Background: Improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been reported in the short term after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and labral tear in the setting of acetabular overcoverage. Yet, there is a paucity of information in the literature on midterm PROs. Purpose: To (1) report minimum 5-year PROs in patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS and acetabular labral tears in the context of acetabular overcoverage and (2) compare outcomes with those of a propensity-matched control group without acetabular overcoverage. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed on all patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS and labral tears between February 2008 and November 2013. Inclusion criteria were lateral center-edge angle >40° and minimum 5-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and the Hip Outcome Score–Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS). Exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions, active workers’ compensation claims, or lack of minimum 5-year outcomes. A 1:1 propensity-matched comparison was made between the study group and a control group without acetabular overcoverage (lateral center-edge angle, 25°-40°) based on age at surgery, sex, body mass index, Tönnis grade, laterality, and follow-up time. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, and NAHS. Secondary surgical procedures were recorded. Results: A total of 54 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria for the study group, of whom 45 (83.3%; 45 hips) had a minimum 5-year follow-up and were matched without differences in age at surgery, sex, body mass index, or follow-up time. The study and control groups demonstrated significant and comparable improvements for the mHHS (mean ± SD Δ, 24.06 ± 24.19 vs 26.33 ± 17.27; P = .625), NAHS (Δ, 31.22 ± 25.31 vs 27.15 ± 17.61; P = .399), and HOS-SSS (Δ, 33.16 ± 34.73 vs 34.75 ± 26.15; P = .557). The rates for achieving the MCID were similar for the study and control groups for the mHHS (76.7% vs 84.2%; P = .399), HOS-SSS (79.1% vs 75.8%; P = .731), and NAHS (81.4% vs 84.2%; P = .738). Need for revision surgery was similar ( P = .748). A lower conversion rate to total hip arthroplasty was reported for the study than for the control group (2.2% vs 15.6%; P = .026). Conclusion: In the context of FAIS, labral tears, and acetabular overcoverage, patients who underwent hip arthroscopy reported significant improvement in several PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up. Moreover, outcomes were comparable with those of a propensity-matched control group without acetabular overcoverage. Furthermore, the rate of achieving the MCID for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, and NAHS was similar between these groups.

No abstract

Background: There is a paucity of midterm outcome data on hip revision arthroscopic surgery. Purpose: (1) To report minimum 5-year patient-reported outcome measurement scores (PROMSs) in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy, (2) to compare minimum 5-year PROMSs with a propensity-matched control group that underwent primary hip arthroscopy, and (3) to compare the rate of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at minimum 5-year follow-up between the revision group and the propensity-matched control primary group. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were prospectively collected between June 2008 and April 2014. Patients were included who underwent revision hip arthroscopy with preoperative and minimum 5-year follow-up scores 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. Patients with Tönnis grade >1 or with hip conditions such as avascular necrosis, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and pigmented villonodular synovitis were excluded. A subanalysis was performed against a propensity-matched control group that underwent primary surgery. Groups were propensity matched in a 1:2 ratio for sex, age, body mass index, and follow-up time. Results: A total of 127 revision arthroscopies (113 patients) were included, and the mean ± SD follow-up time was 72.8 ± 23.3 months. The revision group was 74.0% female, and the average age and body mass index were 34.9 ± 12.4 years and 24.8 ± 4.2, respectively. The revision group demonstrated improvement for all PROMSs and reached the MCID for the mHHS (66.1%), HOS-SSS (68.4%), NAHS (66.9%), and VAS (80.0%). All revision cases were propensity matched to 254 primary arthroscopy cases. PROMSs in the revision group were lower than those of the control group before and after surgery. Delta values were similar between groups for all PROMSs. There were no differences in rates of achieving the MCID. The relative risk of arthroplasty conversion was 2.6 (95% CI, 1.5-4.6) for the revision group as compared with the primary group. Conclusion: Significant improvement in all PROMSs, including the VAS, and high patient satisfaction at minimum 5-year follow-up were reported after revision hip arthroscopy. A high proportion of patients in the revision cohort reached the MCID for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, NAHS, and VAS, with similar rates and magnitudes of improvement relative to the control group. As expected, these data indicate that patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy have higher PROMSs before and after surgery and lower rates of conversion to arthroplasty.

The purpose of this study was to survey high-volume hip preservation surgeons regarding their perspectives on intra-operative management of labral tears to improve decision-making and produce an effective classification system. A cross-sectional survey of high-volume hip preservation surgeons was conducted in person and anonymously, using a questionnaire that is repeated for indications of labral debridement, repair and reconstruction given the torn labra are stable, unstable, viable or non-viable. Twenty-six high-volume arthroscopic hip surgeons participated in this survey. Provided the labrum was viable (torn tissue that is likely to heal) and stable, labral debridement would be performed by 76.92% of respondents for patients >40 years of age and by >84% of respondents for stable intra-substance labral tears in patients without dysplasia. If the labrum was viable but unstable, labral repair would be performed by >80% of respondents for patients ≤40 years of age and > 80% of respondents if the labral size was >3 mm and located anteriorly. Presence of calcified labra or the Os acetabuli mattered while deciding whether to repair a labrum. In non-viable (torn tissue that is unlikely to heal) and unstable labra, labral reconstruction would be performed by 84.62% of respondents if labral size was <3 mm. The majority of respondents would reconstruct calcified and non-viable, unstable labra that no longer maintained a suction seal. Surgeons performing arthroscopic hip labral treatment may utilize this comprehensive classification system, which takes into consideration patient age, labral characteristics (viability and stability) and bony morphology of the hip joint. When choosing between labral debridement, repair or reconstruction, consensus recommendations from high-volume hip preservation surgeons can enhance decision-making.

Background: Iliopsoas impingement (IPI) has been associated with a distinct lesion on the anterior labrum. Iliopsoas fractional lengthening (IFL) can treat IPI in instances of painful internal snapping (PIS) and mechanical groin pain. Purpose: To report minimum 2-year outcomes of patients without PIS who had an IPI lesion diagnosed intraoperatively that did not undergo IFL (+IPI –PIS –IFL) as compared with a matched group of patients with PIS and an IPI lesion that was treated with IFL (+IPI +PIS +IFL). Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data on all patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy between May 2009 and June 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if they underwent hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement–related pathology, an IPI lesion was diagnosed intraoperatively, and they had minimum 2-year postoperative scores for the following: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), iHOT-12 (International Hip Outcome Tool–12), patient satisfaction, and visual analog score (VAS) for pain. Patients were propensity score matched based on the following criteria: age, body mass index, follow-up time, sex, labral treatment, femoroplasty, and acetabuloplasty. Results: A total of 412 hips were eligible for the current study, of which 336 (81.6%) had 2-year follow-up. The matching process established 37 hips in the +IPI –PIS –IFL group and 87 hips in the +IPI +PIS +IFL group. Both groups experienced significant improvements from presurgery to latest follow-up for all recorded patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The +IPI –PIS –IFL group compared favorably with the +IPI +PIS +IFL group for mHHS (86.0 vs 86.1; P = .53), NAHS (83.0 vs 84.7; P = .40), and HOS-SSS (78.1 vs 76.5; P = .87). Additionally, iHOT-12, VAS, patient satisfaction, and rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference for mHHS, NAHS, and HOS-SSS were similar between groups at the latest follow-up. Conclusion: Patients without PIS who were diagnosed with an IPI lesion intraoperatively and did not undergo IFL had similar and favorable improvements in PROs, VAS, and satisfaction to a matched cohort with PIS who had IFL performed. Thus, an IPI lesion in the absence of PIS may not require IFL.