Correction of mildly dysplastic hips with periacetabular osteotomy demonstrates promising outcomes, achievement of correction goals, and excellent five-year survivorship

The role of different acetabular morphologies on patient-reported outcomes following periacetabular osteotomy in borderline hip dysplasia

INTRODUCTION

The treatment option for borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) includes hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). To the present day the controversial discussion remains, which intervention to prefer. Literature reports supporting an educated choice are scare, based on small patient cohorts and do not address the variability of acetabular morphology. Consequently, we intended to report PAO outcomes, from patients diagnosed with BHD, dependent on acetabular morphology, in a large patient cohort and aimed to define risk factors for poor clinical results and patient satisfaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective monocentre study was conducted. Patients enrolled underwent PAO for symptomatic BHD (LCEA, 18°-25°). A total of 107 hips were included with 94 complete data sets were available for evaluation with a minimum follow-up of 1 year and a mean follow-up of 2.3 years. The mean age was 31 ± 8.2 years, and 81.3% were female. As the primary outcome measure, we utilized the modified Harris hip score (mHHS) with minimal clinically important change (MCID) of eight to define clinical failure. Results were compared after a comprehensive radiographic assessment distinguishing between lateral deficient vs. anterior/posterolateral deficient acetabular and stable vs. unstable hip joints.

RESULTS

Overall, clinical success was achieved in 91.5% of patients and the mHHS improved significantly (52 vs. 84.7, p < 0.001). Eight hips failed to achieve the MCID and four had radiographic signs of overcorrection. Comparing variable joint morphologies, the rate of clinical success was higher in patients with an anterior/posterolateral deficient acetabular covarage compared to lateral deficient acetabular (95.2% vs. 90.4%). tThe highest rate of clinical failure was recorded in unstable hip joints (85.7% vs. 92.5% in stable hips).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that PAO is an effective means to treat symptomatic BHD with variable acetabular morphologies, achieving a clinical success in 91.5% of all patients. To maintain a high level of safety and patient satisfaction technical accuracy appears crucial.

Editorial Commentary: Arthroscopy With Labral Preservation or Reconstruction Plus Capsular Closure Shows Excellent Outcome in Patients With Borderline Hip Dysplasia and is Less Invasive Than Periacetabular Osteotomy

Borderline developmental dysplasia of the hip (BDDH), or borderline hip dysplasia (BHD), traditionally characterized by a relatively low lateral center-edge angle (LCEA), presents a complex challenge in treatment due to its multifaceted etiology involving instability, femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), or a combination thereof. The optimal approach to managing adult BDDH remains a subject of significant debate. Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is considered the preferred treatment for addressing severe acetabular under-coverage, as it rectifies the underlying bony deficiency and promotes stability. However, the treatment of BDDH is less straightforward, particularly with the advancement of hip arthroscopy techniques, specifically labral preservation and capsular management. Given the minimally invasive and rapid postoperative rehabilitation advantage for arthroscopic procedures over open surgeries, numerous attempts have been undertaken in this context. Research has revealed favorable patient-reported outcomes (PROs), low failure rates, and a significant proportion of returning to sports (RTS) after arthroscopic management for patients with BDDH. Although we might in the right direction, Level I evidence studies are needed to comprehensively compare long-term PROs, failure rates, and rates of RTS between arthroscopy and PAO in the treatment of BDDH.

Combined Borderline Acetabular Dysplasia and Increased Femoral Anteversion Is Associated With Worse Outcomes in Female Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement

PURPOSE

To determine the relationship of increased femoral anteversion and borderline acetabular dysplasia on the outcomes of hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement in a female cohort of patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of female patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement. All patients had preoperative radiographs and computed tomography scans from which lateral center edge angle (LCEA) and femoral anteversion were measured. Patient outcome was quantified by preoperative and postoperative International Hip Outcome Tool 12-item instrument (iHOT-12). All patients had follow-up at 2 to 4 years postoperatively. Published values for minimum clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit (SCB), patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and a normal or abnormal hip were used to determine outcome as well as the final score and delta of the iHOT-12.

