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

Editorial Commentary: Primary Treatment of Hip Labral, Osseous, Chondral, Capsular, and Extra-Articular Pathology Is Essential: Outcomes Following Revision Are Less Predictable

Appropriate labral management is one of many procedures during hip arthroscopy that affects postoperative outcomes and revision rates. Both primary labral repair and reconstruction have been shown to have superior clinical and functional outcomes compared with labral debridement when treating unstable labral tears. Arthroscopic labral reconstruction is one of the most powerful techniques in the arsenal of complex hip-preservation surgeons, and although often reserved for the revision setting, when the native labrum is irreparable, a primary reconstruction may be indicated when the only alternatives are selective labral debridement or a suboptimal repair. Labral reconstruction, either in primary or revision procedures, is indicated when the existing labrum is deemed irreparable based on an intraoperative evaluation. Current indications for primary labral reconstruction, either in the primary or revision setting, include a calcified labrum, an irreparable mixed Seldes type 1 and 2 tear, or a hypoplastic labrum with less than 3 mm of viable tissue. Primary hip arthroscopy has been shown to have superior outcomes compared with revision hip arthroscopy, whether with labral repair or reconstruction. Finally, appropriate labral management is necessary but not always sufficient. Hip arthroscopy requires management of osseous deformities, with care taken to avoid under- and over-resection during both femoroplasty and acetabuloplasty; management of chondral injury; and management of the hip capsule with repair or plication. Consideration also must be given to potential extra-articular pain generators, such as abductor insufficiency, ischiofemoral impingement, lumbar spine disease, as well as deformities requiring open surgical correction such as acetabular dysplasia or pathologic femoral version. The primary goal is getting it right the first time.

Secondary Hip Labral Reconstruction Yields Inferior Minimum 2-Year Functional Outcomes to Primary Reconstruction Despite Comparable Intraoperative Labral Characteristics

PURPOSE

To compare intraoperative labral characteristics and minimum 2-year functional outcomes of allograft labral reconstruction in primary versus revision hip arthroscopy across multiple orthopaedic centers.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter hip arthroscopy registry was queried for patients with completed labral reconstruction surgeries from January 2014 to March 2023 with completed 2-year international Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) reports. Age, sex, and major intraoperative variables also were collected. Patients were placed in cohorts based on whether their arthroscopic allograft labral reconstruction was a primary procedure or secondary procedure (reconstruction following failed hip arthroscopy). One-way analysis of variance was performed on continuous variables. χ2 test was performed on categorical variables. Achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) also was assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 77 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and had complete information. The primary reconstruction group (n = 50) was significantly older than the secondary reconstruction group (n = 27) (47.5 ± 10.5 vs 39.1 ± 8.8 years; P = .001). In both cohorts, most patients had labral bruising, advanced labral degeneration, and/or grade III complexity of labral tearing. There was no difference in any recorded intraoperative findings (P = .160, P = .783, P = .357, respectively). Each cohort experienced significant improvement in iHOT-12 scores (P < .0001). However, patients undergoing secondary labral reconstruction reported inferior iHOT-12 scores (60.1 ± 29.2 vs 74.8 ± 27.0; P = .030). Patients undergoing primary reconstruction were more likely to reach MCID, PASS, and nearly normal SCB (92 vs 66.7%, P = .024; 68.0 vs 40.7%, P = .021; 76.0 vs 48.1%, P = .014, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary and secondary allograft labral reconstruction show clinical improvement, but primary reconstruction demonstrates better outcomes and greater percentage of patients reaching MCID, PASS, and nearly normal SCB than reconstruction in the revision setting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic case-control 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.

Postoperative Radiographic Outcomes Following Primary Open Coracoid Transfer (Bristow-Latarjet) Vary in Definition, Classification, and Imaging Modality: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To analyze radiographic outcomes by conventional radiography, computed tomography (CT), or both and complication rates of open coracoid transfer at a minimum of 12-months follow-up.

METHODS

A literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, using PubMed, Medline (Ovid), and EMBASE library databases. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies reporting on open Latarjet as the primary surgical procedure(revision coracoid transfer after failed prior stabilization excluded) with postoperative radiographic outcomes at a minimum mean 1-year follow-up. Patient demographics, type of postoperative imaging modality, and radiographic outcomes and complications including graft union, osteoarthritis, and osteolysis were systematically reviewed. Data were summarized as ranges of reported values for each outcome metric. Each radiographic outcome was graphically represented in a Forest plot with point estimates of the incidence of radiographic outcomes with corresponding 95% confidence intervals and I2.

