If you don't remember your password, you can reset it by entering your email address and clicking the Reset Password button. You will then receive an email that contains a secure link for resetting your password
If the address matches a valid account an email will be sent to __email__ with instructions for resetting your password
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
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.
The increase in the number of primary hip arthroscopies has led to an increase in the number of revision hip arthroscopies performed.
There is an inherent complexity with revision hip arthroscopy cases that may require advanced arthroscopic hip labral restoration techniques including labral reconstruction and sometimes salvage procedures for bone over-resection.
Significant improvement in patient-reported outcome (PROs) scores have been reported in this setting; nevertheless, revision results are inferior, with a greater rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) when compared with the primary context.
This rate increases with each decade of life as the THA conversion rate was 18.1%, 23.1%, and 25.2% in patients older than 40, 50, and 60 years old, respectively, at short-term follow-up.
Outcomes and the conversion to THA after revision hip arthroscopy in patients aged ≥40 years have become a major concern. The current data on this situation are scarce, without clear and objective answers to this conundrum.
The purposes of the present study were to report 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. It was hypothesized that (1) patients aged 40 years or older would report significant improvement for all the PROs collected, (2) when compared with the propensity-matched primary control group, inferior improvement and lower achievement rate for the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) would be reported for the revision study group, and (3) the rate of conversion to THA would be greater for the revision propensity-matched study group.
Methods
Patient Selection
This study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. This study was carried out in accordance with relevant regulations of the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study have been omitted. This study was approved by our institutional review board (ID: 5276).
Prospectively collected data on all patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between June 2008 and January 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if they were at least 40 years of age at the time of surgery and had minimum 2-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS),
Multicenter Arthroscopy of the Hip Outcomes Research Network. A short version of the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) for use in routine clinical practice.
also was included as preoperative values were not available for all patients. Patients who had a previous hip condition (such as fractures, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, avascular necrosis, or Legg–Calve–Perthes disease), or those who lacked minimum 2-year follow-up, were excluded. The patient selection process is outlined in Figure 1.
Participation in the (American Hip Institute) Hip Preservation Registry
While the contemporary study represents a unique analysis of unpublished data, some subjects have been included in previously published investigations.
Radiographic Evaluation
The anterosuperior pelvic view, the 45° Dunn view,
were used to obtain radiographic measurements. The anterosuperior pelvic view was used to obtain the lateral center-edge angle as described by Wiberg and modified by Ogata et al.,
Correlations between the alpha angle and femoral head asphericity: Implications and recommendations for the diagnosis of cam femoroacetabular impingement.
Labral tears as well as other intra- and extra-articular pathologies were assessed using magnetic resonance arthrography in all patients.
Revision Hip Arthroscopy Indication
Revision arthroscopic surgery was indicated by a board-certified hip orthopaedic surgeon specializing in hip preservation (B.G.D.) for patients whose radiographic imaging, history, and physical examination demonstrated evidence of symptomatic residual femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and labral tears. Before pursuing surgery, patients had to attempt at least 3 months of nonsurgical treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication, intra-articular ultrasound-guided injections, and activity modification. In addition, surgery indication was reserved for patients without evidence of advanced osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade >1) on preoperative diagnostic imaging.
Hip arthroscopy versus best conservative care for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (UK FASHIoN): A multicentre randomised controlled trial.
All arthroscopic hip surgeries began with the induction of general anesthesia with the patient in the modified supine position on a traction table with a well-padded perineal post.
A diagnostic arthroscopy was performed after gaining access to the central compartment. The type and degree of labral tearing was defined using the Seldes classification system
Acetabular cartilage damage at the chondrolabral junction was classified using the acetabular labrum articular disruption (ALAD) grading system while all other cartilage damage on the acetabulum or femoral head was graded using the Outerbridge classification.
Residual femoroacetabular impingement morphology was addressed under fluoroscopic guidance. When indicated, acetabuloplasty was performed using a motorized burr to correct acetabular overcoverage or pincer morphology.
Similarly, femoroplasty was performed to correct cam-type morphology by achieving an alpha angle less than 55° while maintaining the spherical contour of the head–neck junction.
When possible, labral repair was performed. However, selective labral debridement was performed in the presence of a stable tear with the goal of preserving as much tissue as possible. When the labrum was deemed irreparable, labral reconstruction was performed using autograft or allograft.
Additionally, if a patient was found to have a full-thickness cartilage defect, the area was first debrided to achieve stable borders before undertaking microfracture.
