In the Journals

Revision preservation with hip arthroscopy successful after failed primary procedure

After failed primary hip preservation surgery, revision with hip arthroscopy achieved moderately successful outcomes on the basis of multiple patient-reported outcome scores, according to study results.

All patients who underwent revision hip preservation with arthroscopy from April 2008 to December 2010, including patients who had previous open surgery and underwent revision with arthroscopy, were included. The researchers obtained patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores preoperatively and at 3-month, 1-year, 2-year and 3-year follow-up time points. Using a multiple regression analysis, the researchers looked for positive and negative predictive factors for improvement in PROs after revision hip arthroscopy.

Overall, 47 hips in 43 patients had completed 2 years’ follow-up or needed total hip arthroplasty. Sixty-six percent of the hips had either unaddressed or incompletely treated femoroacetabular impingement.

At a mean 29 months after revision, the researchers found a significant improvement in all PRO scores, as well as improvement in VAS scores. The Non-Arthritic Hip Score showed improvements of at least 10 points in 65% of hips and of at least 20 points in 44% of hips. According to study results, four hips in three patients required conversion to total hip arthroplasty.

The researchers found previous open surgery, pincer impingement, cam impingement, symptomatic heterotopic ossification and segmental labral defects treated with labral reconstruction to be positive predictive factors for PRO improvement.

Disclosures: Jackson, Domb, Stake, Lindner and El-Bitar received support from the American Hip Institute. Domb also received support from MAKO Surgical and Arthrex.

After failed primary hip preservation surgery, revision with hip arthroscopy achieved moderately successful outcomes on the basis of multiple patient-reported outcome scores, according to study results.

All patients who underwent revision hip preservation with arthroscopy from April 2008 to December 2010, including patients who had previous open surgery and underwent revision with arthroscopy, were included. The researchers obtained patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores preoperatively and at 3-month, 1-year, 2-year and 3-year follow-up time points. Using a multiple regression analysis, the researchers looked for positive and negative predictive factors for improvement in PROs after revision hip arthroscopy.

Overall, 47 hips in 43 patients had completed 2 years’ follow-up or needed total hip arthroplasty. Sixty-six percent of the hips had either unaddressed or incompletely treated femoroacetabular impingement.

At a mean 29 months after revision, the researchers found a significant improvement in all PRO scores, as well as improvement in VAS scores. The Non-Arthritic Hip Score showed improvements of at least 10 points in 65% of hips and of at least 20 points in 44% of hips. According to study results, four hips in three patients required conversion to total hip arthroplasty.

The researchers found previous open surgery, pincer impingement, cam impingement, symptomatic heterotopic ossification and segmental labral defects treated with labral reconstruction to be positive predictive factors for PRO improvement.

Disclosures: Jackson, Domb, Stake, Lindner and El-Bitar received support from the American Hip Institute. Domb also received support from MAKO Surgical and Arthrex.