Introduction:
The purpose of this study was to compare minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) after revision hip arthroscopy between two different patient cohorts who had undergone primary hip arthroscopy with the same surgeon (SS) and a different surgeon (DS). We hypothesized no difference in clinical outcomes between the groups despite differences in intraoperative findings based on the surgical decision making in a revision setting at a high-volume center.
Methods:
Between January 2012 and August 2017, 71 SS patients were matched for age, sex, body mass index, and follow-up to 71 DS patients. Modified Harris hip score (mHHS), nonarthritic hip score, and hip outcome score—sports-specific subscale (HOS-SSS) were collected prospectively. The minimal clinically important difference was calculated for mHHS and HOS-SSS.
Results:
All the DS patients had labral tears, and 94.4% had femoroacetabular impingement from residual bony deformity (P < 0.001). The SS and DS groups demonstrated significant and comparable improvement in mHHS (Δ = 18.3 ± 21.5 versus 19 ± 20.1; P = 0.837), nonarthritic hip score (Δ = 18.8 ± 18.8 versus 18.2 ± 18.8; P = 0.850), and HOS-SSS (Δ = 22 ± 27.4 versus 17.5 ± 28.1; P = 0.275). The rates of achieving minimal clinically important difference for mHHS and HOS-SSS were similar. Furthermore, the need for revision surgery and conversion to total hip arthroplasty were comparable (P = 0.228 and P = 0.383).
Conclusions:
Patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy reported notable and comparable improvement in multiple patient-reported outcomes at a minimum 2-year follow-up, irrespective of intraoperative findings or primary source of patient pool.
Arthroscopic treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome with labral débridement or repair has resulted in notable long-term improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and satisfaction.1,2 Ganz et al3 proposed that early surgical intervention for the treatment of FAI may not only relieve symptoms but also decelerate the progression of degenerative processes in young patients. In addition, the effect of arthroscopic intervention on PROs and degenerative changes has been shown to be longitudinal, with excellent long-term survivorship in patients with labral tears and low-grade cartilage damage.4 However, despite these promising outcomes, failures do occur. Residual or unaddressed structural deformities of the hip, such as cam and pincer morphologies, adhesive capsulitis, unaddressed hip microinstability, and underlying osteoarthritis, are commonly associated with failure after hip arthroscopy.5,6,7,8
Hip arthroscopy as a technique in itself has a steep learning curve and with an exponential rise in the number of newly trained surgeons performing this procedure; paved the way for increased primary and revision hip arthroscopies.9,10 Novel revision capsulolabral treatment options enabled subsequent arthroscopy in select patients to address pathology that was overlooked or incompletely addressed during the primary surgery.11,12,13,14 Given the high volume of arthroscopic hip-preserving procedures done annually in the United States, a percentage of patients remain symptomatic with suboptimal PROs.15,16 In addition, a notable proportion of active patients attempt to return to sport or activity at their preinjury level, potentially increasing the risk of reinjury.17 When pain persists or recurs, patients must decide whether they will return to the surgeon who conducted their index surgery or seek a second opinion. Differences in index surgeon come along with differences in surgical technique, and therefore, the decision to labral débridement versus repair versus reconstruction made during the primary procedure. With this in mind, we ventured to explore the outcomes after revision hip arthroscopy in a high-volume setting10,11,18,19 to see whether it is possible for patients inherited from outside surgeons to achieve uniform and comparable outcomes with those who chose to undergo their secondary surgery with the same surgeon (SS).
The purpose of this study was to compare minimum 2-year PROs after revision hip arthroscopy in a group who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with labral treatment at the same institution (same surgeon [SS] group) with a cohort who had their primary arthroscopy at an outside institution (different surgeon [DS] group). We hypothesized no difference in clinical outcomes between both groups despite differing intraoperative findings.
Methods
Participation in the XXX Hip Arthroscopy Registry
Despite the novel investigation presented in this study, data on some patients in this study have been included in other studies.20 All data collection received institutional review board approval.
Patient Inclusion and Data Collection
Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for all patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy by the senior surgeon (XXX) from January 2012 to August 2017, after having their index procedure with the senior surgeon (same surgeon group) or with an outside surgeon (DS group). This study included all patients with minimum 2-year outcomes, including Modified Harris hip score (mHHS) (as the primary outcome measure), along with nonarthritic hip score (NAHS), and hip outcome Score—sports-specific subscale (HOS-SSS), and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and satisfaction. Patients were excluded if they had a previous hip condition (such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, or pigmented villonodular synovitis), incomplete radiographic data, or Tönnis grade >1. Primary and secondary end points were defined as revision hip arthroscopy and total hip arthroplasty (THA), respectively. Patient selection is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flowchart showing patient selection.
Matching Process
Matching was done on the logit of the propensity score using a nearest-neighbor (Euclidean distance) match algorithm. SS patients were matched to DS patients in a 1:1 ratio using greedy matching without replacement. Consequently, if an SS patient was matched to a DS patient, they were not available to be matched to another DS patient. In the literature, this method has been established as the ideal method for estimating differences between treatment groups.21 The SS and DS groups were matched on the basis of age at surgery, sex, body mass index, and follow-up time.