RESULTS

Thirty-three studies met inclusion criteria, with a total of 1,456 shoulders. The most common postoperative imaging modality was plain radiography only (n = 848 [58.2%]), both CT and radiography (n = 287 [19.7%]), and CT only (n = 321 [22.1%]). Overall, the reported graft union rate ranged from 75% to 100%, of which 79.8% (n = 395) were detected on plain radiography. The most common reported postoperative radiographic complications after the open coracoid transfer were osteoarthritis (range, 0%-100%, pooled mean 28%), graft osteolysis (range, 0%-100%, pooled mean 30%), nonunion (range, 0%-32%, pooled mean 5.1%), malpositioned graft (range, 0%-75%, pooled mean 14.75%), hardware issues (range, 0%-9.1%, pooled mean 5%), and bone block fracture (range, 0%-8%, pooled mean 2.1%). Graft healing was achieved in a majority of cases (range, 75%-100%).

CONCLUSION

Postoperative radiographic outcomes after open coracoid transfer vary greatly in definition, classification, and imaging modality of choice. Greater consistency in postoperative radiographic outcomes is essential to evaluate graft healing, osteolysis, and nonunion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level III-IV studies.

Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy Demonstrate Comparable Survivability and Improvement but Worse Postoperative Outcomes Compared to Patients Undergoing Primary Hip Arthroscopy: A Propensity Matched Study at Five-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To compare mid-term clinical outcomes between patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy (HA) versus revision hip arthroscopy (RHA) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 1,862 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS from January 2012 to April 2017. Patients who underwent RHA were propensity matched in a 1:4 ratio by age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and exercise status to patients who underwent primary HA. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were assessed. Patient-reported outcomes before and at 5 years after surgery, including the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living subscale (HOS-ADL) and Sports subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Pain and Satisfaction, were compared between groups. Minimally clinically important difference and patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) achievement rates were compared using previously published thresholds.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients who underwent RHA (35 female, 16 male; age 36.2 ± 10.2 years; BMI 26.5 ± 5.9) were followed up for 63.9 ± 9.2 months and then propensity matched in a 1:4 ratio by sex, age, and BMI to 204 control patients who underwent primary HA. At midterm follow-up, patients in the RHA cohort had significantly lower scores for HOS-SS (RHA 64.9 ± 32.5 vs HA 75.3 ± 26.2, P = .044), mHHS (RHA 72.2 ± 22.4 vs HA 80.1 ± 18.1, P = .039), and iHOT-12 (RHA 61.4 ± 29.3 vs HA 71 ± 27.6, P = .043) compared to primary HA patients. Rates of achieving PASS were significantly decreased for HOS-SS (RHA 38.3% vs HA 55.4%, P = .039) and iHOT-12 (RHA 41.9% vs HA 59.9%, P = .035) in the RHA cohort. There were no significant differences in rates of conversion to THA or subsequent reoperation on the index hip between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy demonstrate comparable survivability and magnitude of improvement but may experience worse overall outcome scores and meet thresholds for clinically significant outcomes less often when compared to primary hip arthroscopy patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III; retrospective comparative study.

Defining Thresholds and Predictors for Achieving the Patient Acceptable Symptom State for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Revision Hip Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) after primary hip arthroscopy has been determined; nonetheless, the PASS still needs to be defined for revision hip arthroscopy.

PURPOSE

To define minimum 2-year follow-up PASS thresholds for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) after revision hip arthroscopy, and to identify predictors of achieving the PASS.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between April 2017 and July 2020. Patients were included if they had baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up scores for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS for pain, and iHOT-12. PASS was calculated using the anchor-based method. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the thresholds for the PASS. A multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors for achieving the PASS.

