Revision hip arthroscopy: findings and outcomes

Criteria-Based Rehabilitation Following Revision Hip Arthroscopy: A Clinical Commentary

Hip revision arthroscopy is becoming an increasingly popular surgery for those with unsatisfactory outcomes following primary hip arthroscopy. With the relatively uncommon but potentially increased difficulty of rehabilitation from this surgery, a lack of established research regarding rehabilitative programs remains. Therefore, the purpose of this clinical commentary is to propose a criterion-based progression that considers the intricacies present following a hip revision arthroscopy from early rehabilitation through return to sport. Criteria are presented clearly to promote objective progression through rehabilitation as opposed to relying on time since surgery as revision surgeries do not always follow traditional tissue healing time-frames. This criterion based progression promotes range of motion (ROM), strength, gait, neuromuscular control, load introduction and gradual return to play.

Level of Evidence

5.

Younger Patients Are More Likely to Undergo Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair and Revision Meniscal Surgery in a Large Cross-Sectional Cohort

PURPOSE

To evaluate recent trends in the treatment of meniscal tears with arthroscopic repair and debridement and to assess revision surgery within 2 years using a large cross-sectional database.

METHODS

Patients with a diagnosis of meniscal tear from 2010 to 2017 were queried using the Mariner data set from PearlDiver. Patient demographic data were analyzed and tracked via International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes to investigate subsequent ipsilateral meniscal procedures and conversion to total knee arthroplasty within 2 years after index meniscal surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 1,383,161 patients with a diagnosis of meniscal tear, 53.0% underwent surgical treatment. Surgical treatment consisted of meniscal debridement in 96.6% of patients and meniscal repair in 3.4%. The percentage of meniscal repairs increased from 2.7% to 4.4% over the 8-year period evaluated, whereas the percentage of meniscal debridement decreased from 97.3% to 95.6% (P < .0001). Younger patients were more likely to undergo meniscal repair (23% of those aged 10-19 years) than older patients (<1% of those aged ≥60 years). Among the 191,729 patients with International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision coding and 2-year follow-up, 10.6% of patients with index meniscal repair required a revision meniscal operation and 1.2% underwent conversion to arthroplasty. Subsequent meniscal procedures within 2 years after index meniscal repair included meniscal debridement in 81.6% of patients and revision repair in 18.4%. Patients who initially underwent meniscal debridement were less likely to undergo revision meniscal surgery (5.1%), but 4.7% required conversion to arthroplasty. Patients aged 10 to 19 years were most likely to undergo revision meniscal procedures after both index meniscal repair (12.8%) and meniscal debridement (8.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

The rate of meniscal repair is increasing over time, with patients younger than 30 years most likely to undergo repair for a meniscal tear. Revision surgery for meniscal repair or debridement is more common in adolescents and patients who undergo an index meniscal repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Labral Degeneration Predicts Inferior Mid-Term Outcomes in Hip Labral Repair: A Multicenter Comparative Analysis

PURPOSE

To analyze and compare the mid-term outcomes of hip arthroscopy for patients with and without labral degeneration from multiple orthopaedic centers. The purpose of this research is to develop an understanding of the impacts of labral degeneration on patient outcomes following arthroscopic treatment of labral tears.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter hip arthroscopy registry was queried for primary surgeries from January 2014 to October 2017 with completed 2-year International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) reports. Patients were placed into cohorts based on the presence or absence of labral degeneration noted intraoperatively during hip arthroscopy. Degeneration was defined as yellowing, ossification, or calcification present in at least 50% of the labrum. Differences in baseline variation between groups were assessed with a Wilcoxon rank-sum test or χ² test. Two-year outcomes were assessed with iHOT-12. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted while controlling for age, body mass index, sex, and preoperative iHOT-12 scores to identify significant predictors of achieving the clinically significant thresholds of minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient-acceptable symptom scale.

RESULTS

In total, 735 patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 613 had complete outcomes information. Relative to the control group, the labral degeneration group was significantly older (mean age 44 ± 11 years vs 33 ± 12 years; P < .01). Both groups experienced statistically significant improvement in iHOT-12 scores from baseline to final follow-up (P < .001); however, patients with labral degeneration reported inferior 2-year iHOT-12 scores when compared with patients without degeneration (P < .001). In the logistic regression models, labral degeneration was a significant negative predictor of achieving iHOT-12 minimal clinically important difference (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.28-0.79), patient acceptable symptom state (OR 0.50; 95 CI 0.32-0.77), and substantial clinical benefit (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.37-0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study conclude that patients with nondegenerative labral tissue at the time of repair have superior patient-reported outcomes at mid-term follow-up. The presence of labral degeneration was a negative predictor of achieving clinically significant thresholds after controlling for patient age, body mass index, sex, and baseline iHOT-12 scores.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.

