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

Editorial Commentary: Hip Arthroscopy in Patients With Spine Pain: Outcomes Vary Compared to Patients With Isolated Hip Pathology, but Many Hip-Spine Patients Do Just as Well

Low back pain present concurrently with hip impingement or labral pathology is frustrating for both patient and surgeon. It is difficult to distinguish true hip pathology from secondary low back symptoms, even with the use of diagnostic injections, cross-sectional imaging, electromyography, and/or nerve conduction studies. In addition, even properly indicated hip arthroscopy can exacerbate sciatic nerve dysfunction, a known complication from traction, and altered gait in the early postoperative period can aggravate sacroiliac and lumbar pathology. Moreover, difficult results vary in these patients after hip arthroscopy and show higher revision rates and less improvement in functional scores compared to patients with isolated hip pathology. Nevertheless, appropriately selected "hip-spine" patients show significant benefit from hip arthroscopy. Provided they have appropriate counseling, many hip-spine patients can undergo hip arthroscopy and experience a satisfying, durable outcome, and improvements at 1 year postoperatively are shown to be maintained at 5 or more years.

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.

Hip Arthroscopy Patients With Lower Back Pain Show Delayed Clinical Improvement and Inferior Time-Dependent Survivorship: A Propensity Matched Study at Mid-Term Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship at mid-term follow-up after hip arthroscopy (HA) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) in patients with and without preoperative lower back pain (LBP).

METHODS

Patients with self-endorsed preoperative LBP who underwent HA for FAIS with mid-term follow-up were identified and propensity matched 1:1 to patients without back pain by age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). PROs collected preoperatively and at postoperative years 1, 2, and 5 included Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Pain. Achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) were compared. Survivorship was compared with Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 119 patients with LBP were matched to 119 patients without LBP. Group demographic factors were as follows: age (37.4 ± 11.9 vs 37.6 ± 12.6 years, P = .880), sex (64.4% vs 67.7% female, P = .796), and BMI (25.3 ± 5.1 vs 25.3 ± 5.4, P = .930). Average follow-up duration was 6.0 ± 1.9 years. LBP patients showed similar preoperative PROs, yet lower 1-year scores for all PROs (P ≤ .044). At final follow-up, similar PROs were shown between groups (P ≥ .196). LBP and non-LBP patients had similar MCID achievement for HOS-ADL (59.3% vs 63.1%, P = .640), HOS-SS (73.9% vs 70.8%, P = .710), mHHS (66.7% vs 73.4%, P = .544), iHOT-12 (85.1% vs 79.4%, P = .500), and VAS Pain (75.6% vs 69.9%, P = .490). Groups also had similar PASS achievement for HOS-ADL (63.5% vs 61.3%, P = .777), HOS-SS (57.0% vs 62.5%, P = .461), mHHS (81.9% vs 79.1%, P = .692), iHOT-12 (54.6% vs 61.2%, P = .570), and VAS Pain (51.0% vs 55.4%, P = .570). Additionally, achievement of MCID ≥ 1 PRO (P ≥ .490) and PASS ≥ 1 PRO (P ≥ .370) was similar across groups. Conversion to total hip arthroplasty occurred in 3.4% of hips with LBP and 0.8% of hips without LBP (P = .370). Back pain patients demonstrated inferior time-dependent survivorship compared with patients without back pain on Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (P = .023).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS with LBP achieve comparable PROs and clinically significant outcomes to patients without back pain at mid-term, despite lower 1-year PRO scores. LBP patients show inferior reoperation-free time-dependent survivorship compared with those without LBP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative case series.

Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy in the Setting of Concomitant Symptomatic Lumbosacral Spine Pathology: A Matched Control Study With Minimum 24-Month Follow-up

BACKGROUND

The overlapping biomechanical relationship between the lumbosacral spine and pelvis poses unique challenges to patients with concomitant pathologies limiting spinopelvic range of motion.

PURPOSE

To assess the influence of concomitant, symptomatic lumbosacral spine pathology on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and symptomatic labral tears.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective query of prospectively collected data identified patients aged ≥18 years with a minimum 24-month follow-up who underwent hip arthroscopy by a single surgeon for the treatment of symptomatic labral tears secondary to FAI. Patients were stratified into cohorts based on the presence (hip-spine [HS]) or absence (matched control [MC]) of symptomatic lumbosacral spine pathology. Inclusion within the HS cohort required confirmation of lower back pain/symptoms on preoperative surveys plus a diagnosis of lumbosacral spine pathology verified by radiology reports and correlating clinical documentation. Patients with previous spine surgery were excluded. PROMs were compared between groups, along with rates of achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds, Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds, revision arthroscopy, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA).

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients with lumbosacral pathology were coarsened exact matched to 87 control patients without spinal pathology. The HS cohort had preoperative baseline scores that were significantly worse for nearly all PROMs. Follow-ups at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months displayed similar trends, with the HS cohort demonstrating significantly worse scores for most collected outcomes. However, at every time point, HS and MC patients exhibited similar magnitudes of improvement across all PROM and pain metrics. Furthermore, while significantly fewer HS patients achieved PASS for nearly all PROMs at 12- and 24-month follow-ups, MCID thresholds were reached at similar or greater rates across all PROMs relative to the MC cohort. Finally, there were no significant differences in rates of revision or THA between cohorts at maximum available follow-up.

CONCLUSION

After hip arthroscopy to address labral tears in the setting of FAI, patients with symptomatic lumbosacral pathologies and no history of spine surgery were found to exhibit inferior pre- and postoperative PROMs but achieved statistically similar clinical benefit and rates of PROM improvement through 24-month follow-up compared with the MC cohort with isolated hip disease. These findings aid in providing a realistic recovery timeline and evidence that coexisting hip and spine disorders are not a contraindication for arthroscopic hip preservation surgery.