Postoperative rehabilitation varied slightly according to intraoperative procedures. However, all patients were required to use an X-Act ROM brace (DJO Global, Vista, CA) while limiting flat-foot weight-bearing to 20 pounds and use crutches for 2 to 6 weeks. In cases of microfracture or labral reconstruction, a longer duration was prescribed. Physical therapy began day 1 postoperatively, regardless of intraoperative procedures.
PRO Scores
The present study reports on the following PROs: mHHS, NAHS, and HOS-SSS. Pain was assessed using the VAS ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 was no pain and 10 was the worst pain imaginable.
All PROs and VAS were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 months, 1 year, and annually thereafter. These scores were collected via encrypted email, clinic visit, or telephone interviews. Postoperative questionnaires also included iHOT-12.
Multicenter Arthroscopy of the Hip Outcomes Research Network. A short version of the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) for use in routine clinical practice.
Patients included in this study had minimum 2-year follow-up; however, the scores from their most recent follow-up time point were reported. Postoperative patient satisfaction also was included and was rated on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being completely dissatisfied and 10 being completely satisfied. Throughout the follow-up period, any complications, revision procedures, or conversion to THA were reported and recorded. The MCID was calculated for the mHHS, NAHS, and HOS-SSS using the method described and validated by Norman et al.
The minimal clinical important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the Modified Harris Hip Score and Hip Outcome Score among patients undergoing surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement.
Determining clinically meaningful thresholds for the nonarthritic hip score in patients undergoing arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.
The minimal clinical important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the Modified Harris Hip Score and Hip Outcome Score among patients undergoing surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement.
To ensure that adequate power was achieved, an a priori power analysis was performed. Under the assumption that a mean difference of 10 points in mHHS was statistically significant, this analysis indicated that the study required at least 36 patients in each group to achieve 80% power. Propensity-score matching was performed using R (Version 3.4.0; R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) to decrease the influence of potentially confounding variables and therefore, further increase the study’s external validity.
All other statistical analyses were performed using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) and the Real Statistics Add-in. When we examined continuous data, normality was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test and variance was compared using the F-test. Additionally, the mean and standard deviation were reported for all continuous data. Comparisons between pre- and postoperative PROs were made using a 2-tailed paired t test. Independent cohorts were compared using a student’s t test or its nonparametric equivalent, the Mann–Whitney U test. Further, the Welch test was employed in cases of nonparametric data with unequal variances. Categorical data were analyzed using a χ2 or Fisher exact test. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.
Propensity-Score Matching Process for the Subanalysis
Using a nearest-neighbor (Euclidean distance) match algorithm, patients were propensity-matched on the logit of the propensity score. The study group patients (revisions) were propensity-matched 1:1 to control group patients (primaries) using greedy matching without replacement with a caliper of 0.3; hence, once a study patient had been propensity-matched to a control patient, they were no longer available to be propensity-matched to additional control patients. This method has been established as the ideal method for estimating differences between groups in the literature.
Propensity-matching was performed on a basis of age at surgery, sex, body mass index, and ALAD.
Results
Patient Demographics and Radiographic Findings
Ninety-six hips satisfied the inclusion criteria for the study, of which 89 (92.7%) had minimum two-year follow-up. Demographic data are outlined in Table 1. The mean age at the time of surgery and body mass index were 49.4 ± 8.0 years and 26.6 ± 4.1, respectively. The mean follow-up time was 62.7 ± 38.5 (24.0-142.5) months. Table 2 describes the radiographic characteristics of the study cohort.
Table 1Patient Demographic Data of the Revision Cohort
Tables 3 and 4 outline the intraoperative findings and procedures, respectively. The most common type (42.7%) of labral tearing observed in this cohort was Seldes 2. In total, 47.2% of patients were found to have ALAD and acetabular Outerbridge ≥2. Further, 24.7% of patients were found to have some degree of cartilage damage to the femoral head. The group that did not convert to THA had the following ALAD grades (grade 0: 15 hips, grade 1: 21 hips, grade 2: 16 hips, grade 3: 10 hips, grade 4: 3 hips). The group that converted to THA had similar ALAD grades (grade 0: 6 hips, grade 1: 5 hips, grade 2: 5 hips, grade 3: 6 hips, grade 4: 2 hips, P = .653). Labral treatment (repair, selective debridement, or reconstruction) was performed in 82% of patients.
