Predictors of Clinical Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy: 10-Year Follow-up Analysis of 1038 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although hip arthroscopy has been shown to have beneficial outcomes, there is a paucity of literature examining predictive factors of 10-year clinical outcomes. PURPOSE: (1) To identify predictive factors of 10-year outcomes of hip arthroscopy and (2) to compare these factors with those found in 2-year and 5-year studies. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed on all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy between February 2008 and June 2012. Patients were included if they had a minimum 10-year follow-up on 2 patient-reported outcome measures: Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS) and modified Harris Hip Score. Exclusion criteria included previous ipsilateral hip conditions. Using bivariate and multivariate analyses, that authors analyzed the effects of 37 pre- and intraoperative variables on the NAHS, modified Harris Hip Score, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty. RESULTS: Of the 883 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 734 (83.1%) had follow-up data. The mean follow-up time was 124.4 months (range, 120.0-153.1 months). Six variables were significant predictors of NAHS in both multivariate and bivariate analyses: revision status, body mass index (BMI), duration of symptoms, preoperative NAHS, age at onset of symptoms, and need for acetabular microfracture. Positive predictors of 10-year survivorship included acute injury and gluteus medius repair, while negative predictors included revision arthroscopy, Tönnis grade, acetabular inclination, iliopsoas fractional lengthening, and notchplasty. CONCLUSION: Multiple predictive factors including age, BMI, revision status, and preoperative outcome scores were identified for long-term survivorship and functional outcomes. These may prove useful to clinicians in refining indications and guiding patients on expected outcomes of hip arthroscopy.

Defining the Percent Thresholds for Achieving the Maximum Outcome Improvement of the Modified Harris Hip Score, the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, the Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale, the Visual Analog Scale for Pain, and the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 in Revision Hip Arthroscopy at Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To determine the respective percent thresholds for achieving the maximal outcome improvement (MOI) for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), the Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (HOS-SSS), the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) that were associated with satisfaction following revision hip arthroscopy, and to identify predictors for achieving the MOI. METHODS: An anchor question was provided to patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between April 2017 and July 2020. Patients were included for the final analysis if they answered the anchor question and had minimum 2-year follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the thresholds for the percentage of the MOI predictive of satisfaction. A P-value of < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: In total, 318 patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy. Of those patients, 292 (91.8%) had minimum 2-year follow-up. Of this cohort, 68 answered the anchor question, with 49 (72.1%) female and 19 (27.9%) male patients. The mean age, and body mass index time were 32.9 ± 13 years and 25.4 ± 5.1, respectively. It was determined that 42.1%, 50%, 48.1%, 50%, and 50% of MOI were the thresholds for maximal predictability of satisfaction for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SS, VAS for pain, and the iHOT-12, respectively. The presence of unaddressed subspine impingement was a significant predictor for achieving the MOI threshold for the VAS (odds ratio 1.40; 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.95; P = 0.0273). CONCLUSIONS: Following revision hip arthroscopy, the percent thresholds for achieving the MOI at a minimum 2-year follow-up for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SS, VAS for pain, and iHOT-12 were 42.1%, 50%, 48.1%, 50%, and 50.9%, respectively. Addressing residual subspine impingement was identified as significant positive predictor for achieving the MOI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case-series.

Defining Thresholds and Predictors for Achieving the Patient Acceptable Symptom State for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Revision Hip Arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) after primary hip arthroscopy has been determined; nonetheless, the PASS still needs to be defined for revision hip arthroscopy. PURPOSE: To define minimum 2-year follow-up PASS thresholds for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) after revision hip arthroscopy, and to identify predictors of achieving the PASS. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between April 2017 and July 2020. Patients were included if they had baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up scores for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS for pain, and iHOT-12. PASS was calculated using the anchor-based method. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the thresholds for the PASS. A multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors for achieving the PASS. RESULTS: A total of 318 patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy met the inclusion criteria. Of those patients, 292 (91.8%) had baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up. Of this group, 68 patients (72.1% female and 27.9% male; mean age, 32.9 years) answered the PASS anchor question. Achievement PASS rates were 58.8%, 41.2%, 52.9%, 60.3%, and 52.9% for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS, and iHOT-12, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) values for the PASS for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS, and iHOT-12 were 0.912, 0.888, 0.857, 0.903, and 0.871, respectively, indicating excellent discrimination. The PASS for the mHHS was 76 (sensitivity, 0.809; specificity, 0.905), for the NAHS was 86.3 (sensitivity, 0.660; specificity, 1), for the HOS-SSS was 64.3 (sensitivity, 0.745; specificity, 0.905), for the VAS was 3 (sensitivity, 0.830; specificity, 0.905), and for the iHOT-12 was 64.3 (sensitivity, 0.745; specificity, 0.905). Body mass index (BMI) was identified as a significant predictor of achieving PASS for the NAHS (OR, 0.967; 95% CI, 0.940-0.996; P = .027), as patients with a BMI ≤25.4 had 1.03 times higher odds ratio of achieving PASS for the NAHS. CONCLUSION: After revision hip arthroscopy, the minimum 2-year follow-up PASS thresholds for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS for pain, and iHOT-12 were 76, 86.3, 64.3, 3, and 64.3, respectively. The odds ratio of achieving PASS for the NAHS was 1.03 times higher for patients with a BMI ≤25.4.

