Equivalent Mid-Term Results of Open vs Endoscopic Gluteal Tendon Tear Repair Using Suture Anchors in Forty-Five Patients.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the relative efficacy of open (OGR) vs endoscopic (EGR) gluteal tendon repair of gluteal tendon tears in minimizing pain and restoring function. Our aim is to compare these 2 surgical techniques and quantify their impact on clinical outcomes. METHODS: All patients undergoing gluteal tendon tear repair at our institution between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Pain scores, limp, hip abduction strength, and the use of analgesics were recorded preoperatively and at last follow-up. The Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Junior and Harris Hip Score Section1 were obtained at last follow-up. Fatty degeneration was quantified using the Goutallier-Fuchs Classification (GFC). Statistical analysis was conducted using one-way analysis of variance and t-tests. RESULTS: Forty-five patients (mean age 66, 87% females) met inclusion criteria. Average follow-up was 20.3 months. None of the 10 patients (22%) undergoing EGR had prior surgery. Of 35 patients (78%) undergoing OGR, 12 (27%) had prior hip replacement (75% via lateral approach). The OGRs had more patients with GFC ≥2 (50% vs 11%, P = .02) and used more anchors (P = .03). Both groups showed statistical improvement (P ≤ .01) for all outcomes measured. GFC >2 was independently associated with a worst limp and Harris Hip Score Section 1 score (P = .05). EGR had a statistically higher opioid use reduction (P < .05) than OGR. Other comparisons between EGR and OGR did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: In this series, open vs endoscopic operative approach did not impact clinical outcomes. More complex tears were treated open and with more anchors. Fatty degeneration adversely impacted outcomes. Although further evaluation of the efficacy of EGR in complex tears is indicated, both approaches can be used successfully.