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.

Intraoperative Automated Radiographic Visualization Tool Allows for Higher Accuracy of Cam Lesion Resection When Used by Novice Surgeons for Arthroscopic Femoroplasty: Lowering the Learning Curve

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of conventional fluoroscopy versus an intraoperative radiographic visualization tool in assisting a novice and experienced hip arthroscopist in comprehensive cam correction to a desired alpha angle (AA).

METHODS

A cadaveric study was performed using 28 hemi-pelvises with cam-type deformity (AA > 55˚) measured on anteroposterior, lateral, and Dunn-view radiographs. Two fellowship-trained hip arthroscopists each performed 14 arthroscopic femoroplasties. The specimens were randomly assigned: 14 of the procedures were performed by the experienced surgeon, with 7 using the automated radiographic visualization tool (Guided Femoroplasty) and 7 using routine fluoroscopy (Control). The same number of hips was assigned to the novice surgeon, completing 7 femoroplasties with and without the visualization tool. Each hip was imaged before and after femoroplasty in 6 different positions using intraoperative fluoroscopy to evaluate head-neck offset. Femoroplasty AAs were compared between groups with and without visualization tool use, as well as between surgeons. One-way analysis of variance analysis was performed to evaluate the consistency of cam resection.

RESULTS

For the experienced hip arthroscopist, comparison of Guide Femoroplasty and Control groups resulted in similar accuracy when compared to the controls, with post-femoroplasty AA averages ranging from 41.4° ± 3.8˚ to 44.8° ± 2.8˚ (P = .511) and 40.2° ± 5.3˚ to 45.6° ± 2.2˚ (P = .225), respectively. For the novice hip arthroscopist, the Guided Femoroplasty group had higher accuracy, with post-femoroplasty AA averages ranging from 42.8° ± 2.6˚ to 46.1° ± 7.2˚(P = .689) with and 39.8° ± 3.1˚ to 51.9° ± 8.1˚ (P = .001) without the visualization tool. Comparison of procedure time did not show any statistically significant difference between the use of the radiographic visualization tool and controls for either surgeon (P > .05 for all).

CONCLUSIONS

Femoroplasty with and without the use of automated radiographic visualization tool results in accurate cam resection when used by both the experienced and novice surgeon. However, higher accuracy was observed when resecting to a desired AA performed by a novice surgeon using the visualization tool. Additionally, use of the visualization tool did not result in longer procedure times for either surgeon.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The impact of incomplete cam resections and over-resection on patient outcomes in the literature has led to the recent development of automated intraoperative radiographic visualization tools that allow for assistance of cam resection accuracy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. This cadaveric study demonstrates that femoroplasty with the use of an intraoperative automated radiographic visualization tool may result in more accurate cam resections.

High prevalence of acetabular rim osteophytes after hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAI

Background

Few studies mentioned acetabular rim osteophytes (ARO) after arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in follow-up after primary hip arthroscopy. We found that many patients had postoperative ARO, which may lead to recurrent or secondary pincer-type deformity after primary hip arthroscopy for FAI and postoperative ARO sometimes even led to revision surgery. It is necessary to carry out related research on ARO.

Methods

We respectively evaluated consecutive cases who underwent hip arthroscopy in our hospital between January 2008 and January 2020. Radiographic examination was obtained for all patients preoperatively and postoperatively. Another CT scan was performed at least 6 months after surgery at final follow-up. Preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PROs at final follow-up were obtained, including visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). The volume of ARO was calculated using mimics 21.0 software. According to the material of anchors and whether the anchors were used, patients were divided into absorbable group, non-absorbable group and no anchor group.

Results

A total of 71 patients were finally included in this study. Patients with postoperative ARO had higher VAS at final follow-up (P<0.05). Patients without postoperative ARO had higher mean mHHS at final follow-up (P = 0.08) and higher percentage of passing minimal clinical important difference. The percentage and volume of postoperative ARO was significantly higher in patients who underwent acetabuloplasty and labral repair (P<0.05). The percentage and volume of postoperative ARO in absorbable group were significantly higher than the other groups (P<0.05).

Conclusion

There is a high percentage of ARO after hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAI and patients who have undergone labral repair and acetabuloplasty are more likely to have postoperative ARO. Using of absorbable anchors may increase the possibility and volume of postoperative ARO. Postoperative ARO may predict a worse clinical outcome.

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.