Endoscopic Tendon Compression Bridge Technique for Repair of Partial-Thickness Gluteus Medius Tears With Concomitant Arthroscopy for Labral Tears: Minimum 2-Year Outcomes With Benchmark Control Group.

BACKGROUND: The transtendinous technique has been used to treat partial-thickness gluteus medius tears in the setting of concomitant arthroscopy for labral tears. The tendon compression bridge technique for gluteus medius repair has been developed as an alternative method, providing several advantages; however, comparative studies between the 2 techniques are lacking in the literature. PURPOSE: (1) To evaluate the short-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of the tendon compression bridge technique and (2) to compare these findings with short-term PROs of the transtendinous technique. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on patients who were followed for a minimum of 2 years after an endoscopic tendon compression bridge procedure for gluteus medius repair in the setting of concomitant hip arthroscopy for labral tears. The following PROs were collected preoperatively and postoperatively: modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, visual analog scale score for pain, and the International Hip Outcome Tool. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Patient Acceptable Symptom State, minimal clinically important difference, and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold. Patients were propensity matched 1:1 to a cohort that underwent gluteus medius repair using the endoscopic transtendinous technique with concomitant hip arthroscopy. RESULTS: A total of 48 hips (48 patients) that met inclusion criteria (age, 53.3 ± 9.8 years; 92% female; body mass index, 26.7 ± 4.6), with a mean follow-up of 38.5 ± 15.7 months, were matched to 48 hips (46 patients) that underwent gluteus medius repair using the transtendinous technique. Both groups demonstrated significant improvement from preoperative scores to latest follow-up (P < .05). Mean magnitude of improvement and latest follow-up scores were not significantly different between the tendon compression bridge group and the transtendinous group, and the groups demonstrated similar favorable rates of achieving Minimal Clinically Important Difference (79% vs 79%, respectively), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (73% vs 73%, respectively), and Maximum Outcome Improvement Satisfaction threshold (65% vs 58%, respectively) for modified Harris Hip Score (P > .05). Patient satisfaction between groups was similar (8.1 ± 2.2 vs 7.7 ± 2.7, respectively) (P = .475). CONCLUSION: At minimum 2-year follow-up, the endoscopic tendon compression bridge technique for partial-thickness gluteus medius tears, when performed with concomitant hip arthroscopy, was associated with significant improvement in functional outcomes. These postoperative results were comparable with those of a matched cohort that underwent the endoscopic transtendinous technique for partial-thickness gluteus medius tears, suggesting that the tendon compression bridge technique for gluteus medius repair is an effective treatment option for partial-thickness gluteus medius tears.

Periacetabular osteotomy with intraoperative computer-assisted modalities: a systematic review.

The role of intraoperative computer-assisted modalities for periacetabular osteotomy (PAO), as well as the perioperative and post-operative outcomes for these techniques, remains poorly defined. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the techniques and outcomes of intraoperative computer-assisted modalities for PAO. Three databases (PubMed, CINAHL/EBSCOHost and Cochrane) were searched for clinical studies reporting on computer-assisted modalities for PAO. Exclusion criteria included small case series (<10 patients), non-English language and studies that did not provide a description of the computer-assisted technique. Data extraction included computer-assisted modalities utilized, surgical techniques, demographics, radiographic findings, perioperative outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), complications and subsequent surgeries. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 208 patients with average ages ranging from 26 to 38 years. Intraoperative navigation was utilized in seven studies, patient-specific guides in one study and both modalities in one study. Three studies reported significantly less intraoperative radiation exposure (P < 0.01) in computer-assisted versus conventional PAOs. Similar surgical times and estimated blood loss (P > 0.05) were commonly observed between the computer-assisted and conventional groups. The average post-operative lateral center edge angles in patients undergoing computer-assisted PAOs ranged from 27.8° to 37.4°, with six studies reporting similar values (P > 0.05) compared to conventional PAOs. Improved PROs were observed in all six studies that reported preoperative and post-operative values of patients undergoing computer-assisted PAOs. Computer-assisted modalities for PAO include navigated tracking of the free acetabular fragment and surgical instruments, as well as patient-specific cutting guides and rotating templates. Compared to conventional techniques, decreased intraoperative radiation exposure and similar operative lengths were observed with computer-assisted PAOs, although these results should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneous operative techniques and surgical settings.