RESULTS

There were 243 female patients included in the cohort (83% follow-up) who had iHOT-12 scores at 2- to 4-year follow-up (mean 36.9 months). Female patients with combined LCEA ≤25° and femoral anteversion >20° had lower final IHOT-12 scores (P = .001) and delta iHOT-12 (P = .010) and were less likely to achieve a normal hip (P = .013), minimum clinically important difference (P = .018), SCB (P < .001), or PASS (P < .001) and more likely to have an abnormal hip (P = .002). In addition, patients with an LCEA ≤25° and normal femoral version were less likely to achieve a normal hip (P = .013), SCB (P < .001), and PASS (P < .001) compared with those with normal acetabular coverage (all P < .05). There was no difference in these outcome measures between the groups with an LCEA >25° with or without increased femoral version.

CONCLUSIONS

Female patients with femoral anteversion >20° and borderline acetabular dysplasia did poorly after hip arthroscopy. However, those with increased femoral anteversion and normal acetabular coverage had outcomes similar to control hips.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Is Not as Responsive as Legacy Scores in Detecting Patient Outcomes in Hip Preservation: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To evaluate publication trends of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in hip preservation literature, assess the usage of PROMIS as an outcome measure, and evaluate correlations of all available published PROMIS domains with legacy patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

The PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar databases were queried for articles evaluating PROMIS scores among hip preservation populations. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies with Level IV evidence or above (per the Sackett et al. levels of evidence), such as case series and cohort studies, reporting on perioperative use of hip PROMIS scores. Exclusion criteria consisted of arthroplasty and trauma studies. Patient demographics, PROMIS usage, and PROMIS Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients to historic PROs were recorded for each study.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles published between 2017 and 2021 were included in the analysis, with the majority (75%) published between 2020 and 2021. Studies assessing postoperative outcomes had follow-up periods ranging from 6 months to 5 years. The most common PROMIS domain reported was Physical Function (PF), and there was varying usage of other domains including Pain Intensity, Anxiety, and Depression. PROMIS validity was most often assessed in comparison to the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) by calculating the Pearson coefficient, which assumes normal data distribution, or Spearman coefficient, which is rank-based and does not require normal data distribution. Studies comparing PROMIS-PF with mHHS reported Pearson coefficients ranging from 0.49 to 0.72 and Spearman coefficients ranging from 0.67 to 0.71.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been a chronologic increase in PROMIS usage in hip preservation literature. PROMIS demonstrates moderate-to-strong correlations with legacy PROs, but there is substantial heterogeneity in follow-up periods, PROMIS domains used, and statistical methodology. The current data show that PROMIS is not as responsive as historically used, validated PROs in quantitatively assessing function and pain in hip preservation patients.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Surgeons using PROMIS solely should be aware that the score may not be as responsive as legacy PROs in closely assessing improvements or deterioration in patient performance after hip preservation surgery. Rather than being used alone, PROMIS may be useful as a replacement for a group of legacy PROs. Thus, when used alongside select legacy PROs, overall questionnaire burden can be reduced while maintaining a high level of accuracy in assessing health status.

Outcomes of Periacetabular Osteotomy for Borderline Acetabular Dysplasia

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical treatment (hip arthroscopy compared with periacetabular osteotomy [PAO]) for borderline acetabular dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA], 18° to 25°) remains a topic of debate. To date, the literature has focused primarily on arthroscopy outcomes, with only a few small reports on PAO outcomes. The purpose of this study was to define PAO outcomes in a large cohort of borderline hips. In a secondary analysis, we assessed the effect of prior failed arthroscopy, concurrent hip arthroscopy, and concurrent femoral osteoplasty on PAO outcomes in this cohort.

METHODS

A prospective database was retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent PAO for symptomatic instability in the setting of borderline dysplasia (LCEA, 18° to 25°). Of the 232 identified hips, 186 (80.2%) were assessed at a mean follow-up of 3.3 ± 2.0 years postoperatively. The mean patient age was 25.2 ± 8.5 years (range, 14 to 45 years), and 88.2% were female. Thirty hips (16.1%) had undergone a failed prior arthroscopy. Arthroscopy was performed concurrently with the PAO in 130 hips (69.9%), and femoral osteoplasty was performed concurrently in 120 hips (64.5%). The modified Harris hip score (mHHS) was assessed relative to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 8 and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) of 74. Clinical failure was defined as a reoperation for persistent symptoms or a failure to achieve either the mHHS MCID or PASS.

