Two-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy with Capsular Incompetency

Long-term Survivorship and Outcomes of Patients Without Dysplasia Undergoing Capsular Repair During Primary Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of literature evaluating long-term outcomes and survivorship of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with capsular repair for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

PURPOSE

To report 10-year survivorship and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after primary hip arthroscopy with capsular repair for FAIS and evaluate the effect of capsular repair in patients at the highest risk for conversion to arthroplasty.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed on all patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with capsular repair between October 2008 and February 2011. Patients with a minimum 10-year follow-up on the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and visual analog scale for pain (VAS) scores were selected. The preoperative and minimum 10-year follow-up Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) scores were also reported, if available. Patients with ipsilateral hip surgery, worker's compensation, Tönnis osteoarthritis grade >1, and hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <25°) were excluded. Survivorship, PROS, and clinical benefit-minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS)-were reported. An additional propensity-matched subanalysis was performed on patients at the highest risk for conversion to arthroplasty, comparing patients undergoing capsular repair to patients with unrepaired capsules.

RESULTS

A total of 145 (n = 130 patients) out of 180 eligible hips (n = 165 patients) had a minimum 10-year follow-up (80.6%). Also, 126 hips (86.9%) belonged to women, and 19 hips (13.1%) belonged to men. The mean patient age was 30.3 ± 12.9 years. The survivorship rate was 91% at the 10-year follow-up. The cohort experienced significant improvements (P < .001) in the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS for pain scores. Moreover, the cohort achieved high rates of the PASS for the mHHS (89.8%), high rates of the MCID for the mHHS (82.4%), and high rates of the MCID for VAS for pain (80.6%) scores. In the propensity-matched subanalysis performed on patients with the highest risk for arthroplasty, 29 hips with capsular repair were matched to 81 hips with unrepaired capsules. While both groups experienced significant improvements in all PROs (P < .05), the group without capsule repair trended toward a higher conversion to arthroplasty rate when compared with the repair group. In addition, an odds ratio was calculated for the likelihood of converting to arthroplasty after having an unrepaired capsule compared with capsular repair (2.54 [95% CI, 0.873-7.37]; P = .087).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with capsular repair experienced a high survivorship rate of 91% at a minimum 10-year follow-up. Patients who did not convert to arthroplasty saw favorable improvements in PROs and achieved high clinical benefit rates. In addition, among those patients at the highest risk for conversion to arthroplasty, a trend toward greater survivorship was observed with capsular repair.

Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy Demonstrate Comparable Survivability and Improvement but Worse Postoperative Outcomes Compared to Patients Undergoing Primary Hip Arthroscopy: A Propensity Matched Study at Five-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To compare mid-term clinical outcomes between patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy (HA) versus revision hip arthroscopy (RHA) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 1,862 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS from January 2012 to April 2017. Patients who underwent RHA were propensity matched in a 1:4 ratio by age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and exercise status to patients who underwent primary HA. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were assessed. Patient-reported outcomes before and at 5 years after surgery, including the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living subscale (HOS-ADL) and Sports subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Pain and Satisfaction, were compared between groups. Minimally clinically important difference and patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) achievement rates were compared using previously published thresholds.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients who underwent RHA (35 female, 16 male; age 36.2 ± 10.2 years; BMI 26.5 ± 5.9) were followed up for 63.9 ± 9.2 months and then propensity matched in a 1:4 ratio by sex, age, and BMI to 204 control patients who underwent primary HA. At midterm follow-up, patients in the RHA cohort had significantly lower scores for HOS-SS (RHA 64.9 ± 32.5 vs HA 75.3 ± 26.2, P = .044), mHHS (RHA 72.2 ± 22.4 vs HA 80.1 ± 18.1, P = .039), and iHOT-12 (RHA 61.4 ± 29.3 vs HA 71 ± 27.6, P = .043) compared to primary HA patients. Rates of achieving PASS were significantly decreased for HOS-SS (RHA 38.3% vs HA 55.4%, P = .039) and iHOT-12 (RHA 41.9% vs HA 59.9%, P = .035) in the RHA cohort. There were no significant differences in rates of conversion to THA or subsequent reoperation on the index hip between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy demonstrate comparable survivability and magnitude of improvement but may experience worse overall outcome scores and meet thresholds for clinically significant outcomes less often when compared to primary hip arthroscopy patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III; retrospective comparative study.

