Low Back Pain, Psychiatric Disorders, and a Combination of Both Negatively Affect Hip Arthroscopy Outcomes in Servicemembers

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.

Editorial Commentary: Patients With Lumbar Pathology or Ipsilateral Knee Pathology Improve After Hip Arthroscopy, but Outcomes Are Not as Good as in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome Without Concomitant Pathology

From the lumbar spine to foot, the joints of the lower extremity are all intimately connected. Their movements are synchronized in a complex biomechanical dance. Pain in one joint tends to affect the joint above and joint below. Understanding the influence of adjacent-joint disease on the hip can help us better counsel patients undergoing hip surgery. Low-back pathology has been shown to negatively influence outcomes after hip arthroscopy. Ipsilateral knee pain appears to do the same. Patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome with ipsilateral knee pain should be counseled that their outcomes may not be quite as good as those without knee pain, but they should be able to expect meaningful improvement of their symptoms, both at the hip and at the knee after hip arthroscopy.

Concomitant Ipsilateral Knee Pain Is Associated With Worse Preoperative Functional Status and Short-Term Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

PURPOSE

(1) To determine the effect of concomitant ipsilateral knee pain (IKP) on short-term outcomes after hip arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and (2) to determine whether IKP would improve with surgery.

METHODS

Data between September 2021 and May 2022 were reviewed. Patients with a diagnosis of FAIS who underwent hip arthroscopy with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included. The exclusion criteria were prior ipsilateral hip or knee surgery, hip Tönnis grade greater than 1, knee Kellgren-Lawrence grade greater than 2, hip conditions (avascular necrosis, Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease, pigmented villonodular synovitis, osteoid osteoma, synovial chondromatosis, and developmental dysplasia of the hip), and spine diseases. All patients underwent knee magnetic resonance imaging preoperatively. Preoperative and short-term (1-year) patient-reported outcomes were collected, consisting of the Hip Sports Activity Scale score, weekly sports participation, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 12-component International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) score, and visual analog pain scale (VAS) scores for the hip and the ipsilateral knee. The percentages of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the mHHS and iHOT-12 score were calculated. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine the effect of IKP severity on postoperative outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed between patients with IKP alleviation and those without IKP alleviation.

RESULTS

Among the 107 patients included, 47 presented with preoperative IKP. Compared with patients without IKP, the IKP cohort had comparable knee structural abnormalities (all with P > .05). Still, the IKP cohort showed inferior preoperative values for the mHHS (P = .003), iHOT-12 score (P = .016), hip VAS score (P = .001), and weekly sports participation (P = .039). Postoperatively, the IKP cohort had a lower mHHS (P = .046), lower iHOT-12 score (P = .037), and lower hip VAS score (P = .003) and were less likely to achieve the PASS for the mHHS (P = .021) and iHOT-12 score (P = .049). Patients with higher knee VAS scores were less likely to achieve the PASS for the mHHS (odds ratio, 0.61; P = .023). Within the IKP group, the knee VAS score improved from 2.3 to 1.0 (P < .001). Patients with alleviated IKP showed superior postoperative iHOT-12 scores (P = .038) compared with patients with persistent IKP.

CONCLUSIONS

Concomitant IKP at baseline negatively affected preoperative status and short-term clinical outcomes after arthroscopic treatment of FAIS. Patients with IKP were less likely to meet clinical thresholds. Most patients achieved IKP alleviation postoperatively, which was associated with superior clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Six-Month Outcomes Correlate With 10-Year Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

PURPOSE

To identify whether 6-month outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) correlate with outcomes at minimum 10-year follow-up.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS from 2012 to 2013 were reviewed and included if they had 6-month and minimum 10-year follow-up. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures included the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) subscale, Hip Outcome Score Sports-Specific (HOS-SS) subscale, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and VAS for satisfaction. We compared 6-month and 10-year outcome scores and analyzed the relations between 6-month and 1-, 2-, 5-, and 10-year outcome scores using Pearson correlation coefficients (r). Six-month scores and clinically significant outcome achievement were then compared with 10-year clinically significant outcome achievement and reoperations, including revision hip arthroscopy and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), using logistic regressions and the Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