Repeat Revision Hip Arthroscopy Outcomes Match That of Initial Revision But Not That of Primary Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

PURPOSE

To (1) report on pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores for patients undergoing repeat revision surgery in short-term follow-up and (2) compare minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state achievement between primary, revision, and repeat revision hip arthroscopy cohorts.

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy from January 2012 to February 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Hips that underwent 2 revision hip arthroscopic surgeries were identified and matched 1:3 to patients undergoing revision surgery and 1:3 to patients undergoing primary surgery by age, sex, and body mass index. Baseline demographic data, surgical indications, and hip-specific PROs were collected were obtained preoperatively and at minimum 1-year follow-up. MCID was calculated individually for each cohort.

RESULTS

Twenty patients who underwent repeat revision were matched to 60 patients who underwent revision and 60 primary patients. Patients who underwent repeat revision achieved MCID on all investigated PROs at a similar rate to patients undergoing primary surgery (90.0% vs 91.7%, P = .588) and at a greater rate than patients undergoing first-time revision surgery (90.0% vs 71.7%, P = .045). Patients who underwent repeat revision achieved patient acceptable symptomatic state on all investigated PROs at a similar rate to patients who underwent first-time revision (30.0% vs 55.0%, P = .053) but at a significantly lower rate than primary patients (30.0% vs 76.7%, P < .001). However, patients undergoing repeat revision surgery had significantly lower preoperative PROs (P < .001 for all) and no significant difference in PROs at minimum 1-year follow-up compared with patients undergoing revision (P > .05). Compared with the primary cohort, patients who underwent repeat revision had significantly lower Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (77.3 ± 16.7 vs 86.1 ± 14.4; P = .034), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (60.6 ± 27.2 vs 76.1 ± 23.8; P < .001), and modified Harris Hip Score (69.2 ± 19.3 vs 81.7 ± 16.1; P = .048) at a minimum of 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Second-time revision hip arthroscopy, which often requires advanced procedures, results in clinically significant improvement in PROs; however, outcomes for repeat revision cases are similar to first-time revision cases but inferior to those obtained following primary surgeries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective case-control study.

Intraoperative Computer Vision Integrated Interactive Fluoroscopy Correlates With Successful Femoroplasty on Clinic-Based Radiographs

PURPOSE

To quantitatively evaluate computer vision interface (CVI)-guided femoroplasty in the arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and compare those results with traditional unguided resections.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome between July 2019 and October 2019 were evaluated. Cases with CVI were identified along with controls, consisting of patients from the same study period who underwent surgery without the CVI and were balanced for age, sex, laterality, and preoperative alpha angles. Alpha angles were measured on pre- and postoperative clinic radiographs, as well as intraoperatively for the CVI group. Cam resections were quantified by measuring pre- and postresection alpha angles and compared between groups. The correlation between CVI views and office-based radiographs was assessed, and the 3 CVI views that best correlated with each of the 3 standard clinic radiographs were evaluated for accuracy and performance in detection of cam deformity with alpha angle ≥48° with the clinic-based films as the reference.

RESULTS

A total of 49 patients (51 hips) (average age, 28.7; 33 female patients) in the CVI group, and 51 patients (51 hips) (average age: 29.9; 35 female patients) in the control group. There were no significant differences between groups with respect to age, sex, laterality, or preoperative alpha angle (all P > .05). Significant alpha angle reduction occurred on all intraoperative and postoperative clinic views (all P < .01). The CVI views that best correlated with the clinic radiographs were 11:45 with the anteroposterior (ρ = 0.588, P = .0025), 12:30 with the Dunn lateral (ρ = 0.632, P = .0009), and 1:45 with the false-profile (ρ = 0.575, P = .0033). Greater reliability was observed with 12:30/Dunn (accuracy = 83.33%, P < .0001; sensitivity = 77.14%; specificity = 87.76%) and 1:45/false-profile (accuracy = 82.35%, P = .0051; sensitivity = 81.82%; specificity = 82.61%) than with 11:45/anteroposterior (accuracy = 69.15%, P = .0077; sensitivity = 56.10%; specificity = 79.25%).

CONCLUSIONS

CVI-guided cam resection results in successful resection of proximal femur cam lesions and represents a femoroplasty templating method that does not require preoperative computed tomography imaging or additional invasive intraoperative referencing modules. The accuracy and adequacy of this resection was validated by comparison with routine clinic radiographs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III: retrospective comparative analysis.