RESULTS

Of the 156 hips undergoing a primary surgical procedure, clinical success was achieved in 148 hips (94.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 90.2% to 97.4%]). Two hips (1.3% [95% CI, 0.4% to 4.6%]) underwent reoperation (hip arthroscopy) for persistent symptoms and an additional 6 hips (3.8% [95% CI, 1.8% to 8.1%]) failed to achieve the mHHS MCID or PASS, for a clinical failure rate of 5.1% (95% CI, 2.6% to 9.8%); 8.8% reported dissatisfaction with the surgical procedure. Clinical failure was more frequent among the 30 hips (23.3% [95% CI, 11.8% to 40.9%]; p = 0.001) that had undergone a prior failed arthroscopy. There were no outcome differences between hips that had or had not undergone concurrent hip arthroscopy or femoral osteoplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates excellent early outcomes of PAO for borderline acetabular dysplasia, with significant clinical improvement in 94.9% of patients undergoing a primary surgical procedure; 91.2% were satisfied with the surgical procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

External Validation of the FEAR Index in Borderline Acetabular Dysplasia

Background

Given the lack of established, externally validated criteria for the diagnosis of unstable hips, the Femoro-Epiphyseal Acetabular Roof (FEAR) index has been proposed as a useful tool for identifying hips with instability in the setting of borderline acetabular dysplasia.

Purposes

To (1) determine the external performance of the FEAR index in identifying hips with a clinical diagnosis of instability in the setting of borderline dysplasia and (2) assess the performance of the FEAR index compared with acetabular inclination or physeal scar angle alone.

Study Design

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

Methods

The authors reviewed 176 patients with borderline acetabular dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle, 20°-25°). A positive FEAR index was defined as ≥5°. An alternative threshold ≥2° was also assessed. Significant instability was determined by the senior surgeon based on the combination of patient and radiographic features; unstable hips were treated with periacetabular osteotomy (with or without hip arthroscopy), and stable hips were treated with isolated hip arthroscopy.

Results

Only 18% of borderline hips had a positive FEAR index. The ≥5° positive FEAR index threshold had a sensitivity of 33% (23/70) and specificity of 92% (98/106) in predicting the clinical diagnosis of instability. The ≥2° FEAR index threshold had a sensitivity of 39% (27/70) and specificity of 89% (94/106) in predicting the clinical diagnosis of instability. No alternative threshold for the FEAR index resulted in high levels of sensitivity and specificity. A threshold of -5° was required to reach an adequate sensitivity of 74%. The FEAR index remained a significant predictor of hip instability even after controlling for acetabular inclination (odds ratio, 1.12; P < .001) or physeal scar angle (odds ratio, 1.6; P < .001).

Conclusion

In the current study, a positive FEAR index was generally indicative of the presence of clinical instability, but the FEAR index alone remained inadequate to fully define the instability of a given hip, as it demonstrated low sensitivity (only 33%) in the external validation. The FEAR index is best used in the context of other clinical and radiographic features.

Association of Radiographic Markers of Hip Instability and Worse Outcomes 2 to 4 Years After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement in Female Patients

BACKGROUND

Reported outcomes of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) with underlying borderline acetabular dysplasia are mixed. This may in part be the result of mixed-sex reporting.

PURPOSE

To determine the effect of radiographic measures of acetabular dysplasia and hip instability on outcomes of female patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAI.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of female patients undergoing arthroscopic surgery for FAI. All patients had preoperative radiographs including a standing anteroposterior pelvic view on which lateral center-edge angle (LCEA), anterior wall index (AWI), posterior wall index (PWI), and femoroepiphyseal acetabular roof (FEAR) index were measured. Patient outcomes were quantified by preoperative and postoperative 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) scores. All patients had follow-up at 2 to 4 years postoperatively. Published values for minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and a normal (iHOT-12 > 86 points) or abnormal (iHOT-12 < 56 points) hip were used to determine outcome, as well as the final iHOT-12 score and iHOT-12 preoperative to postoperative difference.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 249 female patients (83% follow-up) with iHOT-12 scores at 2 to 4 years after surgery (mean, 34.6 months). Female patients with combined LCEA ≤25° and AWI <0.35 had lower final iHOT-12 score and iHOT-12 difference and were less likely to meet MCID, SCB, and PASS and have a normal hip and were more likely to have an abnormal hip as determined by iHOT-12 cutoffs when compared with those patients who had an LCEA >25° and an AWI ≥0.35 (all P < .05). There was no effect of PWI on outcomes. Similarly, female patients with combined LCEA ≤25° and a laterally oriented (positive) FEAR index were less likely to meet MCID, SCB, and PASS and have a normal hip and were more likely to have an abnormal hip compared with those patients who had an LCEA >25° and a negative (medial) FEAR index (all P < .05). In multivariate regression, an LCEA between 18° and 25° was an independent predictor of worse outcomes.