Table 3Intraoperative Findings Data of the Revision Cohort
Patients demonstrated statistically significant improvement in mHHS, HOS-SSS, NAHS, and VAS at a mean follow-up of 62.7 ± 38.5 months. The mean improvement was 21.6 points (P <.001) for mHHS, 24.6 (P <.001) for HOS-SSS, 22.3 (P <.001) for NAHS, and –3.0 (P <.001) for VAS. Mean patient satisfaction was 7.4 out of 10. Table 5 depicts preoperative and postoperative PROs.
Table 5Patient-Reported Outcomes Data of the Revision Cohort
Patient-Reported Outcomes
mHHS
Preoperative
51.7 ± 14.3 [50.7-52.7]
Latest
74.0 ± 19.7 [72.6-75.4]
Pre- to postoperative P value
< .001
Improvement
21.6 ± 20.4 [20.1-23.0]
HOS-SSS
Preoperative
29.2 ± 22.4 [27.6-30.8]
Latest
55.8 ± 29.0 [53.7-57.9]
Pre- to postoperative P value
<.001
Improvement
24.6 ± 31.2 [22.4-26.8]
VAS
Preoperative
6.4 ± 1.9 [6.3-6.6]
Latest
3.3 ± 2.5 [3.1-3.5]
Pre- to postoperative P value
<.001
Improvement
–3.0 ± 2.6 [–3.2 to –2.8]
NAHS
Preoperative
50.5 ± 16.6 [49.3-51.7]
Latest
73.7 ± 17.9 [72.4-75.0]
Pre- to postoperative P value
<.001
Improvement
22.3 ± 20.8 [20.8-23.8]
iHOT-12
59.2 ± 26.9 [57.3-61.2]
Satisfaction
7.4 ± 2.7 [7.2-7.6]
NOTE. Values presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) [95% confidence interval] unless otherwise noted.
HOS-SSS, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Scale; iHOT-12, International Hip Outcome Tool; mHHS, Modified Harris Hip Score; NAHS, Non-Arthritic Hip Score; VAS, visual analog scale.
Fifty-six (71.8%) and 45 (65.2%) met or exceeded the MCID for the mHHS (≥7.1) and HOS-SSS (≥11.2), respectively. Additionally, 75 (96.2%) and 58 (74.4%) met or exceeded the MCID for the VAS (≥0.9) and NAHS (≥8.3), respectively. Forty-three (55.1%) and 22 (31.9%) achieved PASS for the mHHS and HOS-SSS, respectively. In addition, 25 (32.1%) patients achieved PASS for the NAHS.
End Points
Ten (11.2%) hips required re-revision arthroscopy at a mean 42.1 ± 35.0 months. Twenty-four (27.0%) hips underwent conversion to THA at a mean 28.7 ± 29.3 months.
Propensity-Matched Subanalysis
Eighty-seven study group hips were successfully propensity-matched to 87 control group hips. Demographic data for the propensity-matched groups is located in Table 6.
Table 6Demographic Data for the Propensity-Matched Groups
Demographics
Study Group
Control Group
P Value
Hips included in study
.646
Left
39 (44.8%)
36 (41.4%)
Right
48 (55.2%)
51 (58.6%)
Sex
.872
Female
58 (66.7%)
59 (67.8%)
Male
29 (33.3%)
28 (32.2%)
Age at surgery, y, mean ± SD [CI]
49.5 ± 8.0 [47.8-51.2]
50.3 ± 7.0 [48.8-51.8]
.221
Body mass index, mean ± SD [CI]
26.6 ± 4.1 [25.7-27.5]
26.4 ± 5.1 [25.3-27.5]
.810
Follow-up time, mo, mean ± SD [CI]
63.5 ± 38.6 [55.4-71.6]
66.1 ± 36.8 [58.4-73.8]
.627
NOTE. Values presented as mean ± standard deviation [95% CI] unless otherwise noted.
The groups were fairly similar upon examination of radiographs; however, the primary control group was found to have a significantly greater alpha angle 60.3 ± 10.7° (compared with 52.1 ± 11.7°, P < .001). Radiographic findings are further outlined in Table 7.