Top Ten Pearls for Successful Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement

Hip arthroscopy is an increasingly popular procedure used to treat femoroacetabular impingement. However, the procedure is technically challenging with a steep learning curve. To prevent complications and to optimize patient outcomes, proper patient positioning, correct portal placement, and adequate capsular closure are necessary. For central compartment procedures, creation of a minimal interportal capsulotomy, placement of traction stitches, adequate rim trimming, and balanced labral repair are recommended. For peripheral compartment procedures, adequate osteochondroplasty should be performed and assessed intraoperatively. The purpose of this technical note is to describe the senior author's top 10 pearls for a successful hip arthroscopy procedure to treat femoroacetabular impingement.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Hip arthroscopy via a peripheral compartment first capsular-preserving technique: a step-by-step description

Hip arthroscopy is a well-recognized procedure for the treatment of several hip pathologies. Different methods of arthroscopic access to the hip have been published. The most popular approach is the central compartment first technique, where the first portal to the central compartment is placed under traction and fluoroscopic control. This technique, however, carries the risk of iatrogenic damage to the cartilage and labrum, especially when adequate distraction cannot be obtained. In addition, secondary exposure of the peripheral compartment frequently requires larger capsulotomies. The current article is to describe an alternative arthroscopic approach to the hip with the peripheral compartment being first accessed. The peripheral compartment first technique offers the advantages of a limited capsular release for peripheral compartment exposure and a reduced risk of iatrogenic cartilage and labrum damage during subsequent central compartment portal placement.

Clinical Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy for Hip Labrum Calcification in Young and Middle-Aged Patients

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the methods and outcomes of hip arthroscopy for hip labrum calcification, and to discuss the clinical, imaging, and intraoperative findings of hip labrum calcification.

METHODS

This is a therapeutic case series study. From January 2015 to June 2018, 15 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were followed up for at least 2 years for an analysis on the outcomes of arthroscopy in the treatment of hip labrum calcification and the clinical, imaging, and intraoperative findings of the patients. There were eight males and seven females, with an average age of 38.9 ± 8.8 years (range, 23-50 years). The visual analog scale (VAS), the modified Harris hip score (mHSS), and the international hip outcome tool (iHOT-12) were used to evaluate the outcomes of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 15 patients were followed up for at least 2 years (28.1 ± 2.9 months). The average calcified volume was 118.0 mm³ (range, 19.4-609.2 mm³ ) and calcified volume was related to the preoperative hip function score. Thirteen patients had pain in the groin area (86.7%). Labrum calcifications were located (according to the clock distribution) as follows: 14 patients were anterior and superior (11:00-3:00); 12 cases of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) were observed during operation, including five cases of pincer type, two cases of cam type, and five cases of mixed type. VAS pain score means were 7.73 ± 1.28 before surgery, decreasing to 2.0 ± 0.89 and 1.73 ± 0.79 at 1 and 2 years post-surgery, respectively. mHSS scores were 57.40 ± 6.23 before surgery and 82.10 ± 4.76 and 83.18 ± 4.07, 1 and 2 years post-surgery, respectively; iHOT-12 mean score pre-surgery was 37.67 ± 4.85, increasing to 67.64 ± 5.30 and 72.18 ± 4.49, 1 and 2 years post-surgery, respectively. Compared with preoperative values, postoperative VAS, mHSS, and iHOT-12 scores were significantly improved (P < 0.01); iHOT-12 scores also significantly decreased from 1 to 2 years postoperatively (P = 0.034). No patient had complications.

CONCLUSION

Hip arthroscopy is an effective method for the treatment of hip labrum calcification. The size of calcification influenced preoperative symptoms and function. Long-term irritation from FAI may be one important cause of labrum calcification.

A Systematic Approach to Arthroscopic Femoroplasty With Conservative Management of the Hip Capsule

As hip arthroscopy has become increasingly used to treat femoroacetabular impingement, the importance of a complete femoroplasty to properly address cam impingement has been demonstrated. In doing so, different capsulotomy techniques have been described for gaining access to the hip joint as well as the peripheral compartment for cam resection. The periportal capsulotomy technique allows joint access while preserving the structural integrity of the iliofemoral ligament, obviating the need for capsular closure. We present a systematic approach and surgical technique for performing a complete arthroscopic femoroplasty while maintaining conservative hip capsule management through a periportal capsulotomy.

Why Does Hip Arthroscopy Fail? Indications and PEARLS for Revision Success

The surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement has been shown to have successful early and mid-term clinical outcomes. Despite these favorable clinical outcomes that have been published in the literature, there is a subgroup of patients that present with continued or recurrent symptoms after surgical treatment. Not only has there been an increase in the number of hip arthroscopy procedures, but also there has been a corresponding increase in the number of revision hip arthroscopy and hip preservation surgeries. Previous studies have reported residual deformity to be the most common reason for revision hip arthroscopy. However, chondral, labral, and capsular considerations also are important when addressing patients not only in the primary but also, the revision setting. In this review, we outline the evaluation and treatment of the patient that presents with continued hip and groin pain after undergoing a hip.