Capsular Management During Hip Arthroscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hip arthroscopy is widely used for the management of intra-articular pathology and there has been growing interest in strategies for management of the hip capsule during surgery. The hip capsule is an essential structure that provides stability to the joint and it is necessarily violated during procedures that address intra-articular pathology. This article reviews different approaches to capsular management during hip arthroscopy including anatomical considerations for capsulotomy, techniques, clinical outcomes, and the role of routine capsular repair. This article also reviews the concept of hip microinstability and its potential impact on capsular management options as well as iatrogenic complications that can occur as a result of poor capsular management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current research highlights the key functional role of the hip capsule and the importance of preserving its anatomy during surgery. Capsulotomies that involve less tissue violation (periportal and puncture-type approaches) do not appear to require routine capsular repair to achieve good outcomes. Many studies have investigated the role of capsular repair following more extensive capsulotomy types (interportal and T-type), with most authors reporting superior outcomes with routine capsular repair. Strategies for capsular management during hip arthroscopy range from conservative capsulotomy techniques aimed to minimize capsular violation to more extensive capsulotomies with routine capsule closure, all of which have good short- to mid-term outcomes. There is a growing trend towards decreasing iatrogenic capsular tissue injury when possible and fully repairing the capsule when larger capsulotomies are utilized. Future research may reveal that patients with microinstability may require a more specific approach to capsular management.

Hip Capsular Reconstruction With Indirect Head of the Rectus Femoris Tendon

Hip capsulotomy is performed during arthroscopic hip procedures to achieve adequate visualization of the joint and instrument access. The hip capsule, and in particular the iliofemoral ligament, is an important stabilizer of the hip joint, and patients who undergo capsulotomy without subsequent repair may experience hip pain and instability, with increased risk of requiring revision hip arthroscopy. Therefore, restoring watertight closure of the capsule is necessary to restore native biomechanics and achieve desired postoperative outcomes. Although primary repair or plication suffice in most cases, capsule reconstruction may instead be necessary when there is insufficient tissue, often due to capsular insufficiency following index surgery. The purpose of this Technical Note is to describe the authors' current technique for arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction using the indirect head of the rectus femoris tendon in the setting of capsular iatrogenic hip instability, as well as its advantages and disadvantages and technical pearls and pitfalls.

Endoscopic Release Superficial Rather Than Deep to the Transverse Carpal Ligament for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Improves Immediate Postoperative Transient Symptomatic Exacerbation With Fewer Absences From Work

PURPOSE

To determine the endoscopic release superficially rather than deep to the transverse carpal ligament to reduce the incidence of transient symptomatic exacerbation and postoperative absence from work in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome.

METHODS

From January 2012 to January 2018, patients with idiopathic carpal tunnel syndrome who underwent one-portal endoscopic release superficial to the transverse carpal ligament (ERSTCL) were analyzed. For comparison, a cohort treated with the conventional Chow endoscopic release between February 2008 and October 2013 were included. Transient worsening of symptoms, discrimination sensation, and days off work were assessed. The minimal clinically important difference was calculated for discrimination sensation. Severity of symptom and functional status also were assessed using the Levine-Katz Questionnaire. Significance was set at P < .05.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference between the ERSTCL group and the control group regarding the incidence of symptomatic exacerbation 1 week after surgery (2% vs 9%; P = .003) but no difference in other time intervals within the initial 3 months. There was a significant difference in 2-point discrimination 1 week (mean change = -0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.30 to 0.04, P = .01) and 2 weeks after surgery (mean change = -0.18, 95% CI -0.36 to -0.01, P = .033). Postoperative 1 and 2 weeks, 28% and 35% patients in ERSTCL group achieved a minimal clinically important difference, respectively. Compared with control group, the difference in frequencies was statistically significant (28% vs 45%; P = .027; 35% vs 57%; P = .015). The difference between the 2 groups in postoperative absence from work was statistically significant (95% CI 1.083-4.724; P = .002), with an average reduction in sick leave of 3 days in ERSTCL group. At a mean follow-up of 3 years, no significant difference was found between the groups regarding symptom and function statuses.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic release superficial rather than deep to transverse carpal ligament for carpal tunnel syndrome improves immediate postoperative transient symptomatic exacerbation, which allows the patients to return to work earlier.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Predictors of Achieving the Maximal Outcome Improvement Threshold for Willingness to Undergo Revision Hip Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