Table 7Radiologic Findings for the Propensity-Matched Groups
Radiological Findings
Study Group
Control Group
P Value
Tönnis grade
.853
0
68 (78.2%)
69 (79.3%)
1
19 (21.8%)
18 (20.7%)
LCEA, °
30.0 ± 6.0 [28.7-31.3]
31.2 ± 6.5 [29.8-32.6]
.221
Acetabular inclination, °
4.9 ± 4.0 [4.1-5.7]
5.4 ± 5.3 [4.3-6.5]
.548
ACEA, °
29.9 ± 7.2 [28.4-31.4]
31.0 ± 8.2 [29.3-32.7]
0.446
Alpha angle, °
52.1 ± 11.7 [49.6-54.6]
60.3 ± 10.7 [58.0-62.5]
<.001
NOTE. Values in bold indicate statistical significance (P < .05). Values presented as mean ± standard deviation [95% confidence interval] unless otherwise noted.
The intraoperative findings and procedures differed between the groups. The study and control groups had significantly different labral tears classified using the Seldes system (P < .001). The labral treatment differed between the groups with more study patients undergoing selective debridement and more control patients undergoing labral repair (P < .001). The study group had a significantly lower rate of capsular repair than the control group (24.1% vs 49.4%, P = .001). The study group also underwent significantly lower rates of femoroplasty and acetabuloplasty than the control group (57.5% vs 88.5%, P < .001) and (41.4% vs 65.5%, P = .001). Data on intraoperative findings and procedures for both groups can be found in Tables 8 and 9, respectively.
Table 8Intraoperative Findings for the Propensity-Matched Groups
Intraoperative Findings
Study Group, n (%)
Control Group, n (%)
P Value
Seldes
<.001
0
18 (20.7%)
2 (2.3%)
1
10 (11.5%)
21 (24.1%)
2
37 (42.5%)
28 (32.2%)
1 and 2
22 (25.3%)
36 (41.4%)
ALAD
.683
0
21 (24.1%)
20 (23.0%)
1
25 (28.7%)
26 (29.9%)
2
21 (24.1%)
26 (29.9%)
3
15 (17.2%)
8 (9.2%)
4
5 (5.7%)
7 (8.0%)
Outerbridge (acetabulum)
.822.
0
21 (24.1%)
20 (23.0%)
1
25 (28.7%)
26 (29.9%)
2
21 (24.1%)
26 (29.9%)
3
9 (10.3%)
8 (9.2%)
4
11 (12.6%)
7 (8.0%)
Outerbridge (femoral head)
.875
0
66 (75.9%)
67 (77.0%)
1
0 (0.0%)
1 (1.1%)
2
10 (11.5%)
10 (11.5%)
3
7 (8.0%)
4 (4.6%)
4
4 (4.6%)
5 (5.7%)
LT villar
.082
0
44 (50.6%)
33 (37.9%)
1
9 (10.3%)
4 (4.6%)
2
19 (21.8%)
25 (28.7%)
3
15 (17.2%)
25 (28.7%)
NOTE. Values in bold indicate statistical significance (P < .05). Values presented as n (%).
Both groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement in mHHS, HOS-SSS, NAHS, and VAS at latest follow-up. The study group demonstrated lower mHHS, NAHS, and VAS preoperatively and lower mHHS, NAHS, VAS, HOS-SSS, and iHOT-12 postoperatively compared to the control group (P < .05). Patient satisfaction was greater in the control group (8.2 ± 2.6 vs 7.5 ± 2.5, P = .017). However, the improvement (delta value) was similar for all PROs (Table 10). The study group and the control group had comparable rates of achieving MCID for the mHHS (study = 7.1 and control = 6.9) (55 [72.4%] vs 60 [72.3%], P = .991), HOS-SSS (study = 11.2 and control = 12.4) (45 [66.2%] vs 47 [71.2%], P = .530), VAS (study = 0.9 and control = 1.0) (63 [82.9%] vs 59 [71.1%], P = .078), and NAHS (study = 8.3 and control = 8.8) (56 [79.4%] vs 58 [76.9%], P = .679). The study group achieved PASS at a lower rate than the control group, (42 [55.3%] vs 59 [71.1%], P = .038). The study group also achieved lower rates of PASS for the HOS-SSS (20 [29.4%] vs 38 [57.6%], P = .001). PASS rates were lower in the study group for the NAHS (24 [31.6%] vs 49 [59.8%], P <.001).
