Background: The treatment for borderline developmental dysplasia of the hip (BDDH) has historically been arthroscopic surgery or periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). As orthopaedic surgery is constantly evolving, a lack of comparison of outcomes for these 2 treatment methods could potentially be stalling the progression of treatment for patients with BDDH. Purpose: To evaluate the existing literature on patient characteristics, procedures, clinical outcomes, and failure rates for patients with BDDH and to determine whether PAO or hip arthroscopic surgery is a better treatment method for patients with BDDH. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Studies included were found using the following search words: “hip” and “borderline dysplasia,” “osteotomy” or “arthroscopy,” and “outcome” or “procedure.” Articles were included if they detailed participants of all sexes and ages, reported on isolated hips, and had patients diagnosed with BDDH. Results: A search was conducted across 3 databases, resulting in 469 articles for consideration, from which 12 total studies (10 on arthroscopic surgery and 2 on PAO) were chosen for a review. There were 6 studies that included patients with a lateral center-edge angle of 18° to 25°, while the remainder included patients with a lateral center-edge angle of 20° to 25°. All the studies reviewing arthroscopic surgery reported concomitant/accessory procedures, while the articles on the topic of PAO did not. It was determined that, whether treated using arthroscopic surgery or PAO, outcomes improved across all patient-reported outcome measures. Revision surgery was also common in both procedures. Conclusion: There is a lack of consensus in the literature on the best treatment option for patients with BDDH. Preoperative patient characteristics and concomitant injuries should be considered when evaluating which surgical procedure will result in the most favorable outcomes.

Background: The role of hip arthroscopy in the treatment of patients with borderline hip dysplasia is controversial and evolving. Purpose: To evaluate outcomes at a minimum 10-year follow-up in patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement in a hip with borderline dysplasia. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: All hips that underwent labral repair between June 2006 and March 2009 for femoroacetabular impingement with borderline dysplasia were included if they had a lateral center-edge angle of 20° to 25°, had primary hip arthroscopy for the diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement, and were aged 18 to 70 years. Patients were excluded if they had previous hip surgery, avascular necrosis, or fracture. Kaplan-Meier survivorship was performed, with survivorship defined as avoidance of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). Results: A total of 45 patients met the inclusion criteria, and 38 were contacted at a minimum 10 years postoperatively (84%; mean ± SD, 12 ± 1.3 years). There were 23 women and 15 men with an average age of 41 ± 9.6 years (range, 25-69). Twenty patients were ≥40 years of age. In this patient cohort, survivorship was 87% at 5 years and 79% at 10 years for conversion to THA. Of the 38 patients included, 9 were converted to THA (24%), and 3 required revision hip arthroscopy (7%). Patient age, Tönnis grade, microfracture of cartilage lesions, and Tönnis angle >15° were associated with conversion to THA. No statistically significant differences were found between those who underwent conversion to THA and those who did not regarding lateral center-edge angle, Sharp angle, or alpha angle. Significant improvements were seen at follow-up of 12 years (range, 10-13) for the modified Harris Hip Score (58 to 83; P = .002), Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (70 to 87; P = .003), Hip Outcome Score–Sport (47 to 76; P = .004), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (31 to 10; P = .001). At follow-up, >80% maintained the minimal clinically important difference for the Hip Outcome Score (Activities of Daily Living and Sport) with no differences between patients aged <40 and ≥40 years. Conclusion: Risk factors for conversion to THA after hip arthroscopy in the borderline dysplastic hip included older age, higher Tönnis grades, grade 4 chondral lesions that were microfractures, and Tönnis angle >15°. In those patients who did not convert to THA, improvement in outcome measures was seen at 10 years. Careful patient selection is critical to the success of this procedure.

Background: Labral augmentation and labral reconstruction have emerged as essential procedures for restoring the anatomic and functional characteristics of the hip joint in patients with a deficient hip labrum or irreparable labral tear. Hypothesis/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare allograft and autograft hip labral reconstruction and augmentation. We hypothesized that autografts would entail fewer revision arthroscopic procedures. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients were identified who underwent labral reconstruction or labral augmentation using iliotibial band (ITB) allograft or ITB autograft performed by a single surgeon between 2011 and 2017. Patient-reported outcome measures collected before surgery and at minimum 2-year follow-up included the following: Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living and Hip Outcome Score Sports-Specific Subscale and, at follow-up, patient satisfaction (range, 1-10, with 10 being very satisfied). Patients followed a standardized rehabilitation protocol after surgery with relative individualization to address each patient's needs. For continuous variables, comparisons between allografts and autografts were made using Student t tests or Mann-Whitney tests. Categorical comparisons were assessed using chi-square or Fisher exact test. Multiple logistic regression was performed to determine the influence of graft choice on risk of revision or THA. Results: A total of 205 hips met 2-year inclusion criteria. ITB allografts were used for 55 patients (37 augmentations, 18 reconstructions) and ITB autografts for 150 patients (34 augmentations, 116 reconstructions). Females represented a greater proportion of allograft versus autograft patients (71% vs 46%, respectively; P = .001). Overall, autograft patients had larger alpha angles (66.6° vs 59.1°; P = .001) and longer grafts (46 vs 41 mm; P = .03) compared with allograft patients. A total of 13 (23.6%) patients required revision surgery in the allograft group compared with 11 (7.3%) in the autograft group ( P < .001). After controlling for sex, procedure (reconstruction vs augmentation), and previous surgery, the odds of revision were higher for allograft patients (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.5-11.6). No significant differences in conversion to THA were observed between groups (allograft = 9%; autograft = 6%; P = .50), even after adjustment for the above covariates (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.6-7.9). No differences in postoperative patient-reported outcome measures or patient satisfaction were observed between groups. Conclusion: Labral augmentation or reconstruction with autograft has a significantly lower revision rate than labral augmentation or reconstruction with allograft.