Literature DB >> 25632056

Does Primary Hip Arthroscopy Result in Improved Clinical Outcomes?: 2-Year Clinical Follow-up on a Mixed Group of 738 Consecutive Primary Hip Arthroscopies Performed at a High-Volume Referral Center.

Asheesh Gupta1, John M Redmond1, Christine E Stake1, Kevin F Dunne1, Benjamin G Domb2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hip arthroscopy has gained increasing popularity over the past decade. The need to develop metrics to evaluate success and complications in primary hip arthroscopy is an important goal.
PURPOSE: To evaluate 2-year patient-related outcome (PRO) scores and patient satisfaction scores for a single surgeon at a high-volume referral center for all primary hip arthroscopy procedures performed. STUDY
DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS: During the study period between April 2008 and October 2011, data were collected on all patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively with 4 PRO measures: the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS). Pain was estimated on the visual analog scale (VAS), and satisfaction was measured on a scale from 0 to 10. The number of patients who underwent revision arthroscopy, total hip arthroplasty (THA), or a resurfacing procedure during the study period was also reported.
RESULTS: A total of 595 patients were included in the study. The score improvement from preoperative to 2-year follow-up was 61.29 to 82.02 for mHHS, 62.79 to 83.05 for HOS-ADL, 40.96 to 70.07 for HOS-SSS, 57.97 to 80.41 for NAHS, and 5.86 to 2.97 for VAS. All scores were statistically significantly different (P < .0001). Overall patient satisfaction was 7.86 ± 2.3 (range, 1-10). Forty-seven (7.7%) patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy, and 54 (9.1%) patients underwent either THA or the hip resurfacing procedure during the study period. The multivariate regression analysis showed that increased age at time of surgery was a significant risk factor for conversion to THA, revision arthroscopy, and change in NAHS <10 points. Acute injury, acetabuloplasty, iliopsoas release, and patient sex were significant for 2 of these 3 types of failure.
CONCLUSION: Primary hip arthroscopy for all procedures performed in aggregate had excellent clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction scores at short-term follow-up in this study. More studies must be conducted to determine the definition of a successful outcome. There was a 6.1% minor complication rate, which was consistent with previous studies. Patients should be counseled regarding the potential progression of degenerative change leading to arthroplasty as well as the potential for revision surgery.
© 2015 The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  FAI; high-volume referral center; hip arthroscopy; labral tears; outcomes

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25632056     DOI: 10.1177/0363546514562563

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Sports Med        ISSN: 0363-5465            Impact factor:   6.202


  34 in total

Review 1.  Radiographic predictors of femoroacetabular impingement treatment outcomes.

Authors:  Ryan M Degen; Danyal H Nawabi; Asheesh Bedi; Bryan T Kelly
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-09-19       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Revisiting the Anteroinferior Iliac Spine: Is the Subspine Pathologic? A Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation.

Authors:  Michael R Karns; Temitope F Adeyemi; Andrew R Stephens; Stephen K Aoki; Mark E Beese; Michael J Salata; Travis G Maak
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Os acetabuli and femoro-acetabular impingement: aetiology, incidence, treatment, and results.

Authors:  Filippo Randelli; Daniela Maglione; Sara Favilla; Paolo Capitani; Alessandra Menon; Pietro Randelli
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-10-03       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Arthroscopic release of iliopsoas tendon in patients with femoro-acetabular impingement: clinical results at mid-term follow-up.

Authors:  Rodrigo Mardones; Alessio Giai Via; Alexander Tomic; Claudio Rodriguez; Matias Salineros; Marcelo Somarriva
Journal:  Muscles Ligaments Tendons J       Date:  2016-12-21

5.  Arthroscopic Femoral Osteochondroplasty for Cam-Type Femoroacetabular Impingement: The Trough Technique.

Authors:  Stephen K Aoki; James T Beckmann; James D Wylie
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2016-07-18

6.  Hip arthroscopy with initial access to the peripheral compartment provides significant improvement in FAI patients.

Authors:  Pedro Dantas; Sérgio Gonçalves; Vasco Mascarenhas; Antonio Camporese; Oliver Marin-Peña
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-01-02       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Rates and Risk Factors for Revision Hip Arthroscopy.

Authors:  Christopher R West; Nicholas A Bedard; Kyle R Duchman; Robert W Westermann; John J Callaghan
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2019

8.  A FOUR-PHASE PHYSICAL THERAPY REGIMEN FOR RETURNING ATHLETES TO SPORT FOLLOWING HIP ARTHROSCOPY FOR FEMOROACETABULAR IMPINGEMENT WITH ROUTINE CAPSULAR CLOSURE.

Authors:  Benjamin D Kuhns; Alexander E Weber; Brian Batko; Shane J Nho; Catherine Stegemann
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2017-08

Review 9.  Pudendal nerve injury is a relatively common but transient complication of hip arthroscopy.

Authors:  Anthony Habib; Chloe E Haldane; Seper Ekhtiari; Darren de Sa; Nicole Simunovic; Etienne L Belzile; Olufemi R Ayeni
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2017-11-08       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Arthroscopic treatment of global pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement.

Authors:  Thomas L Sanders; Patrick Reardon; Bruce A Levy; Aaron J Krych
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.