A tiered system using substantial clinical benefit and patient acceptable symptomatic state scores to evaluate 2-year outcomes of hip arthroscopy with the Hip Outcome Score

Patients Undergoing Postless Hip Arthroscopy Demonstrate Significantly Better Patient-Reported Outcomes and Clinically Significant Outcomes Compared to Conventional Post-Assisted Hip Arthroscopy at Short-Term Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To prospectively compare the short-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with versus without the use of a perineal post.

METHODS

A prospective, single-surgeon cohort study was performed on a subset of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy between 2020 and 2022. A post-free hip distraction system was used at 1 center at which the senior author operates, and a perineal post was used at another surgical location. An electronic survey of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was completed by each patient at a minimum of 1 year postoperatively. PROMs included a visual analog scale for pain; University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale; modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS); Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS); and a Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation. Postoperative scores and clinically significant outcomes, including the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state, for each PROM were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients were reached for follow-up (41 post, 28 postless) of 87 patients eligible for the study (79%). No significant differences were found between groups in terms of sex (post: 61% female, postless: 54% female, P = .54), age (post: 34 years, postless: 29 years, P = .11), body mass index (post: 26, postless: 24, P = .23), or follow-up duration (post: 24.4 months, postless: 21.3 months, P = .16). There was a significantly higher visual analog scale (3.1 vs 1.4, P = .01), a significantly lower UCLA Activity Scale score (7.0 vs 8.4, P = .02), and a significantly lower mHHS (73.7 vs 82.2, P = .03) in the post-assisted group. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the postless group achieved a patient acceptable symptom state for the UCLA (89.3% vs 68.3%, P = .04), mHHS (84.6% vs 61.0%, P = .04), and HOS-SSS (84.0% vs 61.0%, P = .048) and a substantial clinical benefit for HOS-SSS (72.0% vs 41.5%, P = .02). One patient (2.6%) in the post group underwent revision hip arthroscopy, and another was indicated for total hip arthroplasty by the time of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Postless hip arthroscopy may result in better clinical outcomes compared with post-assisted hip arthroscopy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case-series.

Determining Clinically Meaningful Thresholds for the Hip Outcome Score Sport-Specific Subscale in Athletes Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

BACKGROUND

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and maximum outcome improvement (MOI) satisfaction threshold for the Hip Outcome Score Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) have not been established in athletes undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

PURPOSE

To determine threshold MCID, PASS, SCB, and MOI satisfaction threshold values for the HOS-SSS in athletes undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAIS at minimum 2-year follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Anchor questions were administered to recreational, organized amateur, high school, college, and professional athletes who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS between May 2015 and March 2019. Patients were included if they were younger than 50 years, answered the anchor questions, and had preoperative and minimum 2-year follow-up for the HOS-SSS, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <18°), and previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to determine PASS, SCB, and MOI satisfaction for the HOS-SSS. Two distribution methods were used to calculate MCID for HOS-SSS.

RESULTS

A total of 225 athletes who underwent primary hip arthroscopy met the inclusion criteria. Of those athletes, 200 (88.9%) who had minimum 2-year follow-up and information regarding return to sport (RTS) were included. The cohort included 124 (62.0%) women and 76 (38.0%) men with a mean ± standard deviation age of 29.4 ± 10.4 years, body mass index of 25.6 ± 5.4, and follow-up of 29.5 ± 5.1 months. Athletes experienced significant improvements in HOS-SSS, mHHS, NAHS, and VAS from preoperative to latest postoperative follow-up (P < .001), and mean satisfaction was 8.2. The RTS rate was 83.7%. ROC analysis determined that the PASS, MOI satisfaction threshold, SCB absolute score, SCB change score, and MCID (baseline/change score methods) for the HOS-SSS were 77.0, 44.6%, 92.7, 30.6, and 10.6, respectively, with athletes achieving thresholds at high rates (80.0%, 80.5%, 45.0%, 54.0%, and 79.5%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study identified values for the HOS-SSS that can be used to define clinically meaningful outcomes in athletes after primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS. The PASS, MOI satisfaction threshold, SCB absolute score, SCB change score, and MCID for the HOS-SSS at minimum 2-year follow-up in athletes after primary hip arthroscopy were 77.0, 44.6%, 92.7, 30.6, and 10.6, respectively.

Defining the Maximum Outcome Improvement of the Modified Harris Hip Score, the Nonarthritic Hip Score, the Visual Analog Scale For Pain, and the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 in the Arthroscopic Management for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome and Labral Tear

PURPOSE

To determine the respective percent thresholds for achieving the maximal outcome improvement (MOI) for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) that were associated with satisfaction following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and labral tear, and to identify preoperative predictors of reaching the mHHS, NAHS, VAS, and the iHOT-12 thresholds for achieving the MOI.

METHODS

An anchor question was provided to patients who underwent hip arthroscopy between April 2008 and April 2019. Patients were included if they answered the anchor question and had minimum 1-year follow-up. Patients were excluded if they had a previous ipsilateral hip surgery, a Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia, or a previous hip condition. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the thresholds for the percentage of the MOI predictive of satisfaction. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of achieving the MOI threshold.