A novel concept of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement treatment with patient-specific template guided osteochondral deformity ablation

PURPOSE

To present a novel surgical concept for the cam-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) treatment and to assess and report the clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of a single-surgeon case series of six hips in five consecutive male patients with symptomatic cam-type FAI, treated with the mini-open anterior hip approach with a patient-specific template (PST)-guided deformity ablation between 2015 and 2018. We assessed the hip range of motion, iHOT-33, Tegner, and EQ-5D before surgery and after a minimum follow-up of 30 months.

RESULTS

The average age was 37 ± 13.3 years, average BMI was 31.1 ± 3.3 kg/m², and average pre-surgery Tönnis hip osteoarthritis (OA) grade was 1 ± 1. The average surgery duration was 71 ± eight minutes. The average estimated blood loss was 83 ± 26 ml. After a mean follow-up of 50 ± 12 months, we observed no OA progression with no change in Tönnis hip OA grades. Hip flexion and internal rotation significantly improved (p = 0.007; p = 0.048) from mean 98° ± 9° and 14° ± 11° to mean 113° ± 8° and 23° ± 8°, respectively. iHOT-33, Tegner, and EQ-5D improved significantly (p = < 0.001; p = 0.004; p = < 0.001) from mean 44.7 ± 12.2, 3 ± 1, and 0.513420 ± 0.101389 to mean 94 ± 2.7, 5 ± 1, and 1.000000 ± 0, respectively. One patient needed revision surgery for heterotopic ossification removal, with no sequelae at the last follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Mini-open anterior hip approach with the PST-guided cam-type FAI deformity ablation presents an accurate and reproducible solution for cam-type FAI surgical treatment, with promising clinical outcomes. Using a PST in the cam-type FAI surgery may present a powerful additional tool in the existing open techniques armamentarium.

Clinical and Radiographic Presentation of Capsular Iatrogenic Hip Instability After Previous Hip Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

The clinical and radiographic features of iatrogenic hip instability following hip arthroscopy have been described. However, the prevalence of presenting symptoms and associated imaging findings in patients with hip instability has not been reported.

PURPOSE

To detail the prevalence of clinical and magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) findings in a cohort of patients with isolated hip instability and to determine midterm patient-reported outcomes in this patient population.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients from 2014 to 2016 who underwent an isolated capsular repair in the revision hip arthroscopy setting. Patients were excluded if they underwent any concomitant procedures, such as labral repair, reconstruction, femoral osteoplasty, or any other related procedure. Several clinical data points were reviewed, including painful activities, mechanical symptoms, subjective instability, Beighton scores, axial distraction testing (pain, toggle, and apprehension), and distractibility under anesthesia. Patient-reported outcomes-including modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Computer Adaptive Test, and a return patient hip questionnaire-were collected pre- and postoperatively. Pre-revision radiographs were obtained, and lateral center-edge angle and alpha angle were measured on anteroposterior and frog-leg lateral views, respectively. Pre-revision MRAs were reviewed and evaluated for capsular changes. Capsular changes were defined as follows: 0, normal; 1, capsular redundancy; 2, focal capsular rent; and 3, gross extravasation of fluid from the capsule.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients met inclusion criteria (5 male, 26 female; 14 right and 17 left hips). The mean age of patients was 36 years (range, 20-58 years). Overall, 27 (87%) reported hip pain with activities of daily living, and 31 (100%) experienced pain with sports or exercise. In addition, 24 (77%) had at least 1 positive finding on axial distraction testing. All patients had evidence of capsular changes on review of pre-revision MRAs. Out of 31 patients, 23 (74%) were available for follow-up at a minimum of 3.3 years and a mean ± SD of 4.6 ± 0.8 years. On average, modified Harris Hip Score improved by 20.3, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale by 25.1, and PROMIS Physical Function Computer Adaptive Test by 6.4. Additionally, 20 (87%) patients reported improved or much improved physical ability, and 18 (78%) reported improved or much improved pain.

CONCLUSION

The current study suggests that patients with hip instability demonstrate high rates of pain with activities of daily living and exercise, positive findings on axial distraction testing, and evidence of capsular changes on magnetic resonance imaging. Furthermore, these patients improve with revision surgery for capsular repair at midterm follow-up.

A Cadaveric Study of Cam-Type Femoroacetabular Impingement: Biomechanical Comparison of Contact Pressures Between Cam Morphology, Partial Femoral Osteoplasty, and Complete Femoral Osteoplasty

PURPOSE

To compare the biomechanical properties of the hip joint with an intact femoral cam lesion, partial cam resection, and complete cam resection.