RESULTS

A total of 318 patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy met the inclusion criteria. Of those patients, 292 (91.8%) had baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up. Of this group, 68 patients (72.1% female and 27.9% male; mean age, 32.9 years) answered the PASS anchor question. Achievement PASS rates were 58.8%, 41.2%, 52.9%, 60.3%, and 52.9% for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS, and iHOT-12, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) values for the PASS for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS, and iHOT-12 were 0.912, 0.888, 0.857, 0.903, and 0.871, respectively, indicating excellent discrimination. The PASS for the mHHS was 76 (sensitivity, 0.809; specificity, 0.905), for the NAHS was 86.3 (sensitivity, 0.660; specificity, 1), for the HOS-SSS was 64.3 (sensitivity, 0.745; specificity, 0.905), for the VAS was 3 (sensitivity, 0.830; specificity, 0.905), and for the iHOT-12 was 64.3 (sensitivity, 0.745; specificity, 0.905). Body mass index (BMI) was identified as a significant predictor of achieving PASS for the NAHS (OR, 0.967; 95% CI, 0.940-0.996; P = .027), as patients with a BMI ≤25.4 had 1.03 times higher odds ratio of achieving PASS for the NAHS.

CONCLUSION

After revision hip arthroscopy, the minimum 2-year follow-up PASS thresholds for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS for pain, and iHOT-12 were 76, 86.3, 64.3, 3, and 64.3, respectively. The odds ratio of achieving PASS for the NAHS was 1.03 times higher for patients with a BMI ≤25.4.

Survivorship, Outcomes, and Risk Factors for Conversion to Total Hip Arthroplasty After Revision Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in Obese Patients: Results at a Minimum 5-Year Follow-up

Background

There is a paucity of literature reporting outcomes after revision hip arthroscopic surgery in obese patients.

Purpose

To report the minimum 5-year survivorship, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), clinical benefit, and risk factors for conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) in obese patients after revision hip arthroscopic surgery.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery by a single surgeon between April 2010 and August 2016. Inclusion criteria were a body mass index ≥30 and baseline and minimum 5-year postoperative values for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1 and hip dysplasia. Survivorship was defined as no conversion to THA. Clinical benefit was measured using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Survivors and nonsurvivors underwent further bivariate and regression analyses to determine the predictors of conversion to THA.

Results

Included were 24 hips in 24 patients. The mean patient age was 39.3 ± 12.7 years, and the mean follow-up was 83.9 ± 26.5 months. The survivorship rate was 75.0%, and patients demonstrated a significant improvement in all PROs (P < .01). At 5-year follow-up, the MCID for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS was achieved by 70.6%, 94.1%, 92.9%, and 64.7%, respectively, of the patients. Older age, higher grade ligamentum teres tears, and acetabuloplasty were significant on bivariate analysis for conversion to THA, and increased age was identified as a significant variable for conversion to THA on regression analysis (odds ratio, 1.297 [95% CI, 1.045-1.609]; P = .018), with a 29.7% greater risk for every additional year of age at the time of revision.

Conclusion

In this study, 25.0% of obese patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery required conversion to THA. The study patients who did not need conversion to THA had a significant improvement in all PROs, with >90% achieving MCID for one or more outcome measures. Older age was identified as a significant predictor of conversion to THA.

Outcomes of Arthroscopic Decompression of the Anterior Inferior Iliac Spine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) impingement has been increasingly recognized as a source of extra-articular impingement and hip pain. However, no aggregate data analysis of patient outcomes after AIIS decompression has been performed.

PURPOSE

To evaluate outcomes after arthroscopic AIIS decompression.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were queried for all English-language studies reporting outcomes of arthroscopic AIIS decompression performed in isolation or in conjunction with hip impingement correction surgery. After screening, 10 articles were included. The indications for AIIS decompression were recorded, and weighted mean improvements in patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores, complication rates, and revision rates were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 547 patients (311 women; 57%) were identified, with a total of 620 operative hips. The mean age was 28.42 ± 5.6 years, and the mean follow-up was 25.22 ± 11.1 months. A total of 529 hips (85%) underwent AIIS decompression, 530 hips (85%) underwent femoral osteochondroplasty, and 458 hips (74%) underwent labral repair. Of the patients, 13% underwent bilateral AIIS decompression. The mean modified Harris Hip Score improved from 61.3 ± 6.9 to 88.7 ± 4.7 postoperatively (change, 27.4 ± 5.7 points; P < .001), the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living improved from 67.2 ± 10.6 to 91.1 ± 3.2 postoperatively (change, 24.0 ± 8.0 points; P = .001), and the Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale improved from 36.8 ± 19.2 to 82.8 ± 3.8 postoperatively (change, 46.0 ± 18.2 points; P = .002). The pooled risk of postoperative complications was 1.1% (95% CI, 0.1%-2.1%), and the pooled risk of needing revision surgery was 1.0% (95% CI, 0.1%-2.0%). No complication was directly attributed to the AIIS decompression portion of the procedure.