CONCLUSION

An LCEA of 18° to 25°, in combination with an AWI of <0.35 or a laterally opening FEAR index, was predictive of worse outcomes in female patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAI.

The association the patient-reported outcomes after periacetabular osteotomy with radiographic features: a short-term retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is an effective treatment for patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). PAO has been widely used in China, but few follow-up outcomes have been reported in the international community. Moreover, the risk factors affecting patient-reported outcomes have not been discussed in recent studies. In this study, patient-reported outcomes after PAO were reported, and risk factors affecting patient-reported outcomes were analyzed.

METHODS

Patients who underwent PAO for DDH from January 2014 to January 2020 were selected as the study subjects, and 66 hips were included in the analysis after screening (59 patients, with an average follow-up time of 3.01 years). The Harris Hip Score (HHS) and International Hip Outcome Instrument-12 (iHOT-12) were used to assess hip function and patient quality of life. The changes of preoperative and latest follow-up HHSs less than 9 were defined as symptomatic hips, that is, an adverse outcome; otherwise, the score indicates preserved hips. Also, the changes of preoperative and latest follow-up iHOT-12 were defined as symptomatic hips and preserved hips. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to predict the risk factors influencing the patient-reported outcomes, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed on the risk factors to determine their sensitivity, specificity and cutoff value.

RESULTS

Clinical outcome analysis demonstrates marked improvements in patient-reported outcomes. The multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that when the postoperative LCEA was > 38°, adverse outcomes were much more likely. However, a Tönnis angle of - 10° to 0° was a protective factor. In addition, hips with fair or poor joint congruency were more likely to develop negative outcomes. The ROC curve analysis showed that the optimal thresholds for the LCEA and Tönnis angles used to predict outcomes after PAO were 38.2° and - 9°, respectively. Based on the results of the ROC curve analysis, among hips with poor or fair joint congruency preoperatively treated by surgeons who obtained the improper postoperative LCEAs and Tönnis angles, bad patient-reported outcomes will most likely be obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate marked improvements in patient-reported outcomes. Among hips with preoperative excellent or good joint congruency treated by experienced surgeons who obtain the proper postoperative LCEA and Tönnis angles, good patient-reported outcomes can be expected.

[Recent research progress of hip-preserving treatment for adolescents and adults with developmental dysplasia of the hip]

Objective

To review the imaging evaluation, treatment progress, and controversy related to developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) in adolescents and adults.

Methods

The domestic and abroad hot issues related to adolescents and adults with DDH in recent years, including new imaging techniques for assessing cartilage, controversies over the diagnosis and treatment of borderline DDH (BDDH), and the improvement and prospect of peracetabular osteotomy (PAO) were summarized and analyzed.

Results

DDH is one of the main factors leading to hip osteoarthritis. As the understanding of the pathological changes of DDH continues to deepen, the use of delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage can further evaluate the progress of osteoarthritis and predict the prognosis after hip preservation. There are still controversies about the diagnosis and treatment of BDDH. At the same time, PAO technology and concepts are still being improved.

Conclusion

Cartilage injury and bony structure determine the choice of surgical methods and postoperative prognosis of hip preservation surgery. The hip preservation of adolescent and adult DDH patients will move towards the goal of individualization and accuracy.

Physical Performance Tests Correlate With Patient-reported Outcomes After Periacetabular Osteotomy: A Prospective Study

Introduction:

Individuals with hip dysplasia report significant functional disability that improves with periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). Four physical performance measures (PPMs) have been recently validated for use with nonarthritic hip conditions; however, their ability to detect functional improvement and correlate with improvements in popular hip-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments after PAO is unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the responsiveness of four PPMs up to 1 year after PAO, compare PPMs with established PRO measures at these time points, and report the acceptability and utility of PPMs for assessing outcomes after PAO.