The maximal outcome improvement threshold for willingness to undergo revision hip arthroscopy (MOWT) has not been defined yet.

PURPOSE

To determine the percentage MOWT in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy and to identify predictors of achieving the MOWT.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

An anchor question was provided to patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between April 2008 and June 2020 who returned for follow-up between August 2019 and June 2021 at one institution. Patients were included if they underwent revision hip arthroscopy, had answered the anchor question, and had baseline and postoperative minimum 1-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia, previous hip conditions, or unwillingness to participate. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the MOWT. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine intraoperative predictors of achieving the MOWT.

RESULTS

In total, 153 patients (163 hips) were included, with 117 female hips (71.8%), a mean patient age of 34.3 ± 12.4 years, and an average follow-up time of 61.6 ± 42.7 months. It was determined that 77.3% of the patients reported that they would choose to undergo the revision hip arthroscopy again. The MOWT for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS was 43.1%, 53%, and 33.4%, respectively. The probability of choosing to undergo revision surgery if the MOWT was achieved was 77.5%, 77.6%, and 79.2%, for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS, respectively. Patients with residual cam-type morphology, which was addressed during the revision, were 2.3 times more likely to achieve the MOWT for the VAS (P = .014).

CONCLUSION

Patients who improved 43.1%, 53%, and 33.4% of their MOWT for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS, respectively, were likely to be willing to undergo revision hip arthroscopy again. Moreover, the presence of residual cam-type femoroacetabular impingement morphology before their revision surgery was identified as a predictor to achieve the MOWT for the VAS.

Repeat Revision Hip Arthroscopy Outcomes Match That of Initial Revision But Not That of Primary Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

PURPOSE

To (1) report on pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores for patients undergoing repeat revision surgery in short-term follow-up and (2) compare minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state achievement between primary, revision, and repeat revision hip arthroscopy cohorts.

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy from January 2012 to February 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Hips that underwent 2 revision hip arthroscopic surgeries were identified and matched 1:3 to patients undergoing revision surgery and 1:3 to patients undergoing primary surgery by age, sex, and body mass index. Baseline demographic data, surgical indications, and hip-specific PROs were collected were obtained preoperatively and at minimum 1-year follow-up. MCID was calculated individually for each cohort.

RESULTS

Twenty patients who underwent repeat revision were matched to 60 patients who underwent revision and 60 primary patients. Patients who underwent repeat revision achieved MCID on all investigated PROs at a similar rate to patients undergoing primary surgery (90.0% vs 91.7%, P = .588) and at a greater rate than patients undergoing first-time revision surgery (90.0% vs 71.7%, P = .045). Patients who underwent repeat revision achieved patient acceptable symptomatic state on all investigated PROs at a similar rate to patients who underwent first-time revision (30.0% vs 55.0%, P = .053) but at a significantly lower rate than primary patients (30.0% vs 76.7%, P < .001). However, patients undergoing repeat revision surgery had significantly lower preoperative PROs (P < .001 for all) and no significant difference in PROs at minimum 1-year follow-up compared with patients undergoing revision (P > .05). Compared with the primary cohort, patients who underwent repeat revision had significantly lower Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (77.3 ± 16.7 vs 86.1 ± 14.4; P = .034), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (60.6 ± 27.2 vs 76.1 ± 23.8; P < .001), and modified Harris Hip Score (69.2 ± 19.3 vs 81.7 ± 16.1; P = .048) at a minimum of 1-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Second-time revision hip arthroscopy, which often requires advanced procedures, results in clinically significant improvement in PROs; however, outcomes for repeat revision cases are similar to first-time revision cases but inferior to those obtained following primary surgeries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective case-control study.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy in High-Level Athletes: Minimum 2-Year Outcomes Comparison to a Propensity-Matched Primary Hip Arthroscopy Control Group

BACKGROUND

Outcomes of revision hip arthroscopy in the athletic population have not been well established.

