Case-Control Study With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Previous literature has suggested that primary acetabular labral reconstruction leads to lower secondary surgery rates than does labral repair for patients aged ≥40 years.

PURPOSE

To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores, survivorship, and secondary surgeries in patients aged ≥40 years who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction compared with a propensity-matched primary labral repair group.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent a primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome between January 2014 and June 2018. Patients aged ≥40 years who underwent a labral reconstruction or a labral repair and had preoperative and minimum 2-year PROs for the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were included. Patients with previous ipsilateral hip conditions and surgery, Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia, or workers' compensation status were excluded. Patients in the reconstruction group were propensity matched 1:2 to patients in the repair group based on age, sex, and body mass index. Secondary surgeries and achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and maximum outcome improvement (MOI) were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 53 and 106 hips were included in the labral reconstruction and repair groups, respectively. The average follow-up time was 37.6 months. The average ages for the reconstruction and repair groups were 48.01 ± 5.4 years and 48.61 ± 6.0 years, respectively. Both groups achieved significant improvements in all PROs at a minimum of 2 years, with similar achievements of MCID, PASS, and MOI, and comparable secondary surgery rates.

CONCLUSION

Patients aged ≥40 years who received primary labral repair and primary labral reconstruction achieved similar significant improvements in all PROs, VAS pain, and patient satisfaction at the minimum 2-year follow-up, with comparable rates of secondary surgeries and achieving MCID, PASS, and MOI. Based on these findings, labral repair remains the gold standard treatment for viable labrum in this population group, while reconstruction is a useful alternative for irreparable labrum.

High prevalence of hip lesions secondary to arthroscopic over- or undercorrection of femoroacetabular impingement in patients with postoperative pain

Objectives

To compare the prevalence of pre- and postoperative osseous deformities and intra-articular lesions in patients with persistent pain following arthroscopic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) correction and to identify imaging findings associated with progressive cartilage damage.

Methods

Retrospective study evaluating patients with hip pain following arthroscopic FAI correction between 2010 and 2018. Pre- and postoperative imaging studies were analyzed independently by two blinded readers for osseous deformities (cam-deformity, hip dysplasia, acetabular overcoverage, femoral torsion) and intra-articular lesions (chondro-labral damage, capsular lesions). Prevalence of osseous deformities and intra-articular lesions was compared with paired t-tests/McNemar tests for continuous/dichotomous data. Association between imaging findings and progressive cartilage damage was assessed with logistic regression.

Results

Forty-six patients (mean age 29 ± 10 years; 30 female) were included. Postoperatively, 74% (34/46) of patients had any osseous deformity including 48% (22/46) acetabular and femoral deformities. Ninety-six percent (44/46) had an intra-articular lesion ranging from 20% (9/46) for femoral to 65% (30/46) for acetabular cartilage lesions. Prevalence of hip dysplasia increased (2 to 20%, p = 0.01) from pre- to postoperatively while prevalence of cam-deformity decreased (83 to 28%, p < 0.001).

Progressive cartilage damage was detected in 37% (17/46) of patients and was associated with extensive preoperative cartilage damage > 2 h, i.e., > 60° (OR 7.72; p = 0.02) and an incremental increase in postoperative alpha angles (OR 1.18; p = 0.04).

Conclusion

Prevalence of osseous deformities secondary to over- or undercorrrection was high. Extensive preoperative cartilage damage and higher postoperative alpha angles increase the risk for progressive degeneration.

Key Points

• The majority of patients presented with osseous deformities of the acetabulum or femur (74%) and with intra-articular lesions (96%) on postoperative imaging.

• Prevalence of hip dysplasia increased (2 to 20%, p = 0.01) from pre- to postoperatively while prevalence of a cam deformity decreased (83 to 28%, p < 0.001).

• Progressive cartilage damage was present in 37% of patients and was associated with extensive preoperative cartilage damage > 2 h (OR 7.72; p = 0.02) and with an incremental increase in postoperative alpha angles (OR 1.18; p = 0.04).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00330-021-08398-4.

Editorial Commentary: Assistive Technologies for Hip Arthroscopic Cam Resection Will Improve Diagnostic and Surgical Accuracy: Desperately Needed and Here to Stay

Hip arthroscopy is technically demanding and presents a steep learning curve. Joint access and maneuverability of surgical tools are impeded by a large soft-tissue envelope. Furthermore, cam resection is challenging owing to the small size of the lesion and the difficulty in delineating what is normal and where the cam starts. Thus, the number of incomplete resections is high and represents the bulk of indications for revision hip arthroscopy. The search for assistive technologies to improve on diagnostics and surgical accuracy is consequently substantial and unquestionably needed. Intraoperative feedback will improve our resection accuracy while decreasing the learning efforts of both expert and novice surgeons.