CONCLUSION

PROs improved significantly after hip arthroscopy with AIIS decompression, with a low risk of postoperative complications and subsequent revision surgeries. Failure to identify extra-articular sources of hip pain in outcomes of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, including from the AIIS, could lead to poorer outcomes and future revision surgery.

Propensity-Matched Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy Older Than the Age of 40 Years Had Greater Risk of Conversion to Total Hip Arthroplasty Compared With Their Primary Counterparts

PURPOSE

To report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship following revision hip arthroscopy in patients aged ≥40 years and to compare these results with a propensity-matched primary hip arthroscopy control group.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between June 2008 and January 2019. Patients were included if they were ≥40 years of age at the time of surgery and had minimum 2-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Visual Analog Scale for pain, and the Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale. Patients who had a previous hip condition, or those who lacked minimum 2-year follow-up, were excluded. The revision group was further analyzed by conducting a 1:1 propensity-matched sub-analysis to a primary hip arthroscopy control group based on age, sex, body mass index, and acetabular labrum articular disruption grade. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine hips (92.7% follow-up) were included, with 66.3% being females. The mean age, body mass index, and follow-up time were 49.4 ± 8.0 years, 26.6 ± 4.1, and 62.7 ± 38.5 months, respectively. Significant improvement in all PROs (P < .001) was reported, and 71.8%, 58 74.4%, and 65.2% achieved the minimal clinically important difference for the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, and Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, respectively. Eighty-seven revision hips were successfully propensity-matched to 87 primary hips. Both groups reported similar improvement for all PROs, but the relative risk of conversion to total hip arthroplasty was 2.63 times greater (95% confidence interval 1.20-5.79) for the revision group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients aged ≥40 years who underwent revision hip arthroscopy reported significant improvement in all PROs at a mean follow-up of 62.7 months with favorable rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference. When compared to the propensity-matched control group, both achieved similar rates of improvement, but the revision group was 2.63 times more likely to convert to total hip arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III. case-control study.

Noninvasive shape-fitting method quantifies cam morphology in femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: Implications for diagnosis and surgical planning

There are considerable limitations associated with the standard 2D imaging currently used for the diagnosis and surgical planning of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of a new patient-specific shape-fitting method that quantifies cam morphology in 3D based solely on preoperative MRI imaging. Preoperative and postoperative 1.5T MRI scans were performed on n = 15 patients to generate 3D models of the proximal femur, in turn used to create the actual and the virtual cam. The actual cams were reconstructed by subtracting the postoperative from the preoperative 3D model and used as reference, while the virtual cams were generated by subtracting the preoperative 3D model from the virtual shape template produced with the shape-fitting method based solely on preoperative MRI scans. The accuracy of the shape-fitting method was tested on all patients by evaluating the agreement between the metrics of height, surface area, and volume that quantified virtual and actual cams. Accuracy of the shape-fitting method was demonstrated obtaining a 97.8% average level of agreement between these metrics. In conclusion, the shape-fitting technique is a noninvasive and patient-specific tool for the quantification and localization of cam morphology. Future studies will include the implementation of the technique within a clinically based software for diagnosis and surgical planning for cam-type FAIS.

Primary Arthroscopic Labral Management: Labral Repair and Complete Labral Reconstruction Both Offer Durable, Promising Results at Minimum 5-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Increased understanding of the acetabular labrum's role in hip joint biomechanics has led to a greater focus on the conservation and restoration of normal labral anatomic characteristics; however, labral repair is often not possible in the setting of severe intrasubstance damage or deficiency.

PURPOSE

To compare 5-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes between hips treated with primary complete arthroscopic labral reconstruction and those treated with primary labral repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

All hips that underwent primary labral repair or reconstruction by the senior surgeon between January 2015 and December 2015 were included. Hips that had undergone a previous intra-articular procedure were excluded. Visual analog scales and patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments were completed by patients within 1 week before surgery as a baseline measurement, between 22 and 26 months postoperatively for 2-year outcomes, and between 58 and 62 months for 5-year outcomes. PRO scores collected included the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool, and the visual analog scale for pain and satisfaction. Pain and satisfaction were assessed using visual analog scales.