PURPOSE

(1) To report clinical outcomes for high-level athletes undergoing revision hip arthroscopy in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) or labral tears and (2) to compare these outcomes against a propensity-matched group of high-level athletes undergoing primary hip arthroscopy.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data for professional, college, and high school athletes were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed between January 2012 and October 2018. Patients were included if they underwent revision or primary hip arthroscopy and had preoperative and minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores for 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. The findings and outcomes of revision athletes were compared with a propensity-matched control group of high-level athletes undergoing primary hip arthroscopy.

RESULTS

A total of 32 hips (29 patients) undergoing revision hip arthroscopy and 92 hips (88 patients) undergoing primary hip arthroscopy were included in our final analysis with a median follow-up time of 29.5 months (95% CI, 27.2-32.1 months) and 36.5 months (95% CI, 33.5-37.7 months), respectively. Athletes undergoing revision surgery showed significant improvement in all recorded PRO measurements and achieved patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for mHHS at high rates (80.6% and 83.9%, respectively). When compared with a propensity-matched primary control group, patients undergoing revision surgery demonstrated lower preoperative and postoperative scores for mHHS, NAHS, and HOS-SSS, but the magnitude of improvement in functional scores was similar between groups. Athletes undergoing revision surgery achieved PASS for HOS-SSS at lower rates than the control group (P = .005), and they were less likely to attempt to return to sport compared with the control group (62.5% vs 87.0%; P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Revision hip arthroscopy is a viable treatment option to improve PROs in high-level athletes at minimum 2-year follow-up. The study group showed significant improvement in functional scores and a high rate of successful outcomes. They experienced similar magnitude of improvement as that of a propensity-matched control group; however, they achieved lower postoperative PRO scores and attempted to return to sport at lower rates.

Is there enough evidence to support hip capsular reconstruction? A systematic review of biomechanical studies

The aim of this study was to review and summarize the available biomechanical data on hip capsular reconstruction to guide clinical decision-making. A literature search was completed in December 2020 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify biomechanical cadaver studies on hip capsular reconstruction, hip capsulectomy or hip capsular defect. The investigated parameters included maximum distraction force, capsular state affecting range of motion (ROM), rotation and translation. Four studies met al. the inclusion–exclusion criteria. The median effective force for resisting maximum distraction for the reconstruction state, capsular defect state and the intact state was 171, 111 and 206 N, respectively. The defect capsule force was significantly lower (P = 0.00438) than the intact capsule force. The reconstruction state had a higher distraction force than that of the capsular defect, but due to heterogeneity, the overall effect size was not statistically significant. The capsular reconstruction state reduced excess motion and the degree of instability compared to the capsular defect state but restored the hip close to its native capsular state in the cadaveric model. When compared to capsulectomy/defect state, hip capsular reconstruction significantly improved the rotational stability and effective force at maximum distraction and minimized translation. However, no conclusions can be made regarding the most effective protocol due to the high heterogeneity between the four studies. Further biomechanical studies are needed to test various types of grafts under the same protocol.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy in the Native Hip: A Review of Contemporary Evaluation and Treatment Options

