Background: Comparable short-term outcomes have been obtained using hamstring allografts versus autografts after primary segmental labral reconstruction (SLR). Midterm results have not yet been determined. Purpose: (1) To evaluate minimum 5-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores in patients who underwent primary SLR with hamstring grafts in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and irreparable labral tears and (2) to compare the outcomes of hamstring autografts versus allografts in a subanalysis using propensity-matched groups. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy between September 2010 and November 2015. Patients were included if they underwent SLR using hamstring autografts or allografts and had preoperative and minimum 5-year PROs. The exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions, dysplasia, or Tönnis grade >1. Patients with autograft SLR were propensity matched 1 to 1 based on age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) to patients who underwent SLR using hamstring allografts. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were calculated. Results: Overall, 48 patients (N = hips 48) were eligible to be included in this study, and 41 patients (n = 41 hips [85.4%]) had a minimum 5-year follow-up reporting significant improvements in all PROs. Within the entire cohort, 9.8% required a secondary arthroscopy, with a mean time of 19 ± 1.8 months, and survivorship was 82.9%. Of the 41 included patients, 15 underwent an SLR with a hamstring autograft and were matched to 15 patients with labral reconstruction using a hamstring allograft. Groups were similar for sex ( P > .999), age ( P = .775), and BMI ( P = .486). The mean follow-up times were 80.8 ± 25.5 and 66.1 ± 8.3 months ( P = .223) for the autograft and allograft groups, respectively. Baseline PROs, preoperative radiographic measurements, surgical findings, and intraoperative procedures were similar. The groups achieved significant and comparable improvements for all PROs ( P < .0001), satisfaction ( P = .187), and the rate of achieving the MCID and the PASS. However, a tendency for higher postoperative PROs favoring allograft reconstruction was found. Conclusion: At a minimum 5-year follow-up, patients who underwent primary arthroscopic SLR in the context of FAIS and irreparable labra, with either autograft or allograft hamstring tendons, reported significant improvements and comparable postoperative scores for all PROs, patient satisfaction, MCID, and PASS.

Background: Athletes who compete in flexibility sports (FS) place unique demands on their hip joints because of the supraphysiologic range of motion required. Purpose: To compare the pathologic features, outcomes, and return-to-sports (RTS) rates of high-level athletes participating in FS who underwent hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and labral tear against a propensity score–matched cohort of high-level athletes participating in non–flexibility sports (NFS). Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for high-level athletes who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS from April 2008 to December 2018. Patients who participated in FS such as dancing, gymnastics, martial arts, figure skating, and cheerleading were propensity score matched by body mass index, age at time of surgery, sex, sports competition level, and labral treatment to a cohort of high-level athletes participating in all other sports, such as distance running, soccer, volleyball, and softball. Baseline patient characteristics, intraoperative findings, and surgical procedures were compared. Minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome measures were compared for the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score–Sport Specific Subscale, and visual analog scale for pain and satisfaction. Rates of secondary surgery and RTS were compared. Results: A total of 47 patients (50 hips) who participated in FS were included and propensity score matched to 130 patients (150 hips) who participated in NFS. Follow-up time was 37.5 ± 10.4 months (mean ± SD). Most patients (96.0%) were female with a mean age of 19.5 ± 7.3 years. FS athletes had significantly higher rates of femoral head cartilage lesions (Outerbridge ≥2; 12.0% vs 2.0%; P = .008) and ligamentum teres tears (48% vs 26%; P = .003). FS and NFS athletes demonstrated significant clinical improvements after surgery for all patient-reported outcome measures. Of the patients who attempted, 34 (75.6%) participating in FS were able to RTS while 11 (24.4%) were not because of ongoing hip issues. This was not significantly different than the NFS group ( P = .073). Conclusion: High-level athletes who participated in FS and were treated for FAIS with hip arthroscopy exhibited higher rates of femoral head cartilage lesions and ligamentum teres tears requiring debridement when compared with a benchmark group of athletes who participated in other sports. Despite this, both groups demonstrated similar improvements in outcome scores and comparable rates of RTS at minimum 2-year follow-up.

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.

Background: The effect of high body mass index (BMI) on outcomes in athletes has not been established. Purpose: (1) To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores and return to sports (RTS) for high-level athletes with high BMI undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and (2) to compare results with a propensity-matched control group of high-level athletes with a normal BMI. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were collected on all professional, collegiate, and high school athletes who had a high BMI (>30) and who had undergone primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS between January 2010 and December 2018. RTS status and minimum 2-year PROs were collected for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. The percentage of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were also recorded. These patients were propensity matched in a 1:3 ratio to high-level athletes with a normal BMI for comparison. Results: A total of 30 high-level athletes with a high BMI were included with a mean follow-up of 49.4 ± 29.5 months. They demonstrated significant improvement from preoperatively to latest follow-up for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS ( P < .001). When outcomes were compared with a propensity-matched control group of 90 athletes with a normal BMI, athletes with a high BMI had worse acetabular cartilage injury and were more likely to undergo acetabular microfracture ( P < .001). Athletes with a high BMI demonstrated lower postoperative scores for NAHS when compared with athletes with a normal BMI (88.06 ± 9.37 [range, 60-100] and 90.25 ± 10.79 [range, 48.75-100], respectively; P = .049). Athletes with a high BMI also demonstrated worse postoperative scores for HOS-SSS when compared with athletes with a normal BMI (77.22 ± 18.31 [range, 22.22-100] and 82.38 ± 22.79 [range, 2.78-100], respectively; P = .038). Rates of achieving MCID for the high-BMI and normal-BMI groups were comparable in mHHS (90.0% and 77.8%, respectively; P = .185) and HOS-SSS (90.0% and 82.2%, respectively; P = .397). PASS rates were also comparable between the high- and normal-BMI groups for mHHS (90.0% and 87.8%, respectively; P > .999) and HOS-SSS (70.0% and 71.1%, respectively; P = .908). Athletes with a high BMI also returned to sports at a lower rate compared with athletes with a normal BMI, but this did not reach statistical significance ( P = .479). Conclusion: Athletes with a high BMI undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS demonstrated significant improvement in PROs and favorable rates achieving clinically meaningful improvement. When compared with a control group of high-level athletes with a normal BMI, they exhibited similar rates of achieving psychometric thresholds and RTS rates. At short-term follow-up, high BMI did not adversely affect outcomes of high-level athletes undergoing primary hip arthroscopy.