RESULTS

A total of 68 primary labral repairs and 62 primary complete labral reconstructions were included in the final analysis. Patients in the reconstruction cohort were older (38.3 vs 29.9 years; P < .001), had a higher incidence of severe labral tearing (62.90% vs 5.88%; P < .001), required a greater number of concomitant procedures (P < .001), and were more likely to have Beck grade III or IV chondral damage (12.94% vs 1.47%; P < .001). Both groups demonstrated statistically significant increases in outcome scores at minimum 5-year follow-up. Patients who underwent labral reconstruction had a significantly greater increase in mHHS from the preoperative assessment to latest follow-up compared with patients undergoing labral repair (27.43 vs 17.13; P = .04). No statistically significant differences between the 2 cohorts were found in achievement of minimal clinically important difference, Patient Acceptable Symptom State, maximum outcome improvement, and substantial clinical benefit at latest follow-up (P > .05). In total, 2 patients in the repair cohort and 3 patients in the reconstruction cohort required revision arthroscopy (P = .574). Further, 1 patient from each group converted to arthroplasty (P = .947).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that primary complete labral reconstruction is a viable surgical option for hips with moderate to severe labral pathology. At minimum 5-year follow-up, labral reconstruction produced similar outcomes to labral repair despite less favorable preoperative patient characteristics in the reconstruction cohort.

Predictors of Achieving the Maximal Outcome Improvement Threshold for Willingness to Undergo Revision Hip Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

The maximal outcome improvement threshold for willingness to undergo revision hip arthroscopy (MOWT) has not been defined yet.

PURPOSE

To determine the percentage MOWT in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy and to identify predictors of achieving the MOWT.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

An anchor question was provided to patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between April 2008 and June 2020 who returned for follow-up between August 2019 and June 2021 at one institution. Patients were included if they underwent revision hip arthroscopy, had answered the anchor question, and had baseline and postoperative minimum 1-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia, previous hip conditions, or unwillingness to participate. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the MOWT. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine intraoperative predictors of achieving the MOWT.

RESULTS

In total, 153 patients (163 hips) were included, with 117 female hips (71.8%), a mean patient age of 34.3 ± 12.4 years, and an average follow-up time of 61.6 ± 42.7 months. It was determined that 77.3% of the patients reported that they would choose to undergo the revision hip arthroscopy again. The MOWT for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS was 43.1%, 53%, and 33.4%, respectively. The probability of choosing to undergo revision surgery if the MOWT was achieved was 77.5%, 77.6%, and 79.2%, for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS, respectively. Patients with residual cam-type morphology, which was addressed during the revision, were 2.3 times more likely to achieve the MOWT for the VAS (P = .014).

CONCLUSION

Patients who improved 43.1%, 53%, and 33.4% of their MOWT for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS, respectively, were likely to be willing to undergo revision hip arthroscopy again. Moreover, the presence of residual cam-type femoroacetabular impingement morphology before their revision surgery was identified as a predictor to achieve the MOWT for the VAS.

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.

Hip joint motion does not change one year after arthroscopic osteochondroplasty in patients with femoroacetabular impingement evaluated with dynamic radiostereometry

Purpose

Dynamic radiostereometric analysis (dRSA) enables precise non-invasive three-dimensional motion-tracking of bones for assessment of joint kinematics. Hereby, the biomechanical effects of arthroscopic osteochondroplasty of the hip (ACH) can be evaluated in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).

The aim was to investigate the pre- and postoperative range of motion (ROM) and the CT bone volume removed (BV) after ACH. We hypothesize increase in ROM 1 year after surgery.

Methods

Thirteen patients (6 female) with symptomatic FAI were included prospectively. The patient’s hips were CT-scanned and CT-bone models were created. Preoperative dRSA recordings were acquired during passive flexion to 90°, adduction, and internal rotation (FADIR). ACH was performed, CT and dRSA were repeated 3 months and 1 year postoperatively. Hip joint kinematics before, and 3 months and 1 year after ACH were compared pairwise. The bone volume removal was quantified and compared to change in ROM.

Results

Mean hip internal rotation, adduction and flexion were all unchanged after ACH at 1-year follow-up (p > 0.84). HAGOS scores revealed improvement of quality of life (QOL) from 32 to 60 (p = 0.02). The BV was between 406 and 1783 mm³ and did not correlate to post-operative ROM.