Imaging
Three plain radiographic views were used to collect pertinent imaging data, including the anterosuperior pelvic view, the 45° Dunn view,22 and false profile view,23 to determine lateral center edge angle,24 lateral joint space, anterior center edge angle, and alpha angle.25 The presence of cam morphology was indicated by an alpha angle greater than 55°.25,26 The senior surgeon (XXX) made all measurements using a picture archiving and communication system. To evaluate for a labral tear and articular cartilage damage, magnetic resonance imaging was done on each patient.
Surgical Technique
All revision hip arthroscopic procedures were done with the patient in the supine position through a minimum of two portals (anterolateral and mid-anterior). The indications for revision arthroscopy were predominantly labral tears with FAI (from residual cam, pincer, or combined morphology) causing mechanical symptoms and failure of conservative treatment. At the beginning of the procedure, a diagnostic arthroscopy was undertaken. First, the state of the ligamentum teres was noted using the classification scales of Domb et al, as well as Gray and Villar.27,28 The labrum was then assessed for the presence and degree of tearing using the classification system of Seldes et al.29 The cartilage of the acetabulum and femoral head was subsequently surveyed for defects and lesions using the Outerbridge30 and acetabular labrum articular disruption grading systems.31 The location and size of labral tears and chondral damage were evaluated using a 5-mm probe and recorded in mm2 using the clockface method.
Residual bony deformities were corrected using fluoroscopic guidance. An acetabuloplasty and femoroplasty were used to correct pincer and cam morphologies, respectively. Labral repair was done when possible; however, some cases required selective débridement to achieve a stable labrum while preserving as much of the labrum as possible. In the presence of an irreparable tear, labral reconstruction was done using either autograft or allograft gracilis hamstring tendon.32,33 If full-thickness cartilage defects were discovered, the area was first débrided to create stable borders before performing microfracture according to the technique described by Maldonado et al.34
Postoperative Rehabilitation Protocol
Postoperative rehabilitation was adjusted according to intraoperative procedures. However, all protocols consisted of an X-Act range-of-motion brace (DJO Global) and flatfoot weight bearing (20 lbs.) on crutches for 2 or 6 weeks.35 Patients undergoing labral reconstruction or microfracture were prescribed the longer duration. Regardless of intraoperative procedures done, physical therapy began on the first day after surgery.
Surgical Outcomes
All patients undergoing hip arthroscopy were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 months, 1 year, 2 years, and annually thereafter using the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS. Four questionnaires were used because of the lack of conclusive evidence for the use of a single PRO measure for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy.36 Pain was quantified on a VAS from 0 to 10, with 10 being the worst. Similarly, a 0 to 10 scale was used to assess patient satisfaction, with 10 being the best in this scenario. Additional postoperative surveys included the international hip outcome tool-12, short form 12 physical and mental, and veterans RAND 12-item health survey physical and mental. The institution's database automatically computed, stored, and encrypted these values. Using the method described by Norman et al.,37 minimal clinically important difference (MCID)38 for mHHS and HOS-SSS was calculated for both groups. Survivorship rates were determined using the rates of revision arthroscopy and conversion to THA that were recorded during the collection of the follow-up data.
Statistical Analysis
An a priori power analysis was done before statistical analysis to determine the minimum number of hips required to achieve 80% power. Under the assumption that a mean eight-point difference in mHHS would be statistically significant when comparing groups, it was determined that each group required a minimum of 51 patients to demonstrate differences between groups. To calculate significance between preoperative and postoperative groups, a paired Student t-test was used. When comparing measurements between the same surgeon revision group and the group who transferred from an outside practice, a Mann-Whitney test for independent samples was used. When comparing categorical data, a chi-square test was used. P values <0.05 were considered statistically significant. The change from preoperative to postoperative scores (delta) was calculated and compared between the groups. Aside from propensity score matching, all statistical analyses were done with Microsoft Excel (Redmond) and the Real-Statistics add-in.
Results
Patient Demographics
Seventy-six patients had their primary hip arthroscopy with the senior surgeon (same surgeon), and 72 patients had their primary hip arthroscopy with a DS at an outside practice (Figure 1). After propensity score matching using the aforementioned criteria, 71 SS hips (70 patients) and 71 DS hips (70 patients) comprised each group. No significant differences were observed in age at surgery, sex, body mass index, laterality, follow-up time, or time to revision. These findings are outlined in Table 1.
Table 1.
Demographic Data for the SS and DS Groups
| SS | DS | P | |
| Age, years | 35 ± 12.5 | 31.2 ± 10.4 | 0.099 |
| BMI, kg/m2 | 26 ± 4.2 | 26.6 ± 4.8 | 0.432 |
| Sex | 0.201 | ||
| Male | 18 (25.3) | 25 (35.2) | |
| Female | 53 (74.6) | 46 (64.8) | |
| Laterality | 0.313 | ||
| Right | 35 (49.3) | 41 (57.7) | |
| Left | 36 (50.7) | 30 (42.3) | |
| Follow-up time, months | 41.5 ± 18.5 | 46.9 ± 21 | 0.140 |
| Time to revision, months | 22.5 ± 17.9 | 28.3 ± 33.8 | 0.226 |
BMI = body mass index, DS = different surgeon, SS = same surgeon
Values reported as n (%) or mean ± SD; n = sample size.
Radiographic Findings
Radiographs reflected that there was a high proportion of hips graded Tönnis 0 in both groups, with 59 hips (83.1%) in the SS group and 59 hips (83.1%) in the DS group (P > 0.999). The presence or absence of cam morphology was indicated by the alpha angle, with the mean measurement being 47.6° in the SS group and 56.2° in the DS group (P < 0.001), indicating a higher prevalence of cam morphology in the latter cohort. Table 2 outlines these findings.