Repair versus Debridement for Acetabular Labral Tears-A Systematic Review

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain whether acetabular labral repair (ALR) or debridement (ALD) resulted in superior patient outcomes.

Methods

The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Peer-reviewed studies comparing ALR and ALD published in English with full text available were included. Patients undergoing both open and arthroscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies were included. Studies were quantified for methodological quality using the MINORS criteria. Clinical outcomes were compared, with qualitative analysis, and quantitative analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism version 7. A P value <.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

There were 8 studies included (level of evidence [LOE] I = 1; LOE II = 2; LOE III = 5). The 7 studies compared 364 patients (369 hips) with ALR to 318 patients (329 hips) with ALD, with a mean follow-up time ranging between 32-120 months. Five studies found significantly improved patient reported outcomes with ALR (Harris Hip Score, Merle d'Aubigné, Pain, SF-12). Several studies compared the outcomes after ALR and ALD and found statistical significance in all investigated metrics in favor of ALR. One study found a significant improvement in abduction but no other study found any difference in range of motion. No study found any difference in complication rate, revision rate or conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Although, 2 studies found ALR reduced the rate of osteoarthritic progression.

Conclusion

Current literature suggests that acetabular labral repair may result in superior patient reported outcomes. However, there appears to be no significant difference in the rate of progression to total hip arthroplasty at up to 10-year follow-up.

Level of Evidence

Level III, systematic review of Level I, II, and III studies.

Predicting the Risk of Subsequent Hip Surgery Before Primary Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Machine Learning Analysis of Preoperative Risk Factors in Hip Preservation

BACKGROUND

The number of patients requiring reoperation has increased as the volume of hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) has increased. The factors most important in determining patients who are likely to require reoperation remain elusive.

PURPOSE

To leverage machine learning to better characterize the complex relationship across various preoperative factors (patient characteristics, radiographic parameters, patient-reported outcome measures [PROMs]) for patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS to determine which features predict the need for future ipsilateral hip reoperation, namely, revision hip arthroscopy, total hip arthroplasty (THA), hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA), or periacetabular osteotomy (PAO).

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A cohort of 3147 patients undergoing 3748 primary hip arthroscopy procedures were included from an institutional hip preservation registry. Preoperative computed tomography of the hip was obtained for each patient, from which the following parameters were calculated: the alpha angle; the coronal center-edge angle; the neck-shaft angle; the acetabular version angle at 1, 2, and 3 o'clock; and the femoral version angle. Preoperative PROMs included the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living subscale (HOS-ADL) and the Sport Specific subscale, and the international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33). Random forest models were created for revision hip arthroscopy, the THA, the HRA, and the PAO. Area under the curve (AUC) for the receiver operating characteristic curve and accuracy were calculated to evaluate each model.

RESULTS

A total of 171 patients (4.6%) underwent subsequent hip surgery after primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS. The AUC and accuracy, respectively, were 0.77 (fair) and 76% for revision hip arthroscopy (mean, 26.4-month follow-up); 0.80 (good) and 81% for THA (mean, 32.5-month follow-up); 0.62 (poor) and 69% for HRA (mean, 45.4-month follow-up); and 0.76 (fair) and 74% for PAO (mean, 30.4-month follow-up). The most important factors in predicting reoperation after primary hip arthroscopy were higher body mass index (BMI) and lower preoperative HOS-ADL for revision hip arthroscopy, greater age and lower preoperative iHOT-33 for THA, increased BMI for HRA, and larger neck-shaft angle and lower preoperative mHHS for PAO.

CONCLUSION

Despite the low failure rate of hip arthroscopy for FAIS, our study demonstrated that machine learning has the capability to identify key preoperative risk factors that may predict subsequent ipsilateral hip surgery before the index hip arthroscopy. Knowledge of these demographic, radiographic, and patient-reported outcome data may aid in preoperative counseling and expectation management to better optimize hip preservation.

Remplissage and Labral Reconstruction Technique Correlated With Dynamic Hip Examination Using the Kite Technique for Restoration of the Suction Seal in Revision Hip Arthroscopy

The hip suction seal plays a key role in distractive stability and maintenance of intra-articular fluid pressure of the hip. Preservation of the suction seal relies on the acetabular labrum and the congruence between the labrum and the femoral head-neck junction. During the treatment of cam-type impingement, iatrogenic over-resection in the femoral head-neck junction or labrum deficiency can cause loss of this suction seal. In this technical note, we describe a remplissage procedure performed in addition to labral reconstruction in a patient with loss of the suction seal due to a dysfunctional labrum and previous over-resection of a cam deformity.