Durable Outcomes After Hip Labral Reconstruction at Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review and report the mid- to long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after hip labral reconstruction. METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for clinical studies reporting mid- to long-term PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up after arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction. A quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index of Non-Randomized Studies grading system. Data collection included study characteristics, demographics, indications, radiographic metrics, perioperative findings, surgical technique, baseline and most recent PROs, and subsequent surgeries. RESULTS: Four studies met inclusion criteria, with 182 hips (age range, 27.9-38.7 years) undergoing labral reconstruction in primary and revision hip surgery with minimum 5-year follow-up. There were three Level III studies and one Level IV study, with an average Methodological Index of Non-Randomized Studies score of 16.6. All studies cited labral tissue characteristics as a factor for surgical indications, including the quality and/or size of the labrum. Three studies performed segmental labral reconstructions, whereas another study used a circumferential technique. Varying grafts were selected, including hamstring autograft/allograft, ligamentum teres autograft, iliotibial band autograft, and tensor fascia lata autograft. All studies demonstrated improved PROs from baseline to most recent follow-up, with 4 studies reporting modified Harris Hip Score values that increased from baseline (range, 58.9-66.8) to most recent follow-up (range, 80.1-86.3). After labral reconstruction, rates of revision arthroscopy ranged from 4.8% to 13.3% and conversion to total hip arthroplasty ranged from 1.6% to 27%. CONCLUSIONS: Improved PROs were observed in all studies at minimum 5-year follow-up, suggesting that labral reconstruction can offer durable results beyond short-term follow-up. Although surgical indications for all studies included labral tissue characteristics, differing graft selection and surgical techniques were used across studies, limiting the ability to determine an optimal treatment approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Periacetabular Osteotomy in Athletes With Symptomatic Hip Dysplasia Allows for Participation in Low-, Moderate-, and High-Impact Sports, With Greater Than 70% Return to Sport for Competitive Athletes: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature and report the rate of return to sport (RTS) in athletes following periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for symptomatic hip dysplasia. METHODS: A literature search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for clinical studies reporting on athletes undergoing PAO surgery for symptomatic hip dysplasia. A quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index of Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) grading system. Data collection included study characteristics, demographics, radiographic measurements, rate and timing of RTS, baseline and most recent patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and subsequent surgeries. RESULTS: Six studies met inclusion criteria with 341 patients undergoing PAO. There were 2 level III and 4 level IV studies, with an average MINORS score of 11. Preoperative and postoperative lateral center edge angles ranged from 8° to 18° and 23° to 41.3°, respectively. One study reported solely on dancers with a 63% rate of RTS at 1 year postoperatively. Two other studies reported RTS of 80% and 82% for multiple sports, with slightly lower rates (73% and 78%) in competitive athletes. Three studies demonstrated a comparable distribution of sports participation, from the preoperative to postoperative period, in low-impact (61.4% to 72.1% and 63.7% to 85.7%), moderate-impact (10.3% to 21.0% and 4.3% to 25.4%), and high-impact (8.5% to 17.6% and 5.1% to 10.8%) sports. Three studies reported time to RTS after PAO, ranging from 8.8 to 12.8 months. Of the 3 studies noting reasons for not returning to sport, concerns related to the operative hip ranged from 36.4% to 67%. Of the studies that reported both preoperative and postoperative PROs, improvements in all values were observed, with modified Harris Hip Scores and Hip Disability Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores at most recent follow-up ranging from 81 to 95 and 72 to 93, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In athletes with symptomatic hip dysplasia undergoing PAO, postoperative participation in low-, moderate-, and high-impact sports was observed, with greater than 70% RTS for competitive athletes. These findings suggest that PAO, with appropriate indications, is an efficacious treatment option in this active patient population with severe dysplasia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of level III and IV studies.