Table 10Patient-Reported Outcomes for the Propensity-Matched Groups
Patient-Reported Outcomes
Revision, mean [95% CI]
Control, mean [95% CI]
P value
mHHS
Preoperative
52.2 ± 14.6 [48.9-55.5]
61.9 ± 13.8 [58.9-64.9]
<.001
Latest
74.0 ± 19.6 [69.6-78.4]
82.7 ± 18.6 [78.7-86.7]
.006
Pre- to postoperative P value
<.001
<.001
Improvement
21.8 ± 20.5 [17.2-26.4]
20.7 ± 21.0 [16.2-25.2]
.748
HOS-SSS
Preoperative
29.6 ± 21.9 [24.4-34.8]
37.0 ± 24.7 [31.0-43.0]
.060
Latest
54.4 ± 28.7 [47.6-61.2]
69.6 ± 34.3 [61.3-77.9]
.002
Pre- to postoperative P value
<.001
<.001
Improvement
24.8 ± 31.4 [17.3-32.3]
32.6 ± 35.6 [24.0-41.2]
.180
VAS
Preoperative
6.3 ± 1.9 [5.9-6.7]
5.0 ± 2.1 [4.6-5.5]
<.001
Latest
3.3 ± 2.4 [2.8-3.8]
2.4 ± 2.8 [1.8-3.0]
.005
Pre- to postoperative P value
<.001
<.001
Improvement
–3.0 ± 2.5 [–3.6 to –2.4]
–2.6 ± 3.1 [–3.3 to –1.9]
.327
NAHS
Preoperative
51.3 ± 16.3 [47.6-55.0]
59.9 ± 17.6 [56.1-63.7]
.001
Latest
73.7 ± 17.9 [69.7-77.7]
81.8 ± 18.7 [77.8-85.8]
.002
Pre- to postoperative P value
<.001
<.001
Improvement
22.4 ± 21.1 [17.7-27.1]
21.9 ± 22.5 [17.1-26.7]
.884
iHOT-12
59.4 ± 26.6 [53.3-65.5]
73.7 ± 27.2 [67.7-79.7]
<.001
Satisfaction
7.5 ± 2.5 [6.9-8.1]
8.2 ± 2.6 [7.6-8.8]
.017
NOTE. Values in bold indicate statistical significance (P < .05). Values presented as mean ± standard deviation [95% confidence interval] unless otherwise noted.
HOS-SSS, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Scale; iHOT-12, International Hip Outcome Tool; mHHS, Modified Harris Hip Score; NAHS, Non-Arthritic Hip Score; VAS, visual analog scale.
The relative risk of conversion to THA was 2.63 times greater (95% confidence interval 1.20-5.79) for the revision group. Twenty-four (27.6%) hips in the study group and 11 (12.6%) hips in the control group underwent conversion to THA (P = .013). The average time for the conversion to THA for the study and control groups was (28.7 ± 29.3 [17.0-40.4] months and 26.4 ± 21.1 [13.9-38.9] months, respectively, P = .560). Figure 2 details a survivorship curve for the study and control groups.
Fig 2Total hip arthroplasty conversion survivorship curve for revision and control groups.
The main findings of the present investigation were that patients aged 40 years and older who underwent revision hip arthroscopy reported significant PROs improvement and high rate of achievement for the MCID for all PROs at a mean follow-up of 62.7 ± 38.5 months. The percentage of patients that survived was found to be 73%. The secondary subanalysis demonstrated that, although lower postoperative PROs were obtained for the propensity-matched revision study group; the improvement for each metric was comparable to the primary control group. In addition, the revision group had a 2.63 times greater risk of THA conversion than the primary group.
Older age has previously been reported as a factor that negatively influenced the outcomes after hip arthroscopy.
In a retrospective cohort study following 390 patients, 260 younger than 40 years of age were propensity-matched and compared with 130 patients older than 40 years of age, Yacovelli et al.
demonstrated a mean improvement and postoperative mHHS score of 11 and 65, respectively, with an overall THA conversion rate of 16% within 2 years of surgery for the late group. Based on these results, these authors recommended avoiding this procedure in this patient population. Martin et al.
Hip arthroscopy versus physical therapy for the treatment of symptomatic acetabular labral tears in patients older than 40 years: A randomized controlled trial.
reported in a randomized controlled trial that patients older than 40 years with limited osteoarthritis, hip arthroscopy with labral repair, and postoperative physical therapy led to better outcomes than physical therapy alone. O’Connor et al.
systematically reviewed 4,316 patients (4765 hips) undergoing revision hip arthroscopy, the rates of additional surgery were reported to be between 5% and 14%, the mean rates of conversion to THA and re-revision arthroscopic surgery were 8.3%, and 7.5%, respectively, but as high as 14% for both. The patient mean age for the 15 studies included was 32.23 years. Age may be one of the reasons of why the THA conversion rate was almost the double (27%) in the present study. In terms of PROs improvement, revision hip arthroscopy seems to be a suitable option for patients aged ≥40 years; nevertheless this patient population must be counseled of the greater risk for THA conversion. The data reported in the present study can be used in the clinical practice to provide guidance during the surgical decision-making process.