Methods:

Twenty-two participants aged 15 to 39 years completed the timed stair ascent (TSA), sit-to-stand five times (STS5), self-selected walking speed, four-square-step test, and seven hip-specific PRO measures before surgery and at approximately 6 months and 1 year after PAO. They completed questions regarding acceptability and utility of both types of testing. Wilcoxon rank sum test and unpaired Student t-tests were used to assess differences between time points; Spearman correlation and generalized linear modeling were used to determine the relationship between PPMs and PRO measures.

Results:

Six months after PAO, participants showed significant improvements on all seven PRO instruments (P < 0.001) and on the STS5 (P = 0.01). At one year, these improvements were maintained and TSA also improved (P = 0.03). Improvement in other PPMs did not reach significance (P = 0.07 and 0.08). The STS5 test demonstrated moderate to strong correlation (|r| = 0.43 to 0.76, P < 0.05) with all PRO measures, and the TSA test demonstrated moderate to strong correlation with almost all measures (|r| = 0.43 to 0.58, P < 0.05). Correlations strengthened on subanalysis of participants with unilateral disease (n = 11) (|r| = 0.56 to 0.94, P < 0.05). All participants (100%) found PPM testing acceptable despite disability; 25% preferred PPMs to PRO measures, whereas 75% of participants found them equal in usefulness.

Discussion:

The STS5 and TSA tests demonstrated moderate to very strong correlation with PRO measures at six and 12 months after PAO for dysplasia. These tests could be used as a functional outcome to supplement PRO instruments after PAO.

Incidence and clinical outcome of lateral femoral cutaneous nerve injury after periacetabular osteotomy

AIMS

Injury to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN) is one of the known complications after periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) performed using the anterior approach, reported to occur in between 1.5% and 65% of cases. In this study, we performed a prospective study on the incidence of LFCN injury as well as its clinical outcomes based on the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), and Japanese Orthopaedic Association Hip Disease Evaluation Questionnaire (JHEQ).

METHODS

The study included 42 consecutive hips in 42 patients (three male and 39 female) who underwent PAO from May 2016 to July 2018. We prospectively evaluated the incidence of LFCN injury at ten days, three months, six months, and one year postoperatively. We also evaluated the clinical scores, including the HHS, SF-36, and JHEQ scores, at one year postoperatively.

RESULTS

LFCN injury was observed in 31 of 42 (74%) patients at ten days, of which 11 resolved completely by one year. Incidence decreased gradually, to 25 of 42 (60%) patients at three months, 24 of 42 patients (57%) at six months, and 20 of 42 (48%) patients at one year postoperatively. There was no significant difference in the HHS between patients with and without LFCN injury at one year postoperatively. Regarding the SF-36 and JHEQ, a significant difference in the mental score was recognized between patients with and without LFCN injury, but there were no significant differences in the other clinical scores.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of LFCN injury was 74% at ten days after PAO, and subsequently decreased to 48% at one year. LFCN injury did not influence the hip function as assessed by the HHS, but had a negative impact on mental health at one year. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):659-664.

Decision-making in the Borderline Hip

Borderline acetabular dysplasia represents a "transitional acetabular coverage" pattern between more classic acetabular dysplasia and normal acetabular coverage. Borderline dysplasia is typically defined as a lateral center-edge angle of 20 to 25 degrees. This definition of borderline dysplasia identifies a relatively narrow range of lateral acetabular coverage patterns, but anterior and posterior coverage patterns are highly variable and require careful assessment radiographically, in addition to other patient factors. Treatment decisions between isolated hip arthroscopy (addressing labral pathology, femoroacetabular impingement bony morphology, and capsular laxity) and periacetabular osteotomy (improving osseous joint stability; often combined with hip arthroscopy) remain challenging because the fundamental mechanical diagnosis (instability vs. femoroacetabular impingement) can be difficult to determine clinically. Treatment with either isolated hip arthroscopy or periacetabular osteotomy (with or without arthroscopy) appears to result in improvements in patient-reported outcomes in many patients, but with up to 40% with suboptimal outcomes. A patient-specific approach to decision-making that includes a comprehensive patient and imaging evaluation is likely required to achieve optimal outcomes.

