Staging Bilateral Hip Arthroscopies Less Than 1 Year Apart May Reduce the Risk of Revision Surgery.

PURPOSE: To identify the influence of timing between staged bilateral hip arthroscopy on 90-day postoperative medical complications and 2-year surgical complications including revision, conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), and infection. METHODS: The Mariner data set of the PearlDiver all-payer claims database was queried for patients undergoing staged bilateral hip arthroscopy. Patients were stratified into cohorts based on time between arthroscopies: (1) ≤3 months, (2) 3 to ≤6 months, (3) 6 to ≤12 months, and (4) >1 year. Multivariate logistic regression was utilized to control for any confounding variables. RESULTS: In total, 998 patients underwent staged bilateral hip arthroscopy out of 38,080 patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy. The 2-year revision rate was 7.6% for all patients undergoing bilateral hip arthroscopy, while 1.9% of patients underwent conversion to THA. Patients with arthroscopy procedures staged less than 1 year apart (cohorts 1, 2, and 3) had significantly decreased risk of revision compared to the greater than 1 year cohort (P = .008, .025, and .044, respectively). There were no differences in rates of major medical, minor medical, or remaining surgical complications between the cohorts. Direct comparisons between the cohorts staged ≤1 year apart showed no significant differences in medical or surgical complications (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The revision rate in all patients undergoing staged bilateral hip arthroscopy was 7.6%. Staging hip arthroscopy ≤1 year apart was associated with a decreased risk of revision when compared to the staged cohort >1 year. Among those staged less than 1 year, the timing of staging had no association with rates of medical or surgical complications. Patients who are indicated for bilateral hip arthroscopy may benefit from staging under 1 year apart to reduce the risk of revision surgery. Optimal timing decisions may be patient specific and rely on the duration of symptoms, severity of pathology, or progression of rehabilitation after the index procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative study.