Table 2.
Radiographic Findings in the SS and DS Groups
| SS | DS | P | |
| Tönnis grade | >0.999 | ||
| 0 | 59 (83.1) | 59 (83.1) | |
| 1 | 12 (16.9) | 12 (16.9) | |
| LCEA (deg) | 29.2 ± 5.3 | 29.8 ± 5.3 | 0.292 |
| Acetabular inclination (deg) | 5.4 ± 4.1 | 5.8 ± 4.4 | 0.617 |
| Lateral joint space (cm) | 0.40 ± 0.1 | 0.41 ± 0.1 | 0.368 |
| ACEA (deg) | 30.5 ± 7.8 | 31.2 ± 5.4 | 0.809 |
| Alpha angle (deg) | 47.6 ± 11.8 | 56.2 ± 12.5 | <0.001 |
ACEA = anterior center edge angle, DS = different surgeon, LCEA = lateral center edge angle, SS = same surgeon
Bold represents statistical significance; values reported as n (%) or mean ± SD; n = sample size.
Intraoperative Findings and Surgical Procedures
Labral tears were extremely prevalent in the DS group at 100% compared with 72.4% in the SS group (P < 0.001). The combined type 1 and 2 labral tears were found in 14.0% of the SS group and 43.7% of the DS group, respectively (P < 0.001). FAI was also more prevalent in the DS group, with 94.4% patients having significant cam and/or pincer morphology (P < 0.0001). Moreover, in the DS group, 93.0% and 60.6% had cam and pincer deformities, respectively (P < 0.0001 and P = 0.0005). Furthermore, acetabular cartilage damage, classified using both acetabular labrum articular disruption and acetabular Outerbridge, was more common in the DS cohort (P = 0.044 and P = 0.006, respectively). Intraoperative findings are provided in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3.
Intraoperative Findings in the SS and DS Groups
| SS | DS | P | |
| Seldes | <0.001 | ||
| 0 | 21 (29.6) | 0 (0) | |
| 1 | 8 (11.3) | 13 (18.3) | |
| 2 | 32 (45.1) | 27 (38.0) | |
| 1 and 2 | 10 (14.0) | 31 (43.7) | |
| ALAD | 0.044 | ||
| 0 | 23 (32.4) | 10 (14.0) | |
| 1 | 18 (25.4) | 26 (36.7) | |
| 2 | 20 (28.2) | 16 (22.5) | |
| 3 | 7 (9.9) | 13 (18.3) | |
| 4 | 3 (4.1) | 6 (8.5) | |
| Acetabular Outerbridge | 0.006 | ||
| 0 | 23 (32.4) | 9 (12.7) | |
| 1 | 18 (25.4) | 25 (35.2) | |
| 2 | 21 (29.6) | 15 (21.1) | |
| 3 | 6 (8.5) | 11 (15.5) | |
| 4 | 3 (4.1) | 11 (15.5) | |
| Femoral head Outerbridge | 0.420 | ||
| 0 | 63 (88.7) | 56 (78.9) | |
| 1 | 0 (0) | 2 (2.8) | |
| 2 | 2 (2.8) | 4 (5.7) | |
| 3 | 4 (5.7) | 7 (9.8) | |
| 4 | 2 (2.8) | 2 (2.8) | |
| LT percentile class: Domb | 0.318 | ||
| 0: No tear | 48 (67.5) | 40 (56.3) | |
| 1: 0% to 50% | 13 (18.3) | 19 (26.9) | |
| 2: 50% to <100% | 6 (8.5) | 10 (14.0) | |
| 3: 100% | 4 (5.7) | 2 (2.8) |
ALAD = acetabular labrum articular disruption, DS = different surgeon, FAI = femoroacetabular impingement, LT = ligamentum teres, SS = same surgeon
Bold represents statistical significance; values reported as n (%); n = sample size.
Table 4.
Presence or Absence of Intraarticular Pathologies
| SS | DS | P | |
| Labral tear | <0.001 | ||
| Yes | 50 (70.4) | 71 (100) | |
| No | 21 (29.6) | 0 (0) | |
| LT tear | 0.167 | ||
| Yes | 23 (32.4) | 31 (43.7) | |
| No | 48 (67.6) | 40 (56.3) | |
| FAI | |||
| Yes | 41 (57.7) | 67 (94.4) | <0.001 |
| No | 30 (42.3) | 4 (5.6) | |
| Cam | 39 (54.9) | 66 (93.0) | <0.001 |
| Pincer | 22 (31.0) | 43 (60.6) | <0.001 |
DS = different surgeon, LT = ligamentum teres, FAI = femoroacetabular impingement
Bold represents statistical significance; values reported as n (%); n = sample size.
Surgical Procedures
Tables 5 and 6 summarize the variety of surgical procedures done in both groups. Labral treatment, defined as either repair or reconstruction, was required in 35.2% of the SS group and 71.8% of the DS group (P < 0.001). An acetabuloplasty of 2 mm or greater was done on 26 SS patients (36.7%) and 47 DS patients, (66.2%) (P < 0.001). Treatment of cam impingement with femoroplasty was required in 57.7% and 94.4% of patients in the SS and DS group, respectively (P < 0.001). The proportion of patients requiring capsular plication or repair was also greater in the DS group at 56.3% (compared with 32.4%, P = 0.004). In addition, microfracture of the acetabulum was done more frequently in the DS group, with 14.1% of patients requiring this procedure (compared with 1.4% in the SS group, P = 0.005).