METHODS

A cadaveric study was performed using 8 hemipelvises with cam-type morphology (alpha angle > 55°) and intact labra. Intra-articular pressure maps were produced for each specimen under the following conditions: (1) native cam morphology (intact), (2) cam morphology with incomplete resection (partial), and (3) cam morphology with complete resection (complete). By use of an open technique, resection of the superior portion of the cam morphology was performed with a 5.5-mm burr to create the partial resection, followed by the inferior portion to create the complete resection. In each condition, 3 biomechanical parameters were obtained: contact pressure, contact area, and peak force within a region of interest. Measurements were performed 3 times in each condition, and the average value was used for statistical analysis. Analysis of variance was used to compare biomechanical parameters between conditions.

RESULTS

A statistically significant difference was found between the pre- and post-resection alpha angles (62.2° ± 3.9° vs 40.9° ± 1.4°, P < .001). Repeated-measures analysis of variance showed that the normalized average pressure values of hips with complete resection of cam lesions were significantly lower than those of hips with incomplete femoral cam lesions and hips with intact cam morphology (100% vs 93.6% ± 8.3% and 82.6% ± 16.2%, respectively; P < .0001). The percentage reduction of contact pressure in the complete and partial groups was 17.4% and 6.4%, respectively, compared with the intact group. Contact area and peak force showed no statistically significant differences across the 3 conditions (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Complete cam resection results in significantly lower intra-articular hip contact pressures than incomplete cam resection and native cam morphology in a cadaveric hip model. These observations underscore the importance of ensuring complete resection of femoral cam lesions in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Previous studies have shown that the most common reason for revision hip arthroscopy in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is incomplete femoral cam resection during the index operation. This study shows biomechanical differences associated with partial cam resection compared with the complete cam resection state that may translate to persistent symptoms.

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

PURPOSE

(1) To identify present indications for secondary procedures in patients with failed hip arthroscopy and (2) to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of the secondary procedures, including revision arthroscopy, periacetabular osteotomy (PAO), and total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

Study groups included patients who had a secondary procedure after failed previous hip arthroscopy whereas the control groups were patients who had a primary procedure but did not require a secondary procedure. Indications and procedures at the time of the secondary operation were documented for each study. Average PROs were recorded, and standardized mean difference was calculated to estimate effect size.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies reporting on patients undergoing a secondary procedure after a previous hip arthroscopy were included. The 3 main secondary procedure groups were revision hip arthroscopy, secondary PAO, and secondary THA. Regarding the revision arthroscopy group, the most common indications were labral tears, cam deformity, and pincer deformity. In addition, the most common procedures were femoroplasty, acetabuloplasty, capsular release, and labral reconstruction. The most common indications for the secondary PAO and THA groups were dysplasia and osteoarthritis respectively. Five of the revision arthroscopy studies found that revision patients had worse outcomes than the primary arthroscopy group. One PAO study found that the previous arthroscopy group had slightly worse outcomes, and 2 studies found no differences in PROs. Two THA studies reported worse outcomes for the prior arthroscopy group, and 2 studies reported no differences in outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common indications for revision hip arthroscopy were labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement. Patients undergoing a revision hip arthroscopy demonstrated good postoperative outcomes but to an overall lesser extent than their primary counterparts. The secondary PAO and THA groups also had favorable PROs, but the studies were inconclusive in determining superior outcomes between the primary and secondary groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Systematic review of Level II-IV investigations.

Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in Adolescents With a Subanalysis on Return to Sport: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There is a plethora of literature on outcomes after hip arthroscopic surgery in the adult population; however, outcomes in the adolescent population have not been as widely reported. Additionally, as adolescents represent a very active population, it is imperative to understand their athletic activity and return to sport after hip arthroscopic surgery.

PURPOSE

To analyze patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after hip arthroscopic surgery in adolescents (aged 10-19 years) and present a return-to-sport analysis in the athletic adolescent subgroup.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to identify articles that reported PROs after hip arthroscopic surgery in adolescents. The standardized mean difference was calculated to compare the effect size of hip arthroscopic surgery on various PROs. For the athletic subgroup, a return-to-sport summary was also provided.