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.

Complications of hip preserving surgery

Preoperative evaluation of the pathomorphology is crucial for surgical planning, including radiographs as the basic modality and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and case-based additional imaging (e.g. 3D-CT, abduction views).

Hip arthroscopy (HAS) has undergone tremendous technical advances, an immense increase in use and the indications are getting wider. The most common indications for revision arthroscopy are labral tears and residual femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).

Treatment of borderline developmental dysplastic hip is currently a subject of controversy. It is paramount to understand the underlining problem of the individual hip and distinguish instability (dysplasia) from FAI, as the appropriate treatment for unstable hips is periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) and for FAI arthroscopic impingement surgery.

PAO with a concomitant cam resection is associated with a higher survival rate compared to PAO alone for the treatment of hip dysplasia. Further, the challenge for the surgeon is the balance between over- and undercorrection.

Femoral torsion abnormalities should be evaluated and evaluation of femoral rotational osteotomy for these patients should be incorporated to the treatment plan.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:472-486. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210019

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.

Mid- to Long-Term Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To assess mid- to long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of hip arthroscopy as well as the rates of secondary surgery and to identify indications for surgery and noted predictors of failure.

METHODS

A systematic review of the current literature was performed with the terms "hip arthroscopy," "outcomes," "patient-reported outcomes," "mid-term," "5-year," "long-term," and "10-year" in the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases in April of 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Data for study characteristics, patient demographics, follow-up time, indications for surgery, PROs, predictors of failure or unfavorable PROs, and rates of secondary hip preservation surgery and conversion to total hip arthroplasty were collected.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles were included. Four studies were level III and 9 were level IV. In total, 1571 hips were included, and the average follow-up time ranged from 60 to 240 months. The most common indications for hip arthroscopy were labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Twelve studies reported on PROs and all reported improvement at latest follow-up. The most reported on scores were the modified Harris Hip Score, Harris Hip Score, and the Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale. When grouped based on average follow-up time, the conversion rates at the 5- and 10-year time points ranged from 3.0% to 17.9% and 2.4% to 32.5%, respectively. One study with 20-year follow-up reported a conversion rate of 41.0%. Osteoarthritis and increased age were the most cited predictors for secondary surgery or decreased PROs.

CONCLUSIONS

At mid- to long-term follow-up, patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy demonstrated improvement in several PROs. There was great variability in rates for revision surgery and conversion to total hip arthroplasty. The most common indications for hip arthroscopy were labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Osteoarthritis and increased age were the most cited predictors for unfavorable outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Can Patient-Reported Outcomes Predict the Need for Secondary Surgeries After Hip Arthroscopy?

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) capture the postoperative period and reflect the patient's perspective of one's own recovery. However, it is unknown if PROs can reflect and predict the need for secondary surgeries after a primary hip arthroscopy.

PURPOSE

To examine if PROs at 3 months and 1 year after primary hip arthroscopy were correlated with future reoperations and determine the critical thresholds for significant PROs utilizing a multivariate logistic regression analysis and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data on consecutive patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy between February 2008 and August 2018 was retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included for analysis if they had the following PROs preoperatively and at 3 months and 1 year postoperatively: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patients were split into 2 groups: those who underwent secondary surgery and those who did not. Patient variables, intraoperative labral treatment, preoperative PROs, and postoperative PROs were compared between the 2 groups. A multivariate logistic regression analysis and ROC analysis were deployed to evaluate the correlation between PROs and the need for future surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 911 primary arthroscopy cases were included in this study. While age, body mass index, labral treatment, and 3-month and 1-year follow-up mHHS, NAHS, and VAS were significant in the bivariate analysis, the multivariate logistic regression analysis only found 1-year mHHS to be significant in the final model (P < .05). The ROC curve for 1-year mHHS demonstrated acceptable discrimination between patients requiring secondary surgery and patients not requiring secondary surgery with an area under the curve of 0.73. Using the Youden index, a threshold of 80.5 was determined for the 1-year mHHS.

CONCLUSION

The risk for secondary procedures may be evaluated with mHHS at 1 year after primary hip arthroscopy. Surpassing a score of 80.5 may be associated with a 74.4% reduction in risk for either a revision hip arthroscopy or a conversion to hip replacement.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy in the Borderline Dysplastic Population: Reporting Outcomes With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up, With a Subanalysis Against a Propensity-Matched Nondysplastic Control Group

BACKGROUND

Hip arthroscopy in patients with borderline dysplasia continues to be surrounded by controversy. Even more controversial is the management of the failed hip arthroscopy in this population. There is a paucity of studies in contemporary literature regarding outcomes after arthroscopic revision surgery.