Table 5.
Surgical Procedures Done in the SS and DS Groups
| SS | DS | P | |
| Labral treatment | <0.001 | ||
| None | 15 (21.1) | 0 (0) | |
| Débridement | 31 (43.7) | 20 (28.2) | |
| Repair | 7 (9.9) | 33 (46.4) | |
| Reconstruction | 18 (25.3) | 18 (25.4) | |
| Capsular treatment | 0.004 | ||
| Repair/plication | 23 (32.4) | 40 (56.3) | |
| Release | 48 (67.6) | 31 (43.7) | |
| Microfracture | |||
| Acetabulum | 1 (1.4) | 10 (14.1) | 0.005 |
| Femoral head | 2 (2.8) | 1 (1.2) | 0.560 |
| LT treatment | 0.438 | ||
| None | 64 (90.1) | 61 (85.9) | |
| Débridement | 7 (9.9) | 10 (14.1) |
DS = different surgeon, LT = ligamentum teres, SS = same surgeon
Bold represents statistical significance; values reported as n (%); n = sample size.
Table 6.
Presence or Absence of Labral, Capsular, and FAI Treatment
| SS | DS | P | |
| Labral repair/reconstruction | <0.001 | ||
| Yes | 25 (35.2) | 51 (71.8) | |
| No | 46 (64.8) | 20 (28.2) | |
| Capsular plication/repair | 0.004 | ||
| Yes | 23 (32.4) | 40 (56.3) | |
| No | 48 (67.6) | 31 (43.7) | |
| Acetabuloplasty | 26 (36.7) | 47 (66.2) | <0.001 |
| Femoroplasty | 41 (57.7) | 67 (94.4) | <0.001 |
DS = different surgeon, SS = same surgeon
Bold represents statistical significance; values reported as n (%); n = sample size.
Patient-reported Outcomes
Table 7 summarizes PROs measured preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. All patients in both the SS and DS groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement from preoperative to the latest follow-up in mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS scores. When comparing mean preoperative and latest scores for all the aforementioned questionnaires, both groups faired similarly (P > 0.05) (Figures 2–4).
Table 7.
Improvement in Patient-reported Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction at the Latest Follow-up for the SS and DS Groups
| SS | DS | P | |
| mHHS | |||
| Pre | 52.8 ± 13.7 (13 to 96) | 54.5 ± 13.9 (24 to 92) | 0.477 |
| Latest | 71.3 ± 20.8 (23 to 100) | 73.9 ± 18.8 (32 to 100) | 0.646 |
| P value | < 0.0001 | < 0.0001 | |
| Delta | 18.3 ± 21.5 (−28-61) | 19 ± 20.1 (−52-70.6) | 0.837 |
| NAHS | |||
| Pre | 51.9 ± 16.4 (5 to 96.3) | 55.6 ± 16 (14 to 91.3) | 0.178 |
| Latest | 71.1 ± 20.2 (17.5 to 100) | 73.7 ± 17.5 (27.5 to 100) | 0.646 |
| P value | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |
| Delta | 18.8 ± 18.8 (−18.8-61.3) | 18.2 ± 18.8 (−21.3 to 61.3) | 0.850 |
| HOS-SSS | |||
| Pre | 29.2 ± 19.2 (0 to 80.6) | 32.9 ± 22.4 (0 to 100) | 0.424 |
| Latest | 50.3 ± 25.4 (0 to 100) | 50.5 ± 25.8 (2.8 to 100) | 0.972 |
| P value | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |
| Delta | 22 ± 27.4 (−50 to 81.9) | 17.5 ± 28.1 (−83.3 to 84.4) | 0.275 |
| VAS | |||
| Pre | 6.2 ± 1.9 (2 to 10) | 5.5 ± 2.1 (0 to 10) | 0.046 |
| Latest | 3.8 ± 2.7 (0 to 10) | 3.6 ± 2.3 (0 to 8.1) | 0.913 |
| P value | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |
| Delta | −2.3 ± 3.2 (−8 to 6.9) | −1.9 ± 2.5 (−9 to 4) | 0.359 |
| iHOT-12 | 58.7 ± 27.4 (4.3 to 100) | 58 ± 22.2 (11 to 98.8) | 0.806 |
| SF-12 | |||
| Mental | 55.3 ± 9.2 (26.3 to 69.4) | 53.2 ± 10.4 (24.8 to 66.1) | 0.334 |
| Physical | 43.2 ± 10.2 (21.3 to 56.8) | 43.9 ± 9.7 (21.1 to 60.6) | 0.842 |
| VR-12 | |||
| Mental | 58.9 ± 8.9 (30.5 to 69.2) | 56.8 ± 11.1 (25.4 to 68.9) | 0.454 |
| Physical | 45.0 ± 9.8 (20.9 to 57.7) | 45.2 ± 9.5 (20.5 to 57.5) | 0.991 |
| Satisfaction | 6.5 ± 2.9 (0 to 10) | 7.1 ± 2.5 (0 to 10) | 0.338 |
DS = different surgeon, HOS-SSS = hip outcome score—sports-specific subscale, iHOT-12= international Hip Outcome Tool-12, mHHS = Modified Harris hip score, NAHS = nonarthritic hip score, SF-12 P and SF-12 M = short form 12 physical and mental, SS = same surgeon, VAS = visual analog scale, VR-12 P and VR-12 M = veterans RAND 12-item health survey physical and mental
Bold represents statistical significance; values reported as mean ± SD.