Conclusions

ACH surgery in FAI patients had no impact of ROM at 1-year follow-up. QOL improved significantly. This indicates that the positive clinical effects reported after ACH might be a result of reduced labral stress and cartilage pressure during end-range motion rather than increased ROM.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic prospective cohort study, level II.

Systematic Review of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Rotator Cuff Repair: Are We Adhering to the Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics?

Background

The therapeutic efficacy of orthobiologic therapies for rotator cuff repair is difficult to evaluate owing to reporting inconsistences. In response, the Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO) guidelines were developed to ensure standard reporting on orthobiologic therapies.

Purpose

To systematically review clinical studies evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for full-thickness rotator cuff repair and adherence to MIBO guidelines.

Study Design

Scoping review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

A search was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies reporting on rotator cuff tears (≥1 cm) surgically repaired with PRP. Patient demographics, biologic intervention, and adherence to the MIBO guidelines were systematically reviewed.

Results

A total of 19 studies (1005 patients) were included in this review. Across all studies, 58.5% of the MIBO checklist items for PRP were reported. Out of 47 checklist items, 19 were reported in over 85% of studies, whereas 22 were reported in less than half of studies. Details of whole-blood processing and characteristics, as well as PRP processing and characteristics, were reported inconsistently, and no study provided adequate information to enable the precise replication of preparation protocols for PRP.

Conclusion

This systematic review highlights the current reporting deficiencies within the scientific literature of important variables for evaluating PRP for full-thickness rotator cuff repair. There was widespread variability among published studies that evaluate PRP for this application and, more specifically, studies were limited by inconsistent universal reporting of whole-blood and PRP processing and postprocessing characteristics. To improve our understanding of biologic efficacy and to promote repeatability, stricter adherence to the MIBO guidelines is necessary. We propose that the checklist limitations be addressed and that modification of the MIBO guidelines be considered to improve the reporting of individual components within certain categories.

Three-Dimensional Measures of Bony Resection During Femoral Osteochondroplasty Are Related to Alpha Angle Measures: A Cadaveric Study

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical Relevance

Revision Hip Arthroscopy in High-Level Athletes: Minimum 2-Year Outcomes Comparison to a Propensity-Matched Primary Hip Arthroscopy Control Group

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of revision hip arthroscopy in the athletic population have not been well established.

PURPOSE

(1) To report clinical outcomes for high-level athletes undergoing revision hip arthroscopy in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) or labral tears and (2) to compare these outcomes against a propensity-matched group of high-level athletes undergoing primary hip arthroscopy.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data for professional, college, and high school athletes were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed between January 2012 and October 2018. Patients were included if they underwent revision or primary hip arthroscopy and had preoperative and minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores for 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. The findings and outcomes of revision athletes were compared with a propensity-matched control group of high-level athletes undergoing primary hip arthroscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 32 hips (29 patients) undergoing revision hip arthroscopy and 92 hips (88 patients) undergoing primary hip arthroscopy were included in our final analysis with a median follow-up time of 29.5 months (95% CI, 27.2-32.1 months) and 36.5 months (95% CI, 33.5-37.7 months), respectively. Athletes undergoing revision surgery showed significant improvement in all recorded PRO measurements and achieved patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for mHHS at high rates (80.6% and 83.9%, respectively). When compared with a propensity-matched primary control group, patients undergoing revision surgery demonstrated lower preoperative and postoperative scores for mHHS, NAHS, and HOS-SSS, but the magnitude of improvement in functional scores was similar between groups. Athletes undergoing revision surgery achieved PASS for HOS-SSS at lower rates than the control group (P = .005), and they were less likely to attempt to return to sport compared with the control group (62.5% vs 87.0%; P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Revision hip arthroscopy is a viable treatment option to improve PROs in high-level athletes at minimum 2-year follow-up. The study group showed significant improvement in functional scores and a high rate of successful outcomes. They experienced similar magnitude of improvement as that of a propensity-matched control group; however, they achieved lower postoperative PRO scores and attempted to return to sport at lower rates.

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.

