BACKGROUND: As the number of hip arthroscopic surgeries being performed increases, so too does the prevalence of revision hip arthroscopic surgery. HYPOTHESIS/ PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes in patients requiring revision hip arthroscopic surgery to patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery. The hypothesis was that patients undergoing revisions would demonstrate similar outcomes to those undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Included in the study were patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopic surgery who did not have a history of prior open hip surgery. Each patient in the revision cohort was matched with 2 patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery. Preoperatively and at a minimum follow-up of 2 years, outcome scores were collected, including the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living subscale (HOS-ADL), which was the primary outcome variable; modified Harris hip score (mHHS); Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC); Hip Outcome Score-Sports subscale (HOS-Sports); and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF12). At follow-up, scores from the Tegner activity scale and patient self-reported satisfaction with surgical outcome were also collected. RESULTS: A total of 246 patients in the revision cohort were matched with 492 patients in the primary cohort. In the revision cohort, 183 patients had 1 prior surgery, 45 had 2 surgeries, and 18 had ≥3 prior surgeries. Subsequent hip arthroscopic surgery was reported in 39 of 492 (8%) patients in the primary cohort and 5 of 246 (2%) patients in the revision cohort (P = .001). Subsequent surgery was reported in 50 of 492 (10%) patients in the primary cohort and 15 of 246 (6%) patients in the revision cohort (P = .07). Both groups saw significant improvement in outcome scores from preoperation to follow-up. The HOS-ADL was lower in the revision cohort preoperatively (65 vs 70) and postoperatively (79 vs 87) (P = .001). This was also seen in the HOS-Sports, WOMAC, and SF12 physical component scores. Patients who had 1 prior hip arthroscopic procedure had higher postoperative mHHS (81 vs 75) compared with patients with >1 hip arthroscopic procedure; however, there was no difference in postoperative mHHS between the single-revision cohort and the primary cohort. In the revision group, patients whose HOS-ADL improved ≥10 points had greater joint space. Patients with greater improvement were more likely to have had a previous labral tear that was not repaired and to require capsular plication at revision. CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery had significant improvement in outcome scores but did have lower scores compared with patients with primary hip arthroscopies. Patients with ≥2 revisions had lower outcomes. Improvement in the revision cohort was seen in patients with increased joint space, no prior labral repair, and capsular plication at revision.
BACKGROUND: As the number of hip arthroscopic surgeries being performed increases, so too does the prevalence of revision hip arthroscopic surgery. HYPOTHESIS/ PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes in patients requiring revision hip arthroscopic surgery to patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery. The hypothesis was that patients undergoing revisions would demonstrate similar outcomes to those undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Included in the study were patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopic surgery who did not have a history of prior open hip surgery. Each patient in the revision cohort was matched with 2 patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery. Preoperatively and at a minimum follow-up of 2 years, outcome scores were collected, including the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living subscale (HOS-ADL), which was the primary outcome variable; modified Harris hip score (mHHS); Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC); Hip Outcome Score-Sports subscale (HOS-Sports); and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF12). At follow-up, scores from the Tegner activity scale and patient self-reported satisfaction with surgical outcome were also collected. RESULTS: A total of 246 patients in the revision cohort were matched with 492 patients in the primary cohort. In the revision cohort, 183 patients had 1 prior surgery, 45 had 2 surgeries, and 18 had ≥3 prior surgeries. Subsequent hip arthroscopic surgery was reported in 39 of 492 (8%) patients in the primary cohort and 5 of 246 (2%) patients in the revision cohort (P = .001). Subsequent surgery was reported in 50 of 492 (10%) patients in the primary cohort and 15 of 246 (6%) patients in the revision cohort (P = .07). Both groups saw significant improvement in outcome scores from preoperation to follow-up. The HOS-ADL was lower in the revision cohort preoperatively (65 vs 70) and postoperatively (79 vs 87) (P = .001). This was also seen in the HOS-Sports, WOMAC, and SF12 physical component scores. Patients who had 1 prior hip arthroscopic procedure had higher postoperative mHHS (81 vs 75) compared with patients with >1 hip arthroscopic procedure; however, there was no difference in postoperative mHHS between the single-revision cohort and the primary cohort. In the revision group, patients whose HOS-ADL improved ≥10 points had greater joint space. Patients with greater improvement were more likely to have had a previous labral tear that was not repaired and to require capsular plication at revision. CONCLUSION:Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery had significant improvement in outcome scores but did have lower scores compared with patients with primary hip arthroscopies. Patients with ≥2 revisions had lower outcomes. Improvement in the revision cohort was seen in patients with increased joint space, no prior labral repair, and capsular plication at revision.
Authors: Melisa L Wong; Steven M Paul; Judy Mastick; Christine Ritchie; Michael A Steinman; Louise C Walter; Christine Miaskowski Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2018-08-23 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Chace Shaw; Hunter Warwick; Kevin H Nguyen; Thomas M Link; Sharmila Majumdar; Richard B