Labral Tears and Chondral Lesions Are Common Comorbidities Identified During Endoscopic Repair of Gluteal Tendon Tears for Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Endoscopic Hip Abductor Tendon Repair Results in Successful Outcomes With 5- to 10-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To report the outcomes of endoscopic repair in a consecutive series of patients with follow-up ranging from 5 to 10 years.

METHODS

Sixty-five consecutive hips in 63 patients (2 bilateral) undergoing endoscopic abductor tendon repair with minimum 5-year follow-up were assessed with the modified Harris Hip Score. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was determined as one-half the standard deviation of the amount of improvement.

RESULTS

The mean age was 56.6 years (standard deviation [SD], 11.3 years), with 58 female and 5 male patients. Follow-up was obtained on 64 hips (98.5%) at a mean of 85 months (SD, 15.7 months). There were 33 full-thickness and 32 partial-thickness tears, with 40 gluteus medius tears, 23 medius and minimus tears, and 2 isolated minimus tears. Concomitant arthroscopy of the hip joint was performed in 50 patients (52 hips), including 15 with correction of femoroacetabular impingement. The mean modified Harris Hip Score was 48.4 (SD, 15.7) preoperatively and 83.4 (SD, 15.9) postoperatively, reflecting a mean improvement of 34.9 (95% confidence interval, 34.9 ± 4.3), with 92.2% of patients achieving the MCID of 8.7. There were no complications. Three patients underwent further surgery: One underwent total hip replacement at 11 months after abductor repair, one underwent repeated arthroscopy for joint debridement at 12 months after repair, and one underwent revision abductor repair at 6 years postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, with 5- to 10-year follow-up, patients undergoing endoscopic abductor tendon repair can respond exceptionally well, with 92.2% achieving the MCID, even among a heterogeneous group of partial- and full-thickness tears with single- and 2-tendon involvement undergoing single- and double-row repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Surgical Treatment and Outcomes for Gluteal Tendon Tears

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Gluteus medius and minimus tears, or hip abductor tendon tears, are increasingly identified as a source of lateral hip pain. Once underappreciated and undertreated, they are now recognized as a cause of greater trochanteric pain syndrome and a pathology amenable to both nonoperative and operative modalities. This review summarizes relevant anatomy, clinical presentation, and treatment options for gluteus medius tears, focusing on surgical options.

RECENT FINDINGS

When surgical intervention is indicated, repair, reconstruction, or tendon transfer may be considered. Open and endoscopic repair techniques demonstrate similar outcomes with improvements in patient-reported outcomes and low complication and retear rates for both partial and full thickness tears. Variations in fixation construct and graft augmentations have been described, though clinical evidence remains limited to support specific techniques. Gluteus maximus transfer via open approach is a salvage option for the severely atrophied, retracted, or revision gluteus tendon; however, persistent limitations in abduction strength and gait abnormalities are common. Emerging evidence continues to evolve our understanding of surgical decision-making for gluteus tendon tears. The current literature supports either open or endoscopic repair techniques and open tendon transfer as a salvAage option. Further study is needed to determine the optimal fixation construct, the role of graft augmentation, and patient-related factors that influence postoperative outcomes.

Outcomes of Isolated Endoscopic Gluteal Tendon Repair Compared With Concomitant Endoscopic Gluteal Tendon Repair and Arthroscopic Hip Labral Repair: A Propensity-Matched Analysis With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Background

Both gluteal and labral tears are common sources of hip pain, but no studies have evaluated how concomitant arthroscopic labral repair and correction of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) affect outcomes after endoscopic gluteus/minimus repair.

Purpose

(1) To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinically significant outcomes achievements between patients who underwent endoscopic gluteus medius/minimus and arthroscopic hip labral repair with correction of FAIS versus endoscopic gluteus medius/minimus repair without labral repair and (2) to define threshold scores required to achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 12-item international Hip Outcome Tool, and visual analog scale for pain in these patients.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Patients who underwent primary endoscopic gluteus medius/minimus repair between 2012 and 2020 were identified. Those who underwent concomitant arthroscopic labral repair and correction of FAIS with femoroplasty or acetabuloplasty as indicated were propensity matched in a 1 to 1 ratio by sex, age, and body mass index to patients who underwent gluteus medius/minimus repair without labral repair. Patients who completed the study PROs were assessed preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively. Threshold scores required to achieve the MCID and PASS thresholds were calculated.

