Prevalence of low back pain and related disability in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome

Hip Arthroscopy Patients With Lower Back Pain Show Delayed Clinical Improvement and Inferior Time-Dependent Survivorship: A Propensity Matched Study at Mid-Term Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship at mid-term follow-up after hip arthroscopy (HA) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) in patients with and without preoperative lower back pain (LBP).

METHODS

Patients with self-endorsed preoperative LBP who underwent HA for FAIS with mid-term follow-up were identified and propensity matched 1:1 to patients without back pain by age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). PROs collected preoperatively and at postoperative years 1, 2, and 5 included Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Pain. Achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) were compared. Survivorship was compared with Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 119 patients with LBP were matched to 119 patients without LBP. Group demographic factors were as follows: age (37.4 ± 11.9 vs 37.6 ± 12.6 years, P = .880), sex (64.4% vs 67.7% female, P = .796), and BMI (25.3 ± 5.1 vs 25.3 ± 5.4, P = .930). Average follow-up duration was 6.0 ± 1.9 years. LBP patients showed similar preoperative PROs, yet lower 1-year scores for all PROs (P ≤ .044). At final follow-up, similar PROs were shown between groups (P ≥ .196). LBP and non-LBP patients had similar MCID achievement for HOS-ADL (59.3% vs 63.1%, P = .640), HOS-SS (73.9% vs 70.8%, P = .710), mHHS (66.7% vs 73.4%, P = .544), iHOT-12 (85.1% vs 79.4%, P = .500), and VAS Pain (75.6% vs 69.9%, P = .490). Groups also had similar PASS achievement for HOS-ADL (63.5% vs 61.3%, P = .777), HOS-SS (57.0% vs 62.5%, P = .461), mHHS (81.9% vs 79.1%, P = .692), iHOT-12 (54.6% vs 61.2%, P = .570), and VAS Pain (51.0% vs 55.4%, P = .570). Additionally, achievement of MCID ≥ 1 PRO (P ≥ .490) and PASS ≥ 1 PRO (P ≥ .370) was similar across groups. Conversion to total hip arthroplasty occurred in 3.4% of hips with LBP and 0.8% of hips without LBP (P = .370). Back pain patients demonstrated inferior time-dependent survivorship compared with patients without back pain on Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (P = .023).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS with LBP achieve comparable PROs and clinically significant outcomes to patients without back pain at mid-term, despite lower 1-year PRO scores. LBP patients show inferior reoperation-free time-dependent survivorship compared with those without LBP.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative case series.

Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy in the Setting of Concomitant Symptomatic Lumbosacral Spine Pathology: A Matched Control Study With Minimum 24-Month Follow-up

BACKGROUND

The overlapping biomechanical relationship between the lumbosacral spine and pelvis poses unique challenges to patients with concomitant pathologies limiting spinopelvic range of motion.

PURPOSE

To assess the influence of concomitant, symptomatic lumbosacral spine pathology on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and symptomatic labral tears.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective query of prospectively collected data identified patients aged ≥18 years with a minimum 24-month follow-up who underwent hip arthroscopy by a single surgeon for the treatment of symptomatic labral tears secondary to FAI. Patients were stratified into cohorts based on the presence (hip-spine [HS]) or absence (matched control [MC]) of symptomatic lumbosacral spine pathology. Inclusion within the HS cohort required confirmation of lower back pain/symptoms on preoperative surveys plus a diagnosis of lumbosacral spine pathology verified by radiology reports and correlating clinical documentation. Patients with previous spine surgery were excluded. PROMs were compared between groups, along with rates of achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds, Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds, revision arthroscopy, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA).