Figure 2.
Graph showing preoperative and minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes. DS = different surgeon, HOS-SSS = hip outcome score—sports-specific subscale, iHOT-12 = international Hip Outcome Tool 12, mHHS = Modified Harris hip score, NAHS = nonarthritic hip score, SF-12 M and P = short form 12 mental and physical, SS = same surgeon, VR-12 M and P = veterans RAND 12 mental and physical
Figure 4.
Graph showing SS and DS patient satisfaction scores at the most recent follow-up. DS, different surgeon, SS, same surgeon
Figure 3.
Graph showing preoperative and minimum 2-year VAS scores for the SS and DS groups. DS = different surgeon, SS = same surgeon, VAS = visual analog scale
MCIDs for mHHS and HOS-SSS were calculated for both groups. Table 8 summarizes these findings. Fifty-one SS patients (77.3%) and 52 DS patients (77.6%) achieved or exceeded MCID for mHHS (P = 0.963). Similarly, 39 patients (68.4%) and 30 patients (51.7%) met the MCID threshold value for HOS-SSS in the SS and DS groups, respectively (Figure 5).
Table 8.
SS and DS Patients Who Achieved MCID for mHHS and HOS-SSS
| SS | DS | P | |
| mHHS | |||
| MCID | 51 (77.3) | 52 (77.6) | 0.963 |
| HOS-SSS | |||
| MCID | 39 (68.4) | 30 (51.7) | 0.068 |
SS, same surgeon; DS, different surgeon; values reported as n (%); n = sample size; Modified Harris hip score (mHHS); hip outcome score—sports-specific subscale (HOS-SSS); minimal clinically important difference (MCID).
Figure 5.
Graph showing the rates of achieving MCID in the SS and DS groups. DS = different surgeon; HOS-SSS = hip outcome score—sports-specific scale; MCID = minimal clinically important difference; mHHS = Modified Harris hip score; SS = same surgeon
Secondary Procedures
Four patients (5.6%) in the SS group and eight patients (11.3%) in the DS group required re-revision hip arthroscopy (P = 0.228) at a mean 27.9 and 19.2 months, respectively (P = 0.283). The rate of conversion to total hip replacement was also comparable with eight patients (11.3%) in the SS group and five patients (7.0%) in the DS group (P = 0.383). The time to conversion was not statistically significant between groups (P = 0.943) (Table 9).
Table 9.
Rate of Secondary Surgeries in the SS and DS Cohorts
| SS | DS | P | |
| Re-revision arthroscopy, n (%) | 4 (5.6) | 8 (11.3) | 0.228 |
| Time to re-revision arthroscopy, mo | 27.9 ± 16 (10.4-44.2) | 19.2 ± 16.9 (4.3-55.2) | 0.283 |
| Total hip replacement, n (%) | 8 (11.3) | 5 (7.0) | 0.383 |
| Time to total hip replacement, mo | 26.4 ± 15.3 (2.6-47.5) | 31.3 ± 22 (15.1-69.6) | 0.943 |
DS = different surgeon, SS = same surgeon
Values reported as n (%) or mean ± SD (range); n = sample size.
Discussion
Outcomes of revision hip arthroscopy, with strict indications, seem to be unaffected by markedly different intraoperative findings found within pair-matched cohorts managed at the index by DSs. After index procedures, labral tears were present in 100% of DS patients compared with 70.4% of SS patients. FAI from residual bony deformity was found in 94.4% of DS patients and 57.7% of SS patients, which was significantly different (P < 0.001). Both groups demonstrated significant and comparable improvement in mHHS (P = 0.850), HOS-SSS (P = 0.275), and NAHS (P = 0.850) at the minimum 2-year follow-up. Rates of achieving MCID for mHHS and HOS-SSS were similar (P = 0.963 and P = 0.068, respectively) between the groups. Furthermore, the need for revision surgery and conversion to THA were comparable (P = 0.228 and P = 0.383). Revision hip arthroscopy procedures seem to do equally well for patient-reported outcomes at the minimum 2-year follow-up, regardless of index procedure indications and revision surgery type.
The literature repeatedly demonstrates that persistent or residual structural deformity in the form of cam-type and/or pincer-type impingement postoperatively is associated with revision surgery.6,7,39 In this study, we found a markedly increased amount of undertreated or unaddressed FAI in the DS group, which is consistent with previous studies.7,8 In addition, there were notable differences in the DS group, such as correction of FAI, labral tears requiring additional treatment, and capsular plication. Despite these differences, both patient populations were able to achieve similar improvement in outcomes after revision hip arthroscopy. The data demonstrate that the volume-outcome relationship40 holds true in the revision hip arthroscopy setting, irrespective of where the index procedure is done.
In an earlier study by Philippon et al,6 a 95% incidence of residual FAI was reported in a cohort undergoing revision hip arthroscopy, indicating that persistent impingement was the most common indication for revision hip arthroscopy. A more modest benefit of revision hip arthroscopy, with a lower incidence of missed or incompletely treated FAI (32%), was reported by Aprato et al.41 Chondral lesion associated with labral reinjury was the most common finding at revision arthroscopy in a study by Aprato et al.41 In contrast to a study by Philippon et al,6 only 31% of patients underwent revision for persistent FAI according to this study. These authors commented that this observation may be because of differences in patient population or patient selection. However, the rates of untreated or incompletely addressed FAI in the present investigation, with 93.0% and 60.6% of DS patients presenting with cam impingement and pincer impingement, respectively, reinforce the existing literature findings.