PURPOSE

(1) To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores in patients with borderline dysplasia who underwent revision hip arthroscopy and (2) to compare these PRO scores with those of a propensity-matched control group without dysplasia who underwent revision hip arthroscopy.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected between August 2009 and November 2017. Inclusion criteria were revision arthroscopic surgery, capsular plication, and baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up for the following PROs: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patients with Tönnis grade >1 or previous hip conditions were excluded. Two groups were created: a study group with borderline dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA], 18°-25°) and a control group without dysplasia (LCEA, 25°-40°). Groups were propensity-matched in a 1:3 ratio for sex, age, body mass index, and follow-up time.

RESULTS

A total of 22 revision borderline dysplastic hips (21 patients) had a minimum 2-year follow-up during the study period. Patients in this group reported significant improvements for all PROs from baseline and achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the mHHS at a rate of 70%. Moreover, 21 borderline dysplastic hips (21 patients) were matched to 63 control hips (63 patients). Mean LCEA for the study and control groups was 22.6 ± 1.7 and 32.0 ± 5.0, respectively. Both groups reported similar improvement in all PROs. The rate for achieving the MCID for the mHHS and VAS was similar between groups; however, the control group had higher rates of meeting the MCID for the HOS-SSS and NAHS (P = .042 and P = .025, respectively). The rates of conversion to hip arthroplasty were 7.9% (n = 5) in the control group and 23.8% (n = 5) in the borderline dysplasia propensity-matched group (P = .052). The rate of re-revision arthroscopy was 11.1% (n = 7) in the control group and 19.0% (n = 4) on the borderline dysplasia group (P = .350).

CONCLUSION

After revision hip arthroscopy, significant improvement was obtained for all PROs in patients with borderline dysplasia at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Moreover, outcomes, patient satisfaction, the rate for achieving the MCID for the mHHS and VAS, and the rate for secondary surgery were similar to those of a propensity-matched control group without dysplasia. Nevertheless, there was a nonsignificant trend toward higher secondary procedures in the study group; therefore, arthroscopic revision surgery in the borderline patients should be approached with measured prognosis.

Hip Capsular Reconstruction Made Easy: The Timing and the Technique

An iatrogenic capsular defect can be a major contributing factor to macroinstability of the hip. For this circumstance, capsular reconstruction may be appropriately indicated when the capsule cannot be primarily reconstituted. Severe dysfunction may accompany previous failed arthroscopy. This dysfunction should be assessed and addressed with a properly structured rehabilitation program prior to revision surgery. We describe a simplified technique for capsular reconstruction using a dermal allograft.

Treatment of femoroacetabular impingement by arthroscopy versus anterior mini-open approach: Case-control study of a continuous series of 91 cases at a mean 4.6 years' follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Femoroacetabular impingement is a frequent cause of hip pain, and can be managed by conservative surgery. Many studies assessed postoperative course, but none compared operative techniques within a given population. We therefore conducted a retrospective case-control study comparing the minimally invasive anterior Hueter approach versus arthroscopy, assessing difference in 1) functional gain and 2) complications and 3) analyzing the impact of labral or cartilage lesions on functional scores.

HYPOTHESIS

Clinical results do not differ between the mini-open and arthroscopic approach.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Between 2007 and 2018, 91 hips in 84 patients were treated for femoroacetabular impingement: 69/91 (75.8%) cam effect, 6/91 pincer effect (6.6%) and 16/91 mixed (17.6%). Fifty-five were treated by arthroscopy and 36 by the Hueter mini-open approach. There were 20 female and 71 male hips. Mean age at surgery was 32 years (range, 17-55 years). Potential predictive factors comprised Nötzli alpha angle, labral/cartilage lesion and type of surgery.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 4.6 years (range, 1-16 years), with no loss to follow-up. The arthroscopy and Hueter groups showed no differences in functional improvement on Oxford-12 score (gain, -6.7±5.9 versus -6.2±8.1 (p=0.73), Postel Merle d'Aubigné (PMA) score (gain, 1.3±1 versus 1.1±0.9; p=0.41), operative time (75 versus 67min; p=0.16), or alpha angle correction (-10.9±12.9 versus -9.8±7.1; p=0.22). Complications did not differ: 1/55 severe complications after arthroscopy (1 definitive femoral nerve palsy) versus 4/36 non-severe complications after Hueter (3 cases of dysesthesia in the lateral cutaneous nerve of the thigh, 1 rectus femoris enthesopathy) (p=0.15). Labral lesions (37/91) did not affect clinical outcome: gain, 1.2±1 versus 1.3±0.9 on PMA (p=0.514) and -7.3±6 versus -6±7.3 on Oxford-12 (p=0.366). Cartilage lesions (27/91) were associated with poorer outcome on PMA (gain, 1±1.1 versus 1.3±0.9; p=002) but not on Oxford-12 (gain, -6.1±7.3 versus -6.7±6.6; p=0.288).