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients with lumbosacral pathology were coarsened exact matched to 87 control patients without spinal pathology. The HS cohort had preoperative baseline scores that were significantly worse for nearly all PROMs. Follow-ups at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months displayed similar trends, with the HS cohort demonstrating significantly worse scores for most collected outcomes. However, at every time point, HS and MC patients exhibited similar magnitudes of improvement across all PROM and pain metrics. Furthermore, while significantly fewer HS patients achieved PASS for nearly all PROMs at 12- and 24-month follow-ups, MCID thresholds were reached at similar or greater rates across all PROMs relative to the MC cohort. Finally, there were no significant differences in rates of revision or THA between cohorts at maximum available follow-up.

CONCLUSION

After hip arthroscopy to address labral tears in the setting of FAI, patients with symptomatic lumbosacral pathologies and no history of spine surgery were found to exhibit inferior pre- and postoperative PROMs but achieved statistically similar clinical benefit and rates of PROM improvement through 24-month follow-up compared with the MC cohort with isolated hip disease. These findings aid in providing a realistic recovery timeline and evidence that coexisting hip and spine disorders are not a contraindication for arthroscopic hip preservation surgery.

The Outcome of Hip Arthroscopy in the Setting of Lumbar Spine Disease Is Beneficial, Yet Limited: A Systematic Review of Existing Evidence

PURPOSE

To compare hip arthroscopy outcomes in femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) patients with concurrent symptomatic lumbar spine disease to the outcomes of arthroscopic FAI patients without spine disease.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines via PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. Studies were valid for inclusion if they had an average follow-up ≥12 months and compared patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in hip arthroscopy patients with and without concurrent spinal disease. Data collected included study characteristics, patient demographics, follow-up intervals, surgical indications, spinal pathology, PROMs, and reoperation rates.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included in this systematic review. 3,107 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy were evaluated: 1,056 with coexisting lumbar spine disease (spine cohort) and 2,051 control subjects without spine disease (control cohort). The average follow-up period was 24 months. Across included studies, there were 35 instances wherein postoperative PROM scores reported by each cohort were compared. In all 35 instances, the spine cohort reported inferior postoperative PROM scores with the difference being significant (P < .05) on 23 PROMs. Collectively, 23 cases were available contrasting the proportion of each cohort to achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). In 22 (95.65%) of these cases, the spine cohort achieved the MCID at a lower rate than the control cohort. There were 14 PROMs, wherein intragroup analyses were reported that compared the preoperative and postoperative score reported by the spine cohort. On all 14 PROMs, the spine cohort reported significant (P < .05) improvement after arthroscopic intervention.

CONCLUSION

FAI patients with coexisting lumbar spine pathology experience significant improvement from baseline state after arthroscopic intervention. However, the postoperative outcomes reported are inferior, and the improvement from arthroscopy was limited when compared to surgical control subjects with FAI and normal spinal anatomy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV: systematic review of Level II, III, and IV studies.

Neuromuscular Consequences of Lumbopelvic Dysfunction: Research and Clinical Perspectives

Injuries involving the lumbopelvic region (ie, lumbar spine, pelvis, hip) are common across the lifespan and include pathologies such as low back pain, femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, labrum tear, and osteoarthritis. Joint injury is known to result in an arthrogenic muscle response which contributes to muscle weakness and altered movement patterns. The purpose of this manuscript is to summarize the arthrogenic muscle response that occurs across lumbopelvic region pathologies, identify methods to quantify muscle function, and propose suggestions for future research. While each lumbopelvic region pathology is unique, there are a few common impairments and a relative consistent arthrogenic muscle response that occurs across the region. Hip muscle weakness and hip joint range of motion limitations occur with both lumbar spine and hip pathologies, and individuals with low back pain are known to demonstrate inhibition of the transversus abdominis and multifidus. Assessment of muscle inhibition is often limited to research laboratory settings, but dynamometers, ultrasound imaging, and electromyography offer clinical capacity to quantify muscle function and inform treatment pathways. Future studies should systematically determine the arthrogenic muscle response across multiple muscle groups and the timeline for changes in muscle function and determine whether disinhibitory modalities improve functional outcomes beyond traditional treatment approaches.