Noteworthy strengths of the present study have to be acknowledged. This is one of the few studies reporting data on PROs and psychometric tools following revision hip arthroscopy in this specific patient population, using multiple validated functional PROs designed for hip preservation surgery, and the MCID and the PASS, respectively. In addition, the propensity-matched sub-analysis minimizes the effect of confounding variables
Limitations
The present study is not without limitations. It is important to highlight that the reproducibility of the results may be affected, as data were obtained from a single institution and a single hip arthroscopy surgeon.
Surgeon expertise, experience, and learning curve play a critical role in the approach for the failed hip arthroscopy, and the decision-making process for treatment in revision hip arthroscopy.
Hip arthroscopy versus physical therapy for the treatment of symptomatic acetabular labral tears in patients older than 40 years: A randomized controlled trial.
; notwithstanding, it remains an arbitrary decision. The potential confounding effect of several variables that were not included in the matching process including diagnosis may have influenced the results presented. The retrospective nature of the analysis introduced bias. Additionally, the entire study cohort was unable to be matched. Patients in the revision group that required re-revision arthroscopic surgery or conversion to THA, and patients in the primary group that required secondary surgeries were considered an endpoint; hence, not included within the PROs analysis. A PROs comparison according to sex was not performed. Surgical technique and indications have evolved over time; therefore, patients that may have originally received an interportal capsulotomy with labral debridement may now have a underwent capsular repair with labral repair, reconstruction, or augmentation. As expected, there were significant differences in the intraoperative findings and surgical procedures in the sub-analysis between the study and control group. Lastly, the sample size was modest.
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 MCID. When compared with the propensity-matched control group, both achieved similar rates of improvement, but the revision group was 2.63 times more likely to convert to THA.
Multicenter Arthroscopy of the Hip Outcomes Research Network. A short version of the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) for use in routine clinical practice.
Correlations between the alpha angle and femoral head asphericity: Implications and recommendations for the diagnosis of cam femoroacetabular impingement.
Hip arthroscopy versus best conservative care for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (UK FASHIoN): A multicentre randomised controlled trial.
The minimal clinical important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the Modified Harris Hip Score and Hip Outcome Score among patients undergoing surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement.
Determining clinically meaningful thresholds for the nonarthritic hip score in patients undergoing arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.
Hip arthroscopy versus physical therapy for the treatment of symptomatic acetabular labral tears in patients older than 40 years: A randomized controlled trial.
The authors report the following potential conflicts of interest or sources of funding: D.R.M. reports nonfinancial support from Arthrex, United States, Stryker, United States, Smith & Nephew, United Kingdom, and Ossur, outside the submitted work. He is also an editorial board member of Arthroscopy. B.G.D. reports grants and other from the American Orthopedic Foundation, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Amplitude; grants and nonfinancial support from Arthrex and DJO Global; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Medacta; grants, personal fees, nonfinancial support, and other from Stryker; grants from Berg; personal fees from Orthomerica; grants and nonfinancial support from Medwest Associates, United States; grants from ATI Physical Therapy; personal fees and nonfinancial support from St. Alexius Medical Center; grants from Ossur; nonfinancial support from Zimmer Biomet, United States, DePuy Synthes, and Medtronic, Prime Surgical, and Trice Medical, outside the submitted work. In addition, B.G.D. has patents issued and receives royalties for the following: method and instrumentation for acetabular labrum reconstruction (8920497), licensed by Arthrex; adjustable multi-component hip orthosis (8708941), licensed by Orthomerica and DJO Global; and knotless suture anchors and methods of suture repair (9737292), licensed by Arthrex. Finally, B.G.D. is a board member of the American Hip Institute Research Foundation, AANA Learning Center Committee, Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery, and Arthroscopy and has had ownership interests in the American Hip Institute, Hinsdale Orthopedic Associates, Hinsdale Orthopedic Imaging, SCD#3, North Shore Surgical Suites, and the Munster Specialty Surgery Center. ICMJE author disclosure forms are available for this article online, as supplementary material.
This study was performed at the American Hip Institute Research Foundation.
00365-6&id=gr1.jpg){kind=link}
00365-6&id=gr2.jpg){kind=link}