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

Primary Hip Arthroscopy is Associated with Earlier Achievement of Substantial Clinical Benefit Compared to Revision Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

PURPOSE

To compare time to achievement of clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) between patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroscopy (HA) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

METHODS

Patients undergoing primary and revision HA for FAIS with complete 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year Hip Outcome Score - Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and Sport Subscale (HOS-SS) were identified. Revision patients were propensity matched 1:4 to primary HA patients, controlling for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Time to achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) were compared alongside cumulative CSO achievement at 6, 12, and 24 months. Hazard ratios (HR) for predictors of earlier CSO achievement were identified with multivariate Cox regressions.

RESULTS

Fifty revision HA patients were propensity-matched to 200 primary HA patients of similar age, sex, and BMI. Primary HA patients demonstrated a greater prevalence of regular preoperative physical activity (87% vs. 59%, p<0.001). Primary HA patients showed significantly greater SCB achievement for HOS-ADL at 6, 12, and 24 months (p<0.001) and significantly greater SCB achievement for HOS-SS at 12 and 24 months (p≤0.001) compared to revision HA patients. Primary HA patients achieved SCB for HOS-ADL (p<0.001) and HOS-SS (p=0.015) quicker than revision HA patients. Predictors of earlier CSO achievement included preoperative PRO score (HR: 0.98-1.02, p≤0.007), lower BMI (HR: 0.97, p=0.038), presence of physical activity (HR: 1.51, p=0.038), and absence of revision status (HR: 0.52-0.56, p≤0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary HA patients showed a quicker time to SCB achievement for HOS-ADL and HOS-SS compared to revision HA patients. Preoperative PRO score, lower BMI, regular physical activity, and primary HA status predicted earlier CSO achievement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative series.

High-Level Competitive Athletes Who Undergo Hip Arthroscopy Demonstrate Durable 5-Year Outcomes and Lower Subjective Pain: A Propensity-Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hip arthroscopy (HA) has been proven to be an effective treatment for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) in both competitive athletes (CA) and non-CA at short-term follow-up. However, there is a paucity of literature investigating midterm outcomes comparing athletes with Controls.

HYPOTHESIS

Athletes would have significant improvements at 5 years, with favorable outcomes compared with their control counterparts, and high return-to-sport (RTS) rate.

STUDY DESIGN

Propensity-matched retrospective comparative cohort study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3.

METHODS

CAs who underwent primary HA for FAIS from January 1, 2012 to April 30, 2017 were identified and propensity matched on a 1:4 basis to Controls by age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected preoperatively and at 5 years. Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom states (PASS) rates were calculated using previously published thresholds. Rate and duration of RTS were collected retrospectively.

RESULTS

A total of 57 high-level CA (33 female, 24 male; age, 21.7 ± 4.2 years; BMI, 23.1 ± 2.8 kg/m2) were propensity matched to 228 Controls (132 female, 96 male; P > 0.99; age, 23.3 ± 5.8 years; P = 0.02; BMI, 23.8 ± 4.3 kg/m2, P = 0.24). Significant differences were observed in preoperative Hip Outcome Score Sports Specific and Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) subscales (CA, 74.9 ± 13.7 vs Controls, 66.4 ± 18.4; P = 0.01) and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) (CA, 64.7 ± 12.9 vs Controls, 59.7 ± 14.3; P = 0.04). Both groups demonstrated significant postoperative improvements in all outcome scores measured (P ≤ 0.01). At 5 years postoperatively, there were significant differences between groups in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Pain (CA, 17.3 ± 17.6 vs Controls, 24.7 ± 25.9; P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in achieving MCID or PASS. Athletes RTS at a median of 25.2 weeks (Q1 22.4-Q3 30.7) with an overall RTS rate of 90%. Similar rates of revision were seen between CA patients (n = 3; 5.3%) and Control patients (n = 9; 3.9%) (P = 0.66).

CONCLUSION

CAs demonstrated significant and durable improvements in PROs as well as high MCID and PASS achievement rates after primary HA, which were comparable with those of Controls. Clinicians should be aware that CA patients demonstrate higher preoperative mHHS and HOS-ADL scores than Controls and achieve lower average self-reported pain at 5 years postoperatively. In addition, CA patients demonstrate high rates of RTS at a median of 25 weeks postoperatively.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study provides insight into CA versus Control PROs and rates of achieving MCID and PASS at a midterm follow-up of 5 years. Furthermore, this study offers perception into RTS rate, both in general as well as specified to individualized sports.