There has been a recent surge in relevant literature reporting on revision hip arthroscopy findings and outcomes which echo our study findings. Larson et al.8 compared revision and primary hip arthroscopy cohorts that needed FAI correction and reported good or excellent results in 62.7% of revision cases (mean mHHS improvement of 17.8) compared with 81.7% in primary cases (mean mHHS improvement of 23.4). The findings of our study align with those described here. Both cohorts (SS and DS groups) undergoing revision arthroscopy demonstrated statistically significant improvements in minimum 2-year outcomes. Furthermore, 77.3% and 77.6% of patients in the SS and DS cohorts, respectively, achieved MCID for mHHS, demonstrating clinically significant improvement in addition to statistically significant improvement in PROs. In a recent systematic review that was conducted by Cvetanovich et al,42 the authors concluded that the revision hip arthroscopy is most commonly done for residual FAI and is associated with statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements shown in multiple patient-reported clinical outcome scores at the short-term follow-up.
However, it has also been recently shown that the results after revision hip arthroscopy may not be as durable as those after primary hip arthroscopy. Aprato et al.41 showed decreasing mHHS and satisfaction at the 3-year follow-up. Similarly, Gwathmey et al questioned the durability of revision arthroscopy outcomes in their study echoing the study findings of Aprato et al.15,41 By contrast, our results showed a substantial improvement from preoperative state in the mHHS and HOS-SSS at 2 years, as indicated by the rate of achieving MCID, in most of the revision arthroscopy patients. However, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of revision hip arthroscopy, time to revision, THA conversion rate, or time to conversion between the two groups in our study. Hence, more research on the durability after revision hip arthroscopy is needed to determine long-term function and success in avoiding THA.
Strengths
The present investigation is enhanced by a variety of strengths. Our study design is unique in that we could compare two patient cohorts with similar demographics who underwent revision hip arthroscopy by the SS but differed in the index surgeon. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to compare patients in this manner. Furthermore, these cohorts were compared after propensity score matching, a process that limited the effect of potentially confounding variables. In addition, an a priori power analysis increased the generalizability of the results. The ceiling effect of a single PRO was avoided by including a variety of PROs that were designed for active patients without arthritic hips. Finally, statistical significance was translated into clinical relevance through the calculation of MCID achievement rates.
Limitations
Despite the aforementioned strengths, this study is not without limitations. Although a matched-pair design was implemented, the effect of confounding variables could not be completely eliminated because this was a nonrandomized study. In addition, the study design is retrospective, which may have introduced bias. However, all data were collected prospectively, limiting the effect of the retrospective design. Another key limitation is that we are unable to identify the index surgery indications and procedures in the DS group and the interval between surgeries. Additional investigation as to why the outcomes and THA conversion rates were similar when pathologies and treatments were markedly different between DS and SS groups is needed. Another major limitation is that we lack information on the index surgeon in the DS group. Hence, a sampling bias is likely when the volume-outcome relationship is discussed while only examining the work of a high-volume surgeon. Moreover, re-revision rate in the DS group is twice that in the SS group but was not found to be significant. This is possibly due to a type II error.
Furthermore, it is important to note that the field of hip arthroscopy has evolved markedly over the past decade,10,11,18,19 causing a shift in preferred capsular and labral treatments.11,12,43 Consequently, patients who were treated with labral débridement and capsulotomy without repair earlier in the study period would currently be managed with labral reconstruction and capsular repair/plication.13,14,44 The objective clinical findings (both preoperative and intraoperative) and subjective patient-related outcomes lacked correlation. Furthermore, other than stringent indications, it is difficult to extrapolate the reason for comparable outcome findings between these groups based on these subtle differences. Although the minimal change in the outcome scores, that is notable, helps us understand there is subjective symptomatic improvement, this study reiterates the fact that there may be several less understood patient factors that are at play in dictating patient outcomes. It is also important to consider the ceiling effect when looking at outcome scores because the hip joint is known to show improvement even after revision surgeries. There are unknown or less well-understood patient factors related to successful revision hip arthroscopy surgery noted in this study. Because the present investigation examined minimum 2-year outcomes, long-term follow-up studies were needed to determine the durability of the conclusions presented here. Finally, it is possible that the good and comparable outcomes achieved in different patient cohorts may be a product of this single surgeon's wealth of experience; hence, these results may not be generalizable.
Conclusion
Patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy reported notable improvement in multiple PROs at the minimum 2-year follow-up. Outcomes of revision hip arthroscopy, with strict indications, seem to be unaffected by markedly different intraoperative findings found within pair-matched cohorts managed at the index by DSs. In addition, the rates of achieving MCID for mHHS and HOS-SSS were similar between groups.