RESULTS

Ten studies, with 618 adolescent hips and a collective study period of December 2004 to February 2015, were included in this systematic review. Across all studies, the mean age was 15.8 years (range, 11.0-19.9 years), and female patients composed approximately 56.7% of the entire cohort. The mean follow-up was 34.5 months (range, 12-120 months). The modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) was reported in 9 studies, and at latest follow-up, scores were excellent in 4 studies (range, 90-95) and good in the remaining 5 studies (range, 82.1-89.6). All adolescents also showed significant improvement on the Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), the HOS-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), the physical component of the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12P), a visual analog scale for pain (VAS), and both versions of the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12 and iHOT-33) at latest follow-up (P < .05). Further, mean improvements reported in all studies surpassed reported values of the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state for the mHHS, HOS-ADL, HOS-SSS, and iHOT-33. Finally, the collective return-to-sport rate among athletic adolescents was 84.9%.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement, hip arthroscopic surgery can safely be performed in adolescents and leads to significant functional improvement. Furthermore, athletic adolescents return to sport at high levels after hip arthroscopic surgery.

Approach to a Failed Hip Arthroscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hip arthroscopy has seen increasing utilization over the last decade. This is largely related to increased recognition and improved techniques for treating femoroacetabilar impingement (FAI). Though hip arthroscopy generally yields favorable outcomes, there are a subset of patients who have residual or recurrent symptoms that require reoperation. The current review discusses an algorithmic approach to evaluating patients following a failed hip arthroscopy including a framework for clinical and radiographic assessment, available treatment options, and associated outcomes in revision surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Residual FAI has been demonstrated to be the most common indication for revision arthroscopy. Other indications include residual or recurrent labral pathology, gross instability, microinstability, or adhesions. Appropriate history and imaging are important to determine the cause for residual symptoms. Novel techniques including labral and capsular reconstruction, and modified remplissage procedures have been developed to deal with complex revision cases. Though studies have shown improved outcomes after revision surgery, they have been shown to result in inferior outcomes compared to a matched cohort following primary hip arthroscopy. Management of a failed hip arthroscopy remains a complex problem. Focused history, cross-sectional imaging, and revision hip arthroscopy with novel techniques can improve outcomes, albeit to a lesser extent than patients undergoing successful primary hip arthroscopy. The information provided here can help guide treatment and set appropriate patient expectations for revision surgery.

Outcomes of Revision Hip Arthroscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While the indications for primary hip arthroscopic surgery in treating femoroacetabular abnormalities continue to be defined, the indications and outcomes for revision hip arthroscopic surgery remain ambiguous. However, revision hip arthroscopic surgery is performed in 5% to 14% of patients after their index procedure. While patient-reported outcomes (PROs) generally improve after revision procedures, the extent of their improvement is not well defined.

PURPOSE

To determine the outcomes and efficacy of revision hip arthroscopic surgery in patients who remain symptomatic after their index procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis and systematic review.

METHODS

The terms "hip arthroscopy,""revisions,""outcomes," and "femoroacetabular impingement" were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. After screening, 15 studies were included for review. In addition to hip-specific metrics, functional outcome measures were included. Pooled estimates and 95% CIs were calculated using inverse variance methods.

RESULTS

A total of 4765 hips in 4316 patients were identified. The most common indication for revision surgery was inadequate bony resection during the index procedure. Meta-analysis showed that all PROs improved significantly from baseline to final follow-up after revision hip arthroscopic surgery. Notably, the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) increased a mean of 17.20 points after revision hip arthroscopic surgery, the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) improved by 13.98, and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain decreased by 3.16. However, when compared with primary hip arthroscopic surgery, the mean PRO scores after revision hip arthroscopic surgery were lower. After revision hip arthroscopic surgery, the rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty ranged from 0% to 14.3%, and the rates of further arthroscopic revision ranged from 2% to 14%.

CONCLUSION

Inadequate bony resection represents the most common indication for revision hip arthroscopic surgery. PROs improve significantly after revision hip arthroscopic surgery but remain lower than those of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery.

Promising outcomes of hip mosaicplasty by minimally invasive anterior approach using osteochondral autografts from the ipsilateral femoral head

PURPOSE

Recent studies demonstrated promising results of mosaicplasty for femoral head osteochondral lesions using posterior and lateral approaches. This study aimed to evaluate outcomes of mosaicplasty using ipsilateral femoral head autografts by minimally invasive anterior approach. The hypothesis was that this surgical technique would grant satisfactory clinical outcomes with considerable improvement of clinical scores.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 27 mosaicplasties, to treat osteochondral lesions of the femoral head measuring 1.6 ± 0.7 cm² (range 0.8-4.0) in patients aged 28.7 ± 7.4 years (range 19-44), was evaluated using the mHHS and WOMAC scores at minimum follow-up of 12 months. All patients were operated by minimally invasive anterior (Hueter) approach and osteochondral plugs were harvested from the non-weight-bearing portion of the femoral head. Adjuvant osteoplasty was necessary for some patients at the acetabulum (n = 3), femur (n = 14) or both (n = 2).