Primary and Revision Hip Arthroscopy in Borderline Hip Dysplasia Shows Comparable Outcomes at a Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs), achievement of clinically significant outcomes, and reoperation-free survivorship between primary and revision hip arthroscopy (HA) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) in propensity-matched borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) patients at a minimum 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

Patients with BHD, characterized by a lateral center-edge angle 18° to 25°, who underwent HA for FAIS with capsular repair by a single surgeon between January 2012 and June 2018 with a minimum 5-year follow-up were identified. Cases of revision HA were propensity-matched 1:2 to cases of primary HA, controlling for age, sex, and body mass index. A 1:2 ratio was chosen to maximize the number of included patients. Collected PROs included Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living and Sport Subscales, International Hip Outcome Score 12, modified Harris Hip Score, and Visual Analog Scale for Pain. Achievement of minimal clinically important difference, patient acceptable symptom state, and substantial clinical benefit for any measured PRO was compared between groups along with reoperation-free survivorship using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-six revision HA hips (34 patients) were propensity-matched to 72 primary HA hips (70 patients). The groups were similar in age (31.5 ± 10.3 years vs 30.5 ± 11.2, P = .669), sex (69.4% female vs 70.8%, P = .656), and body mass index (25.7 ± 4.0 vs 25.5 ± 3.7, P = .849). The revision group showed a greater prevalence of prolonged preoperative pain (50.0% vs 27.8%, P = .032) compared with the primary group. A significant improvement in all PROs was observed for both groups with comparable PROs preoperatively and at the 5-year follow-up between groups (P ≥ .086). The revision and primary groups showed comparable minimal clinically important difference (95.0% vs 95.7%, P ≥ .999), patient acceptable symptom state (80.0% vs 83.6%, P = .757), and substantial clinical benefit (62.5% vs 70.7%, P = .603) achievement for any PRO. Comparable reoperation-free survivorship was observed (P = .151).

CONCLUSIONS

Propensity-matched patients with BHD undergoing primary and revision hip arthroscopy for FAIS achieved similar minimum 5-year PROs, clinically significant outcomes, and reoperation-free survivorship.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative case series.

After Revision Hip Arthroscopy, Patients Having Either Circumferential or Segmental Labral Reconstructions for the Management of Irreparable Labra Show Clinical Improvement Based on Proper Indications

PURPOSE

To compare a minimum of two-year follow-up patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy for acetabular circumferential labral reconstruction (CLR) and segmental labral reconstruction (SLR) using propensity-matched groups, in the setting of irreparable labral tear.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy from April 2010 to September 2018. Patients were included if they underwent labral reconstruction and had preoperative and minimum 2-year PROs. Patients unwilling to participate, with Tönnis grade >1, or hip dysplasia were excluded. Patients in the CLR group were propensity-matched on the basis of age, sex, body mass index, and Tönnis grade to patients in the SLR group in a 1:1 ratio. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) rates were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-six hips (25 patients) with CLR were propensity-matched to 26 hips (26 patients) with SRL. The mean follow-up time 25.92 and 27.78 months for the CLR and SLR, respectively (P = .845). Groups reported comparable findings for sex (P = .773), age (P = .197), body mass index (P = .124), preoperative Tönnis grade (P = .124), lateral-center edge angle (P = .144), and alpha angle (P = .264), and comparable improvement for all PROs at minimum 2-year follow-up. Patient satisfaction was similar (P = .612). Rates of achievement for the MCID and PASS were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Following revision hip arthroscopy, patients who underwent CLR or SLR for complete and segmental irreparable labral tears, respectively, reported significant and comparable postoperative improvement for all PROs and rate of achievement for the MCID and PASS at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy With Labral Reconstruction for Irreparable Labral Tears in Athletes: Minimum 2-Year Outcomes With a Benchmark Control Group

BACKGROUND

The incidence of revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction in athletes is increasing. However, the outcomes of revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction in athletes have not been well established.

PURPOSES

(1) To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores and return to sports (RTS) characteristics for high-level athletes undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction and (2) to compare clinical results with those of a propensity-matched control group of high-level athletes undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with labral repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for athletes at any level who underwent a revision hip arthroscopy and a labral reconstruction between April 2010 and March 2019. Minimum 2-year PROs were reported for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), the Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and RTS. The percentages of athletes achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold (MOIST) were also recorded. These patients were propensity matched in a 1: 1 ratio to athletes undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with labral repair for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 46 athletes (N = 47 hips) were reported from 50 (n = 51 hips) athletes who underwent revision with labral reconstruction. A subanalysis of 30 propensity-matched athletes undergoing revision labral reconstruction was performed, with a mean follow-up time of 26.3 ± 2.4 months and an age of 28.5 ± 10.1 years, and compared with a revision labral repair group. Significant improvements were obtained for the mHHS, the NAHS, the HOS-SSS, and the VAS from preoperative to the latest follow-up (P < .001), with an achievement MCID rate of 61.5%, 72%, 62.5%, and 76.9% for the mHHS, the NAHS, the HOS-SSS, and the VAS, respectively. The rate for re-revision surgery (2 tertiary arthroscopy and 1 conversion to total hip arthroplasty) was 10%, and 14 patients (63.6%) were able to RTS. Improvements in PROs, rates of achieving MCID/MOIST, rate of re-revision surgery (re-revision hip arthroscopy, P = .671; conversion to total hip arthroplasty, P > .999), and RTS rate (P = .337) were similar when compared with those of the propensity-matched control labral repair group (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction, in the context of an irreparable labral tear, seems to be a valid treatment option in the athletic population, demonstrating significant improvements in all PROs and low rates of undergoing revision surgery. Athletes experienced a similar magnitude of improvement in PROs, RTS rate, and revision surgery rate to that of a propensity-matched control group of athletes undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with labral repair.