Footnotes
Dr. Maldonado reports nonfinancial support from Arthrex, Stryker, Smith & Nephew, and Össur, outside the submitted work; Dr. Maldonado or an immediate family member serves as an editorial board member of Journal of Arthroscopy. Dr. Saks reports grants from Arthrex and personal fees from DJO Global, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lall reports grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Arthrex; nonfinancial support from Iroko, Medwest, Smith & Nephew, Vericel, and Zimmer Biomet; grants and nonfinancial support from Stryker; and personal fees from Graymont Medical, outside the submitted work; and Dr. Lall is the Co-Medical Director of Hip Preservation at St. Alexius Medical Center, the Clinical Instructor at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, and a member of the AANA Learning Center Committee. Dr. Domb reports grants and other from American Orthopedic Foundation, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Adventist Hinsdale Hospital and Orthomerica; personal fees and nonfinancial support from Amplitude and DJO Global; grants, personal fees, and nonfinancial support from Arthrex, Medacta, and St. Alexius Medical Center; grants from Kaufman Foundation, Breg, ATI Physical Therapy, and Össur, outside the submitted work; grants, personal fees, nonfinancial support, and other from Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Stryker, and Mako Surgical Corp, and grants and nonfinancial support from Medwest Associates; in addition, Dr. Domb has a patent 8920497—Method and instrumentation for acetabular labrum reconstruction with royalties paid to Arthrex, a patent 8708941—Adjustable multicomponent hip orthosis with royalties paid to Orthomerica and DJO Global, and a patent 9737292—Knotless suture anchors and methods of tissue repair with royalties paid to Arthrex; and Dr. Domb is the Medical Director of Hip Preservation at St. Alexius Medical Center; is the Clinical Instructor at the University of Illinois College of Medicine; is a board member for the American Hip Institute, Research Foundation, AANA Learning Center Committee, the Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery, and the Journal of Arthroscopy; and has had ownership interests in the American Hip Institute, Hinsdale Orthopedic Associates, Hinsdale Orthopedic Imaging, SCD#3, North Shore Surgical Suites, and Munster Specialty Surgery Center. None of the following authors or any immediate family member has received anything of value from or has stock or stock options held in a commercial company or institution related directly or indirectly to the subject of this article: Dr. Ankem, Diulus, Kyin, and Dr. Jimenez.
This study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. This study was conducted in accordance with relevant regulations of the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Details that might disclose the identity of the subjects under study have been omitted. This study was approved by the IRB (IRB ID: 5276).
This study was performed at the American Hip Institute Research Foundation.
Author Contributions: Dr. Ankem—Design of the work, data analysis, and writing of the article. Diulus—Design of the work, data analysis, and writing of the article. Kyin—Design of the work, data analysis, and writing of the article. Dr. Jimenez—Data interpretation and revision of the article. Dr. Maldonado—Data interpretation and revision of the article. Dr. Sabetian—Data interpretation and revision of the article. Dr. Saks—Data interpretation and revision of the article. Dr. Lall—Supervision, data interpretation, and revision of the article. Dr. Domb—Supervision, data interpretation, and revision of the article. All authors have approved the submitted version of the article and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
References
- 1.Byrd JW, Jones KS: Prospective analysis of hip arthroscopy with 10-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:741-746. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Menge TJ, Briggs KK, Dornan GJ, McNamara SC, Philippon MJ: Survivorship and outcomes 10 years following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: Labral debridement compared with labral repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017;99:997-1004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M, Leunig M, Nötzli H, Siebenrock KA: Femoroacetabular impingement: A cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003;417:112-120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.McCarthy JC, Jarrett BT, Ojeifo O, Lee JA, Bragdon CR: What factors influence long-term survivorship after hip arthroscopy? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469:362-371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Domb BG, Philippon MJ, Giordano BD: Arthroscopic capsulotomy, capsular repair, and capsular plication of the hip: Relation to atraumatic instability. Arthroscopy 2013;29:162-173. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Philippon MJ, Schenker ML, Briggs KK, Kuppersmith DA, Maxwell RB, Stubbs AJ: Revision hip arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:1918-1921. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Ross JR, Larson CM, Adeoye O, Adeoyo O, Kelly BT, Bedi A: Residual deformity is the most common reason for revision hip arthroscopy: A three-dimensional CT study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015;473:1388-1395. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Larson CM, Giveans MR, Samuelson KM, Stone RM, Bedi A: Arthroscopic hip revision surgery for residual femoroacetabular impingement (FAI): Surgical outcomes compared with a matched cohort after primary arthroscopic FAI correction. Am J Sports Med 2014;42:1785-1790. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hoppe DJ, de SA D, Simunovic N, et al. : The learning curve for hip arthroscopy: A systematic review. Arthroscopy 2014;30:389-397. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Chen AW, Steffes MJ, Laseter JR, et al. : The education and training of future hip preservation surgeons: Aggregate recommendations of high-volume surgeons. J Hip Preserv Surg 2018;5:307-311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Domb BG, Chen SL, Shapira J, Maldonado DR, Lall AC, Rosinsky PJ: The evolution of hip arthroscopy: What has changed since 2008-A single surgeon's experience. Arthroscopy 2020;36:761-772. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Lynch TS, Minkara A, Aoki S, et al. : Best practice guidelines for hip arthroscopy in femoroacetabular impingement: Results of a Delphi process. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2019;28:81-89. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Domb BG, Battaglia MR, Perets I, et al. : Minimum 5-year outcomes of arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction with nested matched-pair benchmarking against a labral repair control group. Am J Sports Med 2019;47:2045-2055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Domb BG, Hartigan DE, Perets I: Decision making for labral treatment in the hip: Repair versus débridement versus reconstruction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2017;25:e53-e62. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Domb BG, Stake CE, Lindner D, El-Bitar Y, Jackson TJ: Revision hip preservation surgery with hip arthroscopy: Clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy 2014;30:581-587. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Mansor Y, Perets I, Close MR, Mu BH, Domb BG: Search of the spherical femoroplasty: Cam overresection leads to inferior functional scores before and after revision hip arthroscopic surgery. Am J Sports Med 2018;46:2061-2071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Alradwan H, Philippon MJ, Farrokhyar F, et al. : Return to preinjury activity levels after surgical management of femoroacetabular impingement in athletes. Arthroscopy 2012;28:1567-1576. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Gupta A, Suarez-Ahedo C, Redmond JM, et al. : Best practices during hip arthroscopy: Aggregate recommendations of high-volume surgeons. Arthroscopy 2015;31:1722-1727. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Maldonado DR, Lall AC, Walker-Santiago R, et al. : Hip labral reconstruction: Consensus study on indications, graft type and technique among high-volume surgeons. J Hip Preserv Surg 2019;6:41-49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Perets I, Rybalko D, Mu BH, et al. : Revision hip arthroscopy, labral reconstruction can address a deficient labrum, but labral repair retains its role for the reparable labrum: A matched control study. Am J Sports Med 2018;46:3437-3445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Austin PC: Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: Results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biom J 2009;51:171-184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Clohisy JC, Carlisle JC, Beaulé PE, et al. : A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008;90(suppl 4):47-66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Lequesne MG, Laredo JD: The faux profil (oblique view) of the hip in the standing position. Contribution to the evaluation of osteoarthritis of the adult hip. Ann Rheum Dis 1998;57:676-681. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Wiberg G: Shelf operation in congenital dysplasia of the acetabulum and in subluxation and dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1953;35-A:65-80. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Nötzli HP, Wyss TF, Stoecklin CH, Schmid MR, Treiber K, Hodler J: The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002;84:556-560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Barton C, Salineros MJ, Rakhra KS, Beaulé PE: Validity of the alpha angle measurement on plain radiographs in the evaluation of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;469:464-469. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Gray AJ, Villar RN: The ligamentum teres of the hip: An arthroscopic classification of its pathology. Arthroscopy 1997;13:575-578. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Botser IB, Martin DE, Stout CE, Domb BG: Tears of the ligamentum teres: Prevalence in hip arthroscopy using 2 classification systems. Am J Sports Med 2011;39(suppl):117S-125S. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Seldes RM, Tan V, Hunt J, Katz M, Winiarsky R, Fitzgerald RH: Anatomy, histologic features, and vascularity of the adult acetabular labrum. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001;382:232-240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Outerbridge RE: The etiology of chondromalacia patellae. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1961;43-B:752-757. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Hevesi M, Hartigan DE, Wu IT, et al. : The rapidly assessed predictor of intraoperative damage (RAPID) score: An in-clinic predictive model for high-grade Acetabular chondrolabral disruption. Orthop J Sports Med 2018;6:2325967118799068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.MacInnis LE, Al Hussain A, Coady C, Wong IH: Labral gracilis tendon allograft reconstruction and cartilage regeneration scaffold for an uncontained acetabular cartilage defect of the hip. Arthrosc Tech 2017;6:e613-e619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Matsuda DK, Burchette RJ: Arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction with a gracilis autograft versus labral refixation: 2-year minimum outcomes. Am J Sports Med 2013;41:980-987. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Maldonado DR, Chen JW, Lall AC, et al. : Microfracture in hip arthroscopy. Keep it simple. Arthrosc Tech 2019;8:e1063-e1067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Ankem HK, Yelton MJ, Lall AC, et al. : Structured physical therapy protocols following hip arthroscopy and their effect on patient-reported outcomes—a systematic review of the literature. J Hip Preservation Surg 2020;7:357-377. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Lodhia P, Slobogean GP, Noonan VK, Gilbart MK: Patient-reported outcome instruments for femoroacetabular impingement and hip labral pathology: A systematic review of the clinimetric evidence. Arthroscopy 2011;27:279-286. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW: Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003;41:582-592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Levy DM, Kuhns BD, Chahal J, Philippon MJ, Kelly BT, Nho SJ: Hip arthroscopy outcomes with respect to patient acceptable symptomatic state and minimal clinically important difference. Arthroscopy 2016;32:1877-1886. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Haefeli PC, Albers CE, Steppacher SD, Tannast M, Büchler L: What are the risk factors for revision surgery after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement at 7-year followup? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017;475:1169-1177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Mehta N, Chamberlin P, Marx RG, et al. : Defining the learning curve for hip arthroscopy: A threshold analysis of the volume-outcomes relationship. Am J Sports Med 2018;46:1284-1293. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Aprato A, Jayasekera N, Villar RN: Revision hip arthroscopic surgery: Outcome at three years. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014;22:932-937. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Cvetanovich GL, Harris JD, Erickson BJ, Bach BR, Bush-Joseph CA, Nho SJ: Revision hip arthroscopy: A systematic review of diagnoses, operative findings, and outcomes. Arthroscopy 2015;31:1382-1390. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Byrd JWT: Editorial commentary: Hip arthroscopy-A microcosm in the evolution of arthroscopy in sports medicine. Arthroscopy 2020;36:773-775. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Ortiz-Declet V, Mu B, Chen AW, et al. : Should the capsule Be repaired or plicated after hip arthroscopy for labral tears associated with femoroacetabular impingement or instability? A systematic review. Arthroscopy 2018;34:303-318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]