Concomitant Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Negatively Affects Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement

Editorial Commentary: Patients With Lumbar Pathology or Ipsilateral Knee Pathology Improve After Hip Arthroscopy, but Outcomes Are Not as Good as in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome Without Concomitant Pathology

From the lumbar spine to foot, the joints of the lower extremity are all intimately connected. Their movements are synchronized in a complex biomechanical dance. Pain in one joint tends to affect the joint above and joint below. Understanding the influence of adjacent-joint disease on the hip can help us better counsel patients undergoing hip surgery. Low-back pathology has been shown to negatively influence outcomes after hip arthroscopy. Ipsilateral knee pain appears to do the same. Patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome with ipsilateral knee pain should be counseled that their outcomes may not be quite as good as those without knee pain, but they should be able to expect meaningful improvement of their symptoms, both at the hip and at the knee after hip arthroscopy.

Concomitant Ipsilateral Knee Pain Is Associated With Worse Preoperative Functional Status and Short-Term Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

PURPOSE

(1) To determine the effect of concomitant ipsilateral knee pain (IKP) on short-term outcomes after hip arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and (2) to determine whether IKP would improve with surgery.

METHODS

Data between September 2021 and May 2022 were reviewed. Patients with a diagnosis of FAIS who underwent hip arthroscopy with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The exclusion criteria were prior ipsilateral hip or knee surgery, hip Tönnis grade greater than 1, knee Kellgren-Lawrence grade greater than 2, hip conditions (avascular necrosis, Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease, pigmented villonodular synovitis, osteoid osteoma, synovial chondromatosis, and developmental dysplasia of the hip), and spine diseases. All patients underwent knee magnetic resonance imaging preoperatively. Preoperative and short-term (1-year) patient-reported outcomes were collected, consisting of the Hip Sports Activity Scale score, weekly sports participation, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 12-component International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) score, and visual analog pain scale (VAS) scores for the hip and the ipsilateral knee. The percentages of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the mHHS and iHOT-12 score were calculated. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine the effect of IKP severity on postoperative outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed between patients with IKP alleviation and those without IKP alleviation.

RESULTS

Among the 107 patients included, 47 presented with preoperative IKP. Compared with patients without IKP, the IKP cohort had comparable knee structural abnormalities (all with P > .05). Still, the IKP cohort showed inferior preoperative values for the mHHS (P = .003), iHOT-12 score (P = .016), hip VAS score (P = .001), and weekly sports participation (P = .039). Postoperatively, the IKP cohort had a lower mHHS (P = .046), lower iHOT-12 score (P = .037), and lower hip VAS score (P = .003) and were less likely to achieve the PASS for the mHHS (P = .021) and iHOT-12 score (P = .049). Patients with higher knee VAS scores were less likely to achieve the PASS for the mHHS (odds ratio, 0.61; P = .023). Within the IKP group, the knee VAS score improved from 2.3 to 1.0 (P < .001). Patients with alleviated IKP showed superior postoperative iHOT-12 scores (P = .038) compared with patients with persistent IKP.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant IKP at baseline negatively affected preoperative status and short-term clinical outcomes after arthroscopic treatment of FAIS. Patients with IKP were less likely to meet clinical thresholds. Most patients achieved IKP alleviation postoperatively, which was associated with superior clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Over 50% of Studies Report Low-Back Pain Is Associated With Worse Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy When Compared With a Control Group: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To review outcomes of patients with low-back pathology undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Trials, and Scopus databases were queried in June 2022 to conduct this systematic review using the following terms: ("hip" OR "femoroacetabular impingement") AND ("arthroscopy" OR "arthroscopic") AND ("spine" OR "lumbar" OR "sacral" OR "hip-spine" OR "back") AND ("outcomes"). Articles were included if they reported on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and/or clinical benefit of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with concomitant low-back pathology. The review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria. Case reports, opinion articles, review articles, and technique articles were excluded from this study. Forest plots were created to analyze preoperative and postoperative outcomes among patients with low-back pathology.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the review. There were 750 hips with low-back pathology and FAI (hip-spine syndrome) and 1,800 hips with only FAI (no hip-spine syndrome). All 14 studies reported PROs. In 4 studies in the group with hip-spine syndrome and 8 studies in the group with FAI without low-back pathology, the respective cohorts were reported to achieve the minimal clinically important difference in at least 1 PRO at a rate of 80%. Eight studies reported that patients with low-back pathology were associated with inferior outcomes or clinical benefit compared with patients without low-back pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with concomitant low-back pathology can expect favorable outcomes, but outcomes are superior in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAI alone compared with FAI with concomitant low-back pathology.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level II to Level IV studies.