Hip arthroscopy is a reproducible and efficacious procedure for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Despite this efficacy, clinical failures are observed, clinical entities are challenging to treat, and revision hip arthroscopy may be required. The most common cause of symptom recurrence after a hip arthroscopy that leads to a revision arthroscopy is residual cam morphology as a result of inadequate femoral osteochondroplasty and restoration of head–neck offset, though several other revision etiologies including progressive chondral and labral pathologies also exist. In these cases, it is imperative to perform a comprehensive examination to identify the cause of a failed primary arthroscopy as to assess whether or not a revision hip arthroscopy procedure is indicated. When a secondary procedure is indicated, approaches may consist of revision labral repair, complete labral reconstruction, or labral augmentation depending on labral integrity. Gross instability or imaging-based evidence of microinstability may necessitate capsular augmentation or plication. If residual cam or pincer morphology is present, additional resection of the osseous abnormalities may be warranted. This review article discusses indications, the evaluation of patients with residual symptoms after primary hip arthroscopy, and the evaluation of outcomes following revision hip arthroscopy through an evidence-based discussion. We also present a case example of a revision hip arthroscopy procedure to highlight necessary intraoperative techniques during a revision hip arthroscopy.

Minimum 5-Year Outcomes for Revision Hip Arthroscopy With a Prospective Subanalysis Against a Propensity-Matched Control Primary Group

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.

Complete Capsular Closure Provides Higher Rates of Clinically Significant Outcome Improvement and Higher Survivorship Versus Partial Closure After Hip Arthroscopy at Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To (1) compare the rates of reaching threshold hip-specific outcome scores for achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) in patients who underwent partial versus complete T-capsulotomy repair and (2) identify the failure rates in each group 5 years after undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS performed by a single fellowship-trained surgeon from January 2011 to March 2013 were collected and analyzed. Baseline data, hip-specific outcomes, and clinical failure rates were recorded at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively. Patients with partial T-capsulotomy repair were matched 1:3 by age, body mass index, and sex to patients with complete T-capsulotomy repair. Threshold scores for achieving the MCID and PASS were calculated and compared between the 2 groups. Additionally, rates of revision and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 379 patients were available for analysis (39 partial and 340 complete repairs), with 100 patients included in the matching process (25 in the partial-repair group and 75 in the complete-repair group). Comparison of radiographic parameters, including the Tönnis grade, alpha angle, and lateral center-edge angle, between the 2 groups showed no statistically significant difference (P > .05 for all). Comparison of postoperative score averages between the partial- and complete-closure groups showed a significant difference in the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living Subscale (85.4 ± 17.7 vs 94.6 ± 7.8, P < .001), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (76.6 ± 26.2 vs 89.3 ± 16.8, P = .034), modified Harris Hip Score (83.2 ± 19.7 vs 90.5 ± 11.2, P = .035), and visual analog scale pain score (24.5 ± 30.8 vs 13.4 ± 15.8, P = .035). A total of 65 complete-repair patients (95.6%) achieved the MCID for at least 1 outcome measure versus 18 patients with partial repair (78.3%) (P = .04). A total of 69 complete-repair patients (92%) achieved the PASS for at least 1 outcome measure versus 18 partial-repair patients (72%) (P = .017). Of the 39 partial-repair patients, 35.9% (n = 14) underwent revision or conversion to THA, as compared with 2.9% (n = 10) in the overall cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

At a minimum 5-year follow-up, patients with complete capsular closure after hip arthroscopy for FAIS show superior long-term outcomes and achieve higher rates of meaningful clinical success when compared with patients with partial capsular closure. Furthermore, patients with partial capsular repair undergo revision or conversion to THA at high rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Large Heterogeneity Among Minimal Clinically Important Differences for Hip Arthroscopy Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Reporting Trends and Quantification Methods

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review of reporting trends and quantification methods for the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) within the hip arthroscopy literature.

METHODS

Cochrane, PubMed, and OVID/MEDLINE databases were queried for hip arthroscopy articles that reported the MCID. Studies were classified as (1) calculating new MCID values for their specific study-population or (2) referencing previously established MCID values. Data pertaining to patient demographics, study characteristics, outcome measures, method of MCID quantification, MCID value, anchor questions, measurement error, and study from which referenced MCID values were obtained were extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 59 articles with 18,830 patients (19,867 hips) was included. A total of 19 unique outcome measures was reported. A total of 33 (n = 55.9%) studies (follow-up range 6-60 months) used previously established MCID values to assess their study population (MCID values established at a follow-up range 6-31 months). The remaining 26 studies (44.1%) performed new MCID calculations. The MCID values were inconsistent and varied widely (Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living: 5.0-15.4; Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale: 6-25; modified Harris hip score: 2.4-20.9). Among the 33 studies that used previously established MCID values, 10 different studies were cited as the reference. Among the remaining 26 studies that calculated a new MCID value, the most common method was 0.5 standard deviation method (n = 21, 80.8%). Only 3 of 26 (11.5%) studies reported a measurement of error in conjunction with their MCID values.