CONCLUSION

Impingement correction by the minimally invasive anterior Hueter approach gave clinical results comparable to those of hip arthroscopy in terms of Oxford and PMA scores, alpha angle correction, operative time and complications. Cartilage lesions were associated with poorer clinical results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; retrospective case-control study.

Arthroscopic acetabular labral reconstruction: a review

The function and importance of the acetabular labrum in hip biomechanics have been determined. A labral tear is one of the most common findings in the hip preservation field, commonly associated with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome. It has been established that the restoration of labral anatomy and function are key factors to improve patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) and psychometric tools following arthroscopic hip arthroscopy in the context of FAI syndrome. Labral repair or refixation is currently the gold-standard surgical option when facing labral tears, with clinical mid to long-term data supporting its use. Labral selective debridement has proven to be a valid alternative in selective patients. Acetabular labral reconstruction has risen as an alternative to labral excision or resection when repair is not an option due to labral tissue deficiency. Restoring the labral sealing mechanism is the goal behind the acetabular labral reconstruction. It has been proven that labral reconstruction leads to superior PROMs when compared with resection. This review presents an analysis of the indications, techniques, and outcomes for arthroscopic acetabular labral reconstruction.

Computer assistance in hip preservation surgery-current status and introduction of our system

INTRODUCTION

Preservation surgery of the hip with open or arthroscopic approach has always been challenging as complex 3-D anatomy and limited surgical access make intraoperative evaluation difficult. Recent advances in computer technology offer a wide range of innovative solutions with a goal to improve accuracy and safety of corrective procedures on human joints.

METHOD

The author critically reviews currently available literature in the field of computer assistance in hip preservation surgery. Basic features of unique planning software and navigation surgical system used in treatment of femoroacetabular impingement and hip dysplasia are introduced.

RESULTS

Currently available software provides preoperative identification of hip deformity on CT-based 3-D model and planning of the surgical correction using kinematic protocols. Real-time intraoperative 3-D orientation is possible, and execution of surgical correction can be performed either with navigation of surgical tools or with printed templates. Computer assistance in hip preservation surgery is in the developing phase. First clinical experiences of its use in treatment of femoroacetabular impingement, hip dysplasia, hip tumors, and avascular necrosis of the femoral head are promising.

CONCLUSION

Computer assistance has been applied for treatment of several hip disorders. Technical advances are suggested and quality basic studies and clinical trials are encouraged for the novel technology to become more user friendly and widely accepted.

Arthroscopic Labral Repair of the Hip Using a Self-Grasping Suture-Passing Device: Maintaining the Chondrolabral Junction

In the setting of femoroacetabular impingement, the acetabular labrum may be torn or pathologic, and it must be surgically repaired to restore the native suction seal and hip function. However, the current methods of arthroscopic suture passage commonly result in some degree of disruption of the chondrolabral junction, with penetration and shuttling of the repair sutures. Novel instrumentation and surgical techniques have aimed to repair the acetabular labrum with decreased violation of the intrasubstance fibers to provide anatomic eversion/inversion of the labrum to restore the suction seal. In this Technical Note, we describe a method of suture passage through the use of a self-grasping suture-passing device that allows for anatomic labral repair while maintaining the chondrolabral junction as well as minimizing iatrogenic damage the labrum intrasubstance fibers.

Editorial Commentary: Revision Hip Surgery After Arthroscopy-What Went Wrong? Are There Second Chances?

Hip arthroscopy allows minimally invasive treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) with labral tears. Over the last 2 decades, the indications and techniques for treatment of FAI have evolved, and complex pathology can now be treated arthroscopically. Short- and medium-term patient-reported outcomes demonstrate the reliability of hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAI, although a subset of patients fail to achieve desired results and require revision surgery. The indications for revision surgery after a primary hip arthroscopy are not well described in a large series, and most reviews focus on revision arthroscopy at the exclusion of open surgery (notably periacetabular osteotomy and total hip arthroplasty). Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes after these revision procedures have not been recently summarized.