Clinical outcomes after revision hip arthroscopy in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) are inferior compared to primary procedures. Results from the Danish Hip Arthroscopy Registry (DHAR)

PURPOSE

As many as 10% of primary hip arthroscopies end up with a revision arthroscopy procedure when treating patients suffering from femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). In general, revision procedures are indicated because of residual impingement, but only a few studies present outcome data from revision hip arthroscopy after failed FAIS surgical treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes after revision hip arthroscopy in a FAIS cohort and compare outcomes with a primary FAIS hip arthroscopy cohort and describe potential causes of failure after the primary hip arthroscopy. It was hypothesized that subjective outcomes improve after revision hip arthroscopy although outcomes were expected to be inferior to primary hip arthroscopic outcomes.

METHODS

Three-hundred and thirty-one arthroscopic revision hip FAIS patients were included from the Danish Hip Arthroscopy Registry (DHAR). Patient-related outcome measures (PROM's), Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Scores (HAGOS), Hip Sports Activity Scale (HSAS), EQ-5D and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain, were assessed in the study cohort prior to the primary procedure and at revision and at follow-up one year after the revision procedure. These data were compared with 4154 primary hip arthroscopic FAIS patients.

RESULTS

One-year after revision surgery, mean follow-up (in months ± SD): 12.3 ± 1.6, significant improvements (p < 0.05) in all PROMs was demonstrated, but FAIS patients in the primary hip arthroscopic cohort demonstrated significantly higher outcomes, in all PROMs, when compared at one-year follow-up. Scar tissue, residual osseous impingement and insufficient healing of the labral repair were reported as the main reasons for revision surgery. The conversion to total hip arthroplasty was low (6.4%).

CONCLUSION

Revision hip arthroscopy in FAIS patients improves subjective outcomes significantly, although they are poorer than after primary FAIS hip arthroscopy. Main reasons for revision arthroscopy was scar tissue, residual femoroacetabular impingement and insufficient healing of labral repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Graft Options in Hip Labral Reconstruction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The last decade has seen a boom in hip arthroscopy with refined indications. Improved understanding of pathoanatomy and disease progression has allowed for the development of advanced techniques. Labral reconstruction has been developed to substitute a non-functional or absent labrum. It has become an important technique in the armamentarium of high-volume arthroscopic hip surgeons.

RECENT FINDINGS

Basic science studies have improved understanding of hip biomechanics in the presence and absence of a labrum with a labral reconstruction allowing for reconstitution of normalcy. Current techniques have shown success with autograft and allograft tissue options. While autograft tissue allows for easy access intra-operatively and maintains patient biology, donor site morbidity is possible. Allografts negate donor site morbidity and allow for an abundance of tissue but can be resource-intensive and face availability concerns. Recent studies support outcomes of labral reconstructions using both autograft and allograft. Promising results have also allowed for performing labral reconstruction in a primary setting. Labral reconstruction can be successfully performed using both autograft and allograft. Patient biology should be respected, and native hip biomechanics restored. The literature is plentiful for appropriate surgical decision-making allowing the surgeon with multiple graft choices depending on training, experience, and resources.

Capsular Management of the Hip During Arthroscopic Acetabular Chondral Resurfacing: Pearls, Pitfalls, and Optimal Surgical Technique

Treatment of hip joint chondral damage is a well-recognized aspect of the arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Hip chondral resurfacing has evolved from microfracture to different forms of cartilage grafting, all with variable long-term outcomes. Recent literature has focused on techniques using different cartilage sources (native and synthetic products) that are available for clinicians to choose from during hip arthroscopy. None of the published reports on cartilage grafts have commented on hip joint capsular management as part of the procedure. This is likely because of the increased difficulty of capsular closure in the dry arthroscopic environment required for graft stabilization. However, potential iatrogenic hip instability induced by an unrepaired interportal capsulotomy can be detrimental to the existing joint architecture and possibly to the cartilage graft. This article presents a step-by-step approach, including tips and pearls, for capsular closure during arthroscopic acetabular chondral resurfacing with BioCartilage (Arthrex, Naples, FL). This method is a safe and reproducible way to close the joint capsule during chondral resurfacing in patients undergoing hip preservation that can potentially enhance the chances of a successful outcome.

Hip Capsular Reconstruction Made Easy: The Timing and the Technique

An iatrogenic capsular defect can be a major contributing factor to macroinstability of the hip. For this circumstance, capsular reconstruction may be appropriately indicated when the capsule cannot be primarily reconstituted. Severe dysfunction may accompany previous failed arthroscopy. This dysfunction should be assessed and addressed with a properly structured rehabilitation program prior to revision surgery. We describe a simplified technique for capsular reconstruction using a dermal allograft.