CONCLUSIONS

Inconsistencies in MCID reporting and quantification methods led to a wide range of MCID values for commonly administered outcome measures within the hip arthroscopy literature-even for the same outcome measures. The majority of studies referenced previously established MCID values with variable ranges of follow-up and applied those values to assess their specific study population at varying follow-ups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, systematic review.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Clinically Important Outcome Values in Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Defining success in hip arthroscopy through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is complicated by the wide range of available questionnaires and overwhelming amount of information on how to interpret scores. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) are collectively known as clinically important outcome values (CIOVs). These CIOVs provide benchmarks for meaningful improvement. The aims of this review were to update the evidence regarding joint-specific PROMs used for hip arthroscopy and to collate available CIOVs in this population.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed to identify studies reporting measurement properties of PROMs utilized for hip arthroscopy. Metrics of reliability, validity, and responsiveness were extracted and graded according to an international Delphi study. Questionnaire interpretability was evaluated through CIOVs.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies were reviewed. One study validated a novel questionnaire, 3 studies validated existing questionnaires, and 22 studies reported CIOVs. The most evidence supporting interpretability was found for the Hip Outcome Score (HOS, 11 studies), modified Harris hip score (mHHS, 10 studies), and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12, 9 studies). Scores indicative of the smallest perceptible versus substantial clinically relevant changes were reported for the iHOT-12 (12 to 15 versus 22 to 28), iHOT-33 (10 to 12 versus 25 to 26), HOS-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL, 9 to 10 versus 10 to 16), HOS-Sports (14 to 15 versus 25 to 30), and mHHS (7 to 13 versus 20 to 23). Absolute postoperative scores indicative of an unsatisfactory versus a desirable outcome were reported for the iHOT-12 (below 56 to 63 versus above 86 to 88), iHOT-33 (below 58 versus above 64 to 82), HOS-ADL (below 87 to 92 versus above 94), HOS-Sports (below 72 to 80 versus above 78 to 86), and mHHS (below 74 to 85 versus above 83 to 95).

CONCLUSIONS

Six questionnaires had reported clinically important outcome thresholds, with the HOS, mHHS, and iHOT-12 having the most information to support score interpretation. Thresholds for the HOS, mHHS, iHOT-12, and iHOT-33 describe desirable absolute PROM scores and minimum and substantial change scores within 5 years following hip arthroscopy. Despite substantial heterogeneity in calculation methodology, included cohorts, and follow-up time, available interpretability values could be meaningfully summarized.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In light of increasing use of PROMs in orthopaedics, a summary of the available CIOVs provides guidance for clinicians in mapping numerical scores from PROMs onto clinical benchmarks.

Editorial Commentary: The First Hip Arthroscopy Is the Best Hip Arthroscopy, Capsular Defect or Not

Hip arthroscopy has evolved significantly over the last 5 to 10 years. With this comes the burden of patients with continued pain after their index procedure. Reasons for the need for revision surgery can be many, including incomplete resection of impingement morphology, unrecognized/unaddressed acetabular dysplasia or hip instability, failure to manage the soft tissue appropriately (i.e., labrum or capsule/ligament), or other unrecognized cause of pain, like femoral retroversion or subspine impingement. Like many other orthopaedic procedures, revision hip arthroscopy with or without a defect in the hip capsule has significantly worse outcomes at 2 years compared with primary hip arthroscopy. This emphasizes the importance of proper diagnosis, well-done surgery, and proper rehabilitation the first time to avoid the need for revision hip surgery in the young adult altogether.