Periacetabular Osteotomy as a Salvage Procedure: Early Outcomes in Patients Treated for Iatrogenic Hip Instability

BACKGROUND

A periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) can reduce pain and improve quality of life in patients with hip dysplasia. While its utility for patients without traditional radiographic parameters for hip dysplasia has not been previously established, the PAO may help treat patients with hip instability that does not improve following single or multiple hip arthroscopic procedures, or when such procedures lead to hip instability.

METHODS

A single-surgeon registry of patients at a single institution was queried to identify patients with a lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) of ≥24° and a Tönnis angle of <10° who underwent PAO because of hip pain and/or instability that failed treatment with hip arthroscopy. Descriptive summary statistics were reported on patient demographics, mean change in LCEA, and patient-reported outcome measures, including the modified Harris hip score (mHHS) and the International Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33), at a minimum of 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

Among 25 patients (mean age, 27.3 ± 6.9 years; 100% women), the mean LCEA increased from 27.2° (range, 24° to 37°) preoperatively to 39.0° ± 5.1° postoperatively (net increase, 11.8° ± 4.5°). Overall, the mean improvement in the mHHS was 11.5 ± 16.9 (preoperative, 59.4 ± 11.6; postoperative, 70.9 ± 20.6) and the mean improvement in the iHOT-33 was 23.8 ± 23.6 (preoperative, 32.2 ± 17.2; postoperative, 56.0 ± 30.0). Eighteen patients (72%) achieved a minimal clinically important improvement in mHHS (mean improvement, 17.4 ± 12.9) and iHOT-33 (mean improvement, 32.4 ± 19.1) scores. In comparison with 7 patients who did not show improvement, the 18 patients who showed improvement had significantly greater mean baseline patient-reported outcome scores.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, these findings provide the first report on outcomes of PAO in patients with hip pain following arthroscopy who do not meet the traditional criteria for acetabular dysplasia. Early benefits in clinical outcomes suggest a novel surgical indication for PAO as a potential salvage option for selected patients; however, longer-term studies are needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Patient-related risk factors associated with less favourable outcomes following hip arthroscopy

AIMS

This paper aims to review the evidence for patient-related factors associated with less favourable outcomes following hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

Literature reporting on preoperative patient-related risk factors and outcomes following hip arthroscopy were systematically identified from a computer-assisted literature search of Pubmed (Medline), Embase, and Cochrane Library using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and a scoping review.

RESULTS

Assessment of these texts yielded 101 final articles involving 90,315 hips for qualitative analysis. The most frequently reported risk factor related to a less favourable outcome after hip arthroscopy was older age and preoperative osteoarthritis of the hip. This was followed by female sex and patients who have low preoperative clinical scores, severe hip dysplasia, altered hip morphology (excess acetabular retroversion or excess femoral anteversion or retroversion), or a large cam deformity. Patients receiving workers' compensation or with rheumatoid arthritis were also more likely to have a less favourable outcome after hip arthroscopy. There is evidence that obesity, smoking, drinking alcohol, and a history of mental illness may be associated with marginally less favourable outcomes after hip arthroscopy. Athletes (except for ice hockey players) enjoy a more rapid recovery after hip arthroscopy than non-athletes. Finally, patients who have a favourable response to local anaesthetic are more likely to have a favourable outcome after hip arthroscopy.

CONCLUSION

Certain patient-related risk factors are associated with less favourable outcomes following hip arthroscopy. Understanding these risk factors will allow the appropriate surgical indications for hip arthroscopy to be further refined and help patients to comprehend their individual risk profile. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):822-831.

Editorial Commentary: At the Intersection of Borderline Dysplasia and Femoroacetabular Impingement-Which Way Should We Turn?