Results

A total of 32 patients who underwent simultaneous gluteal and labral repair (G+L) were matched to 32 patients who underwent gluteal repair without labral repair (G); 75% of patients in the G cohort underwent labral debridement, while 25% in this cohort received no labral treatment. A significant difference was observed between groups in preoperative mHHS scores (G+L, 54.4 ± 12.9 vs G, 46.3 ± 14; P = .048) but no differences in any other PRO scores (P≥ .207). The MCID/PASS thresholds were as follows: Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (11.14/83.82), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific (16.07/59.72), mHHS (11.47/70.95), 12-item international Hip Outcome Tool (13.73/45.49), and visual analog scale for pain (14.30/22). There were no significant differences in MCID or PASS achievement rates between the 2 groups (P≥ .108).

Conclusion

Patients who underwent combined G+L demonstrated comparable PROs and clinically significant outcomes achievement rates to patients who underwent G, highlighting sustained successful outcomes for patients with gluteal tendon pathology and concomitant FAIS and labral tears.

Endoscopic Tendon Compression Bridge Technique for Repair of Partial-Thickness Gluteus Medius Tears With Concomitant Arthroscopy for Labral Tears: Minimum 2-Year Outcomes With Benchmark Control Group

BACKGROUND

The transtendinous technique has been used to treat partial-thickness gluteus medius tears in the setting of concomitant arthroscopy for labral tears. The tendon compression bridge technique for gluteus medius repair has been developed as an alternative method, providing several advantages; however, comparative studies between the 2 techniques are lacking in the literature.

PURPOSE

(1) To evaluate the short-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of the tendon compression bridge technique and (2) to compare these findings with short-term PROs of the transtendinous technique.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected on patients who were followed for a minimum of 2 years after an endoscopic tendon compression bridge procedure for gluteus medius repair in the setting of concomitant hip arthroscopy for labral tears. The following PROs were collected preoperatively and postoperatively: modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, visual analog scale score for pain, and the International Hip Outcome Tool. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Patient Acceptable Symptom State, minimal clinically important difference, and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold. Patients were propensity matched 1:1 to a cohort that underwent gluteus medius repair using the endoscopic transtendinous technique with concomitant hip arthroscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 48 hips (48 patients) that met inclusion criteria (age, 53.3 ± 9.8 years; 92% female; body mass index, 26.7 ± 4.6), with a mean follow-up of 38.5 ± 15.7 months, were matched to 48 hips (46 patients) that underwent gluteus medius repair using the transtendinous technique. Both groups demonstrated significant improvement from preoperative scores to latest follow-up (P < .05). Mean magnitude of improvement and latest follow-up scores were not significantly different between the tendon compression bridge group and the transtendinous group, and the groups demonstrated similar favorable rates of achieving Minimal Clinically Important Difference (79% vs 79%, respectively), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (73% vs 73%, respectively), and Maximum Outcome Improvement Satisfaction threshold (65% vs 58%, respectively) for modified Harris Hip Score (P > .05). Patient satisfaction between groups was similar (8.1 ± 2.2 vs 7.7 ± 2.7, respectively) (P = .475).

CONCLUSION

At minimum 2-year follow-up, the endoscopic tendon compression bridge technique for partial-thickness gluteus medius tears, when performed with concomitant hip arthroscopy, was associated with significant improvement in functional outcomes. These postoperative results were comparable with those of a matched cohort that underwent the endoscopic transtendinous technique for partial-thickness gluteus medius tears, suggesting that the tendon compression bridge technique for gluteus medius repair is an effective treatment option for partial-thickness gluteus medius tears.