RESULTS

In total, 407 hips (375 patients) were included, with 279 female patients (68.6%). The average age, body mass index, and follow-up time were 38.8 ± 13.7 years, 26.6 ± 5.8, and 51.8 ± 33.2 months, respectively. Satisfaction with the current state of their hip was reported in 77.9% (317) of the cases. It was determined that 54.8%, 52.5%, 55.5%, and 55.8% of MOI were the thresholds for maximal predictability of satisfaction for mHHS, NAHS, VAS, and iHOT-12, respectively. Predictors of achieving MOI were not identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Following hip arthroscopy in the context of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and labral tear, the thresholds for achieving the MOI for the mHHS, NAHS, VAS for pain, and iHOT-12 were 54.8%, 52.5%, 55.5%, and 55.8% respectively. No preoperative predictors of achieving the MOI were identified.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case-series.

Achievement of Meaningful Clinical Outcomes Is Unaffected by Capsulotomy Type During Arthroscopic Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: Results From the Multicenter Arthroscopic Study of the Hip (MASH) Study Group

BACKGROUND

Capsule management has emerged as an important topic in the field of hip arthroscopy. The 2 most popular techniques are interportal capsulotomy and T-type capsulotomy, but few studies have compared outcomes between these 2 techniques.

PURPOSE

To compare 2-year (±2 months) patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients who underwent interportal versus T-type capsulotomy during arthroscopic labral repair for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a large multicenter registry of patients undergoing arthroscopic hip preservation surgery for FAIS was performed. Data from 9 surgeons across 9 sites between January 2014 and February 2018 were included in the study. Baseline demographic data, preoperative PROs, and minimum 2-year postoperative PROs including Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), HOS-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score, and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) were recorded. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on whether interportal or T-type capsulotomy was performed according to the senior surgeon's preference and training, and all capsulotomies were then routinely repaired. The 2 groups were matched 1:1 by age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) was compared for the HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, and iHOT-12 between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 658 of 1483 eligible patients with a mean ± SD age of 32.6 ± 11.6 years and BMI of 24.0 ± 3.7; of these, 329 patients were treated via interportal capsulotomy, and 329 patients were treated via T-type capsulotomy. Female patients comprised 66.3% of the study population. Capsulotomy type was not a predictor of 2-year postoperative PROs on multivariate linear regression analysis when adjusted for covariates. Chi-square analysis showed no statistical difference in achievement of MCID, PASS, and SCB between the interportal and T-type groups for HOS-ADL (80.3%, 75.8%, 52.7% and 77.1%, 71.7%, 53.6%, respectively; P > .01 for all), HOS-SS (83.6%, 72.5%, 51.5% and 81.7%, 68.4%, 49.2%, respectively; P > .01 for all), and iHOT-12 (87.5%, 72.0%, 50.5% and 80.0%, 64.7%, 45.6%, respectively; P > .01 for all).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic management of FAIS resulted in significant clinical improvement that was independent of capsulotomy type when the capsulotomy included repair.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Clinically Important Outcome Values in Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Defining success in hip arthroscopy through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is complicated by the wide range of available questionnaires and overwhelming amount of information on how to interpret scores. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) are collectively known as clinically important outcome values (CIOVs). These CIOVs provide benchmarks for meaningful improvement. The aims of this review were to update the evidence regarding joint-specific PROMs used for hip arthroscopy and to collate available CIOVs in this population.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed to identify studies reporting measurement properties of PROMs utilized for hip arthroscopy. Metrics of reliability, validity, and responsiveness were extracted and graded according to an international Delphi study. Questionnaire interpretability was evaluated through CIOVs.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were reviewed. One study validated a novel questionnaire, 3 studies validated existing questionnaires, and 22 studies reported CIOVs. The most evidence supporting interpretability was found for the Hip Outcome Score (HOS, 11 studies), modified Harris hip score (mHHS, 10 studies), and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12, 9 studies). Scores indicative of the smallest perceptible versus substantial clinically relevant changes were reported for the iHOT-12 (12 to 15 versus 22 to 28), iHOT-33 (10 to 12 versus 25 to 26), HOS-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL, 9 to 10 versus 10 to 16), HOS-Sports (14 to 15 versus 25 to 30), and mHHS (7 to 13 versus 20 to 23). Absolute postoperative scores indicative of an unsatisfactory versus a desirable outcome were reported for the iHOT-12 (below 56 to 63 versus above 86 to 88), iHOT-33 (below 58 versus above 64 to 82), HOS-ADL (below 87 to 92 versus above 94), HOS-Sports (below 72 to 80 versus above 78 to 86), and mHHS (below 74 to 85 versus above 83 to 95).

CONCLUSIONS

Six questionnaires had reported clinically important outcome thresholds, with the HOS, mHHS, and iHOT-12 having the most information to support score interpretation. Thresholds for the HOS, mHHS, iHOT-12, and iHOT-33 describe desirable absolute PROM scores and minimum and substantial change scores within 5 years following hip arthroscopy. Despite substantial heterogeneity in calculation methodology, included cohorts, and follow-up time, available interpretability values could be meaningfully summarized.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In light of increasing use of PROMs in orthopaedics, a summary of the available CIOVs provides guidance for clinicians in mapping numerical scores from PROMs onto clinical benchmarks.