This study included 60 patients (60.0% female sex; mean age, 36.0 ± 12.2 years). The mHHS, VAS pain score, and VAS satisfaction score significantly improved from 6-month to 10-year follow-up (P ≤ .021), whereas the HOS-ADL and HOS-SS did not (P ≥ .072). There were significant correlations between 6-month and 10-year scores for the HOS-ADL (r = 0.505), HOS-SS (r = 0.592), and mHHS (r = 0.362) (P ≤ .022 for all), as well as significant correlations between 6-month and 1-, 2-, and 5-year scores (P ≤ .014 for all). The 6-month HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, and mHHS were all significantly associated with their respective 10-year achievement of the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) (P ≤ .044). Furthermore, 6-month HOS-ADL and mHHS were significantly associated with THA conversion (P ≤ .041). Comparable 6-month and 10-year achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (96.5% vs 97.8%, P > .999) and PASS (85.2% vs 87.5%, P > .999) for any PRO was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

After hip arthroscopy for FAIS, patients' 6-month HOS-ADL and mHHS were significantly associated with their 10-year PROs, PASS achievement, and THA conversion, although correlation strengths decreased with increasing time from surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative case series.

Cartilage Defects Are Negatively Associated With Long-Term Hip Survivorship Following Contemporary Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Propensity-Matched Analysis at Minimum 10-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To identify the timing and risk factors associated with secondary surgery following primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) at 10-year minimum follow-up.

METHODS

A prospectively collected clinical repository was evaluated for cases of primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS between January 2012 and February 2013 with minimum 10-year follow-up. Patients who underwent secondary surgery were propensity matched 1:4 to patients who did not undergo secondary surgery, controlling for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). The groups were compared on demographics, radiographs, intraoperative findings, operative procedures, and patient-reported outcomes. A Kaplan-Meier survivorship curve was generated. Among the reoperation-free survivors, minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) achievement were recorded for Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific (HOS-SS) subscales, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 12-item international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain).

RESULTS

Twenty-four reoperation patients (67% female; age 40.1 ± 14.3 years; BMI 27.2 ± 5.5) were matched to 96 reoperation-free patients (62% female; age 37.0 ± 10.8 years; BMI 25.2 ± 4.7, P ≥ .111). Mean follow-up was 10.3 ± 0.2 years. No preoperative demographic differences were found between groups. The reoperation group showed more high-grade cartilage defects on the acetabulum and femoral head (33% vs 8%, P = .004; 29% vs 7%, P = .007). A bimodal distribution of time to reoperation was evidenced independent of the secondary surgery performed. Among the reoperation-free survivors, MCID and PASS achievement was as follows: HOS-ADL (69.1%, 62.1%), HOS-SS (69.9%, 74.4%), mHHS (73.3%, 58.1%), iHOT-12 (n/a, 63.8%), and VAS-Pain (80.2%, 62.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients requiring reoperation following primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS demonstrated more severe cartilage defects and a bimodal distribution of time to reoperation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative case series.

Over 50% of Studies Report Low-Back Pain Is Associated With Worse Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy When Compared With a Control Group: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To review outcomes of patients with low-back pathology undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Trials, and Scopus databases were queried in June 2022 to conduct this systematic review using the following terms: ("hip" OR "femoroacetabular impingement") AND ("arthroscopy" OR "arthroscopic") AND ("spine" OR "lumbar" OR "sacral" OR "hip-spine" OR "back") AND ("outcomes"). Articles were included if they reported on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and/or clinical benefit of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with concomitant low-back pathology. The review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria. Case reports, opinion articles, review articles, and technique articles were excluded from this study. Forest plots were created to analyze preoperative and postoperative outcomes among patients with low-back pathology.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the review. There were 750 hips with low-back pathology and FAI (hip-spine syndrome) and 1,800 hips with only FAI (no hip-spine syndrome). All 14 studies reported PROs. In 4 studies in the group with hip-spine syndrome and 8 studies in the group with FAI without low-back pathology, the respective cohorts were reported to achieve the minimal clinically important difference in at least 1 PRO at a rate of 80%. Eight studies reported that patients with low-back pathology were associated with inferior outcomes or clinical benefit compared with patients without low-back pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with concomitant low-back pathology can expect favorable outcomes, but outcomes are superior in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAI alone compared with FAI with concomitant low-back pathology.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level II to Level IV studies.