RESULTS

Three patients were excluded due to concomitant periacetabular osteotomies or shelf procedures, one patient could not be reached, and another was revised to THA. This left 22 patients for clinical assessment at 39.4 ± 23.2 months (12.0-90.2). Their mHHS improved from 56.3 ± 12.6 to 88.4 ± 9.9, and WOMAC improved from 45.1 ± 16.9 to 80.6 ± 13.0. Two patients (8.4%) underwent arthroscopy at 13 and 30 months to remove painful residual cam-type deformities. Regression analyses revealed that net improvement in WOMAC decreased with lesion size (p = 0.002) and increased with follow-up (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Hip mosaicplasty using autografts from the ipsilateral femoral head, performed by minimally invasive anterior approach, granted satisfactory outcomes and functional improvements. Caution is, however, advised for lesions > 2 cm² (diameter > 16 mm) which may be a threshold limit for this procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, Case series.

Achieving a Perfectly Spherical Femoroplasty: Pearls, Pitfalls, and Optimal Surgical Technique

Femoroacetabular impingement describes a pathologic interaction between the bony femoral head/neck junction and acetabulum. Cam-type femoroacetabular impingement results from an aspherical femoral head architecture, which increases early contact along the acetabular surface during hip range of motion. Errant arthroscopic femoroplasty recently has been discussed within the literature to describe a preventable etiology of failed hip arthroscopy, most notably cam over- and under-resection. We present an arthroscopic surgical technique for achieving the perfectly spherical femoroplasty, meant to minimize complications and improve postoperative outcomes.

Usefulness of MR Arthrography of the Hip with and without leg Traction in Detection of Intra-articular Bodies

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE

Although intra-articular bodies are a classic indication for MR arthrography and surgical removal, diagnostic studies are currently sparse. To assess the diagnostic performance of MR arthrography with and without leg traction in detection of intra-articular bodies in the hip joint.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The institutional hip arthroscopy data base (2009-2016: 631 hips) was retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were hips with and without intra-articular bodies and direct MR arthrography performed with and without leg traction. Twenty-one hips with intra-articular bodies constituted the "disease-positive" group. Seventy-nine randomly selected hips without intra-articular bodies constituted the "disease-negative" group. Images were reviewed independently for presence of intra-articular bodies by two blinded readers. Overall diagnosis and location of intra-articular bodies was recorded (peripheral or central). Arthroscopy served as goldstandard for diagnosis and location of intra-articular bodies. Diagnostic performance and kappa statistics of traction MR arthrography with and without traction were calculated.

RESULTS

For both readers sensitivity/specificity of traction MR arthrography was 86%-95% respectively 90%-91% for overall diagnosis of intra-articular bodies and was 81%-86% respectively 90%-92%for MR arthrogrpahy without traction. For central intra-articular bodies sensitivity was higher for both readers with traction (79%-89%) than without traction (74% each).

CONCLUSION

MR arthrography with and without traction of the hip is highly accurate in identifying central and peripheral intra-articular bodies. Application of traction was further useful for visualization of centrally located intra-articular bodies.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Pudendal nerve injury is a relatively common but transient complication of hip arthroscopy

PURPOSE

Hip arthroscopy is emerging as the standard of care for conditions involving the hip, and has a unique set of complications. The purpose of this review was to identify (1) the crude rate of pudendal nerve injury following hip arthroscopy and (2) the specific factors leading to pudendal nerve injury.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched from database inception to October 2016. Patient demographics, indications, surgical technique, complication rates, treatment approaches, and rehabilitation strategies were extracted.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies (n = 3405) were included, with the majority (66%) of studies being level IV evidence. The mean age was 33.9 ± 9.7 years (range 12-78) and 48.2% were males. Average follow-up was 30.2 ± 19.1 months. 62 patients were reported to have sustained pudendal nerve injury (1.8%) post-operatively, and all resolved within 6 weeks to 3 months. Of the seven studies that reported using a perineal post, 20 patients were diagnosed with pudendal nerve injury (4.3%), in contrast to two studies (189 patients) reporting only 0.5% pudendal nerve injury without the use of perineal post. Two studies commented on time of traction during surgical intervention with mean times of 98 and 68 min with complication rates of 10% and 6.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Pudendal nerve injury is not uncommon following hip arthroscopy, with a reported rate found in this review of 1.8%. Potential risk factors may include the use of a perineal post and long traction times. All reported cases resolved within 3 months. Patients should be informed of complications related to pudendal nerve injury, which include sexual and urinary dysfunction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of level I-IV studies.