Borderline acetabular dysplasia remains a controversial topic in hip preservation, with poor current comparative literature to guide accurate diagnosis and treatment decision making. Borderline dysplasia represents a "transitional acetabular coverage" pattern between more classic acetabular dysplasia and normal coverage. Traditionally, borderline dysplasia has been defined by a lateral center-edge angle between 20° and 25°, whereas more recently, some authors have used 18° to 25°. Treatment decisions between isolated hip arthroscopy (addressing labral tears, femoroacetabular impingement morphology, and capsular laxity) and periacetabular osteotomy (improving joint stability, often combined with arthroscopy) remain challenging because the fundamental mechanical diagnosis (instability vs femoroacetabular impingement) can be difficult to determine clinically. Obtaining an accurate diagnosis to direct surgical treatment relies on comprehensive assessment of additional bony anatomy features (including femoral version) and patient characteristics (including sex, soft-tissue laxity, and range of motion). Future research efforts in borderline dysplasia should better characterize the role of disease- and patient-specific factors that will inform accurate diagnoses, leading to the development of optimal treatment strategies in distinct patient subgroups through comparison of treatment outcomes.

Assessment of Disability Related to Hip Dysplasia Using Objective Measures of Physical Performance

Background:

Lower extremity physical performance measures (PPMs), which can objectively quantify functional ability, are an attractive adjuvant to patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. However, few tests have been validated for use in hip instability.

Purpose:

To evaluate 4 different PPMs for their ability to differentiate between young adults with hip dysplasia indicated for treatment with periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) and asymptomatic controls and to test inter- and intratest reliability and relationship with popular hip PRO instruments.

Study Design:

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

A total of 24 symptomatic patients aged 15 to 39 years (100% female) with hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <25°) indicated for treatment with PAO completed the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome (HOOS) Pain subscale, HOOS Short Version (HOOS PS), International Hip Outcome Tool Short Version (iHOT-12), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) and pain interference (PI), and 4 physical function tests: (1) self-selected walking speed (SSWS), sit-to-stand 5 times (STS5), (3) 4-square step test (FSST), and (4) timed stair ascent (TSA). A further 21 young, asymptomatic adults aged 18 to 39 years (91% female) also underwent testing. Between-group comparisons were made with unpaired t test with Bonferroni-Holm correction. Inter- and intrarater reliability was assessed in 38 participants by repeating PPMs at a second visit and using 2 raters. Spearman rank correlation coefficients were used to determine associations between PPMs and PRO instruments.

Results:

Significant differences between patients with hip dysplasia and controls were observed for all PRO instruments (HOOS Pain, 47.8 vs 99.2; HOOS PS, 61.9 vs 99.2; iHOT-12, 32.2 vs 99.2; mHHS, 54.5 vs 90.6; PROMIS PF, 41.4 vs 65.6; and PROMIS PI, 62.0 vs 39.1 [all P < .001]), and all PPMs (SSWS, 1.21 vs 1.53 m/s; STS5, 10.85 vs 5.95 s; FSST, 6.59 vs 4.03 s [all P < .001]; and TSA, 4.58 vs 3.29 s [P = .002]). All 4 PPMs demonstrated excellent intra- and intertest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.83-0.99). STS5, FSST, and TSA were correlated highly (r > 0.5) with physical function PRO instruments, including PROMIS PF, mHHS, and iHOT-12.

Conclusion:

Patients with symptomatic hip dysplasia demonstrated significant impairment on functional testing compared with asymptomatic controls, and performance measure testing demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability. Timed stair ascent and sit-to-stand testing in particular were correlated strongly with physical function PRO instruments. PPMs may be a viable and well-received adjuvant to PRO instrument administration for patients with nonarthritic hip conditions, and investigation of the ability of PPMs to assess surgical outcomes for hip dysplasia is warranted.

Editorial Commentary: The First Hip Arthroscopy Is the Best Hip Arthroscopy, Capsular Defect or Not

Hip arthroscopy has evolved significantly over the last 5 to 10 years. With this comes the burden of patients with continued pain after their index procedure. Reasons for the need for revision surgery can be many, including incomplete resection of impingement morphology, unrecognized/unaddressed acetabular dysplasia or hip instability, failure to manage the soft tissue appropriately (i.e., labrum or capsule/ligament), or other unrecognized cause of pain, like femoral retroversion or subspine impingement. Like many other orthopaedic procedures, revision hip arthroscopy with or without a defect in the hip capsule has significantly worse outcomes at 2 years compared with primary hip arthroscopy. This emphasizes the importance of proper diagnosis, well-done surgery, and proper rehabilitation the first time to avoid the need for revision hip surgery in the young adult altogether.