The Outcome of Hip Arthroscopy in the Setting of Lumbar Spine Disease Is Beneficial, Yet Limited: A Systematic Review of Existing Evidence

PURPOSE

To compare hip arthroscopy outcomes in femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) patients with concurrent symptomatic lumbar spine disease to the outcomes of arthroscopic FAI patients without spine disease.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines via PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. Studies were valid for inclusion if they had an average follow-up ≥12 months and compared patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in hip arthroscopy patients with and without concurrent spinal disease. Data collected included study characteristics, patient demographics, follow-up intervals, surgical indications, spinal pathology, PROMs, and reoperation rates.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in this systematic review. 3,107 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy were evaluated: 1,056 with coexisting lumbar spine disease (spine cohort) and 2,051 control subjects without spine disease (control cohort). The average follow-up period was 24 months. Across included studies, there were 35 instances wherein postoperative PROM scores reported by each cohort were compared. In all 35 instances, the spine cohort reported inferior postoperative PROM scores with the difference being significant (P < .05) on 23 PROMs. Collectively, 23 cases were available contrasting the proportion of each cohort to achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). In 22 (95.65%) of these cases, the spine cohort achieved the MCID at a lower rate than the control cohort. There were 14 PROMs, wherein intragroup analyses were reported that compared the preoperative and postoperative score reported by the spine cohort. On all 14 PROMs, the spine cohort reported significant (P < .05) improvement after arthroscopic intervention.

CONCLUSION

FAI patients with coexisting lumbar spine pathology experience significant improvement from baseline state after arthroscopic intervention. However, the postoperative outcomes reported are inferior, and the improvement from arthroscopy was limited when compared to surgical control subjects with FAI and normal spinal anatomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Hip-Spine Syndrome in the Nonarthritic Patient

Hip-spine syndrome refers to concurrent hip and spine pathology with overlapping symptoms. Most of the literature has studied it in relation to total hip arthroplasty literature and has been shown to increase dislocation risk. Lumbar spine and pelvic mobility have been studied less frequently in relation to nonarthritic pathologic hip states. Understanding the biomechanical relationship between the lumbar spine, pelvis, and hip can help elucidate how hip-spine syndrome affects the nonarthritic hip and how it impacts outcomes of hip arthroscopy. Changes in lumbar spine motion may be the reason certain predisposed patients develop symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) or ischiofemoral impingement. Some athletes may be "hip users" with a low pelvic incidence, making them more reliant on hip motion due to less-intrinsic lumbopelvic motion. When these patients have FAI morphology, their increased reliance on hip motion makes them prone to experiencing femoroacetabular contact and concurrent symptoms. Other athletes may be "spine users," with larger pelvic incidence and more baseline lumbopelvic motion, making them less reliant on hip motion and therefore less prone to experiencing hip impingement even with hip FAI morphology. Hip-spine syndrome also appears to have an impact on patient selection, role of nonoperative treatment, and hip arthroscopy surgical outcomes. Identifying patients with concurrent pathology may allow surgeons to recommend targeted physical therapy or counsel patients better on their expectations after surgery.

Hip Spine Syndrome Negatively Impacts Arthroscopic Outcomes in the Management of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Systematic Review

To determine whether the presence of spine pathology affects clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) in the setting of hip-spine syndrome (HSS) METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed and Cochrane was conducted. Primary research articles evaluating patient-reported outcomes (PRO) after hip arthroscopy for FAIS in the presence of concomitant spine pathology were considered RESULTS: Literature review identified 12 studies meeting criteria. In 2109 FAIS patients undergoing hip arthroscopy, 591 had concomitant spine pathology. Baseline PROs in the hip-spine (modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS]: 39.8-65.29 vs 56.9-78.8, 8 studies; non-arthritic hip score [NAHS]: 42.2-51.5 vs 68.2-75.2, 4 studies; hip outcome score-activities of daily living [HOS-ADL]: 45.9-71.1 vs 49.3-89.51, 9 studies; hip outcome score-Sport (HOS-Sport): 22.8-49.6 vs 50.6-73.1, 3 studies; international hip outcome tool-33 [iHOT-12]: 38.0 vs 66.0, 1 study; visual analog scale [VAS] Pain: 6.43-6.56 vs 1.18-3.60, 3 studies; VAS Satisfaction: 7.18-7.46 range at follow-up, 2 studies) and control (mHHS: 39.3-64.9 vs 70.2-92.6, 6 studies; NAHS: 42.8-54.2 vs 74.0-87.1, 4 studies; HOS-ADL: 59.0-76.4 vs 75.4-97.1, 4 studies; HOS-Sport: 38.1-55.1 vs 60.9-93.9, 3 studies; iHOT-12: 43.4 vs 89.8, 1 study; VAS Pain: 6.18-6.22 vs 1.82-3.44, 2 studies; VAS Satisfaction: 7.74-8.22 range at follow up, 2 studies). Minimal clinically important difference threshold rates achieved in the hip-spine (44.1-86.7, 4 studies) cohorts were significantly lower than control (79.4-88.2%; 4 studies) cohorts in 3 studies. Patient-acceptable symptomatic state threshold rates achieved in the hip-spine (42-63.5, 3 studies) cohorts were significantly lower than control (58.8-81.0, 3 studies) in 1 study. There was no statistical difference in complication and reoperation rates between cohorts CONCLUSION: FAIS patients with concomitant HSS have improved but inferior outcomes after hip arthroscopy compared to patients without HSS LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, systematic review.

High Prevalence of Lumbosacral Pathology in Patients with Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome

PURPOSE

To establish prevalence of lumbar and lumbosacral pathologies in patients with hip abductor tendon disorders.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients' charts was conducted over a 5-year period, January 2013 to October 2018, using the S76 and M76 International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes. Patients with symptomatic and radiologically confirmed hip abductor tendon disorders (partial and full-thickness tear of the gluteus medius tear with or without gluteus minimus tearing) were included in the study. No exclusion criteria were applied. Patient medical history was examined for concurrent diagnoses of lumbar and lumbosacral pathologies (radiculopathy, lumbar stenosis, degenerative disc disease, and neurogenic claudication).

RESULTS

One-hundred and three patients with hip abductor tendon disorders were identified. Forty-seven (45.6%) patients had low-grade partial abductor tears, while 56 (54.4%) of patients had a high-grade partial or complete abductor tear. Fifty (48.5%) patients carried a concomitant lumbosacral diagnosis, with 20 (19.4%) patients being diagnosed with lumbar stenosis and 45 (43.7%) being diagnosed with degenerative disc disease.

CONCLUSION

Patients with hip abductor tendon disorders were associated with a high prevalence of underlying lumbar and lumbosacral pathologies. Nevertheless, a causal relationship between these conditions cannot be established.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV. Retrospective Case Series.

Return to Sports and Minimum 2-Year Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy in Elite Athletes With and Without Coexisting Low Back Pain: A Propensity-Matched Comparison

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and return to sports (RTS) after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) have not been established in elite athletes with coexisting low back pain (LBP).

PURPOSE

(1) To report minimum 2-year PROs and RTS rates after primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS in elite athletes with coexisting LBP and (2) to compare clinical results with a propensity-matched control group of elite athletes without back pain.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were reviewed for elite athletes (college and professional) who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS and had coexisting LBP between October 2009 and October 2018. Inclusion criteria were preoperative and minimum 2-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <18°), and previous ipsilateral hip or spine surgery or conditions. Rates of achieving the minimal clinically importance difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold were recorded in addition to RTS. For the subanalysis, the elite athlete study group was propensity matched to an elite athlete control group without back pain.

RESULTS

A total of 48 elite athletes with LBP who underwent primary hip arthroscopy met inclusion criteria, and follow-up was available for 42 (87.5%) at 53.2 ± 31.6 months (mean ± SD). Elite athletes with coexisting LBP demonstrated significant improvements in all recorded PROs and achieved the MCID and PASS for the HOS-SSS at rates of 82.5% and 67.5%, respectively. They also returned to sports at a high rate (75.8%), and 79% of them did not report LBP postoperatively. PROs, rates of achieving the MCID and PASS for the HOS-SSS, and RTS rates were similar between the study group and propensity-matched control group.

CONCLUSION

Elite athletes with coexisting LBP who undergo primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS may expect favorable PROs, rates of achieving the MCID and PASS for the HOS-SSS, and RTS rates at minimum 2-year follow-up. These results were comparable to those of a propensity-matched control group of elite athletes without back pain. In athletes with hip-spine syndrome, successful treatment of their hip pathology may help resolve their back pain.

Editorial Commentary: Spine Pathology May Compromise the Results of Hip Arthroscopy: Will Hip Arthroscopy Improve Low Back Pain?

Pathology of the lumbar spine and hip commonly occur concurrently. The hip-spine connection has been well documented in the hip arthroplasty literature but until recently has been largely ignored in the setting of hip arthroscopy. Physical examination and diagnostic workup of the lumbosacral junction are warranted to further our understanding of the effects of lumbosacral motion and pathology in patients with concomitant femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. An understanding of this relationship will better allow surgeons to counsel and preoperatively optimize patients undergoing evaluation and treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Several studies have reported that patients with a previous lumbar arthrodesis undergoing hip arthroplasty have lower patient-reported outcomes and greater revision rates compared with patients without previous lumbar surgery, and similar to its effect on outcomes after hip arthroplasty, lumbar spine disease can compromise outcomes after hip arthroscopy. On the other side of the coin, hip arthroplasty has been shown to improve low back pain in patients with concomitant hip osteoarthritis. Can the arthroscopic treatment of nonarthritic hip pathology offer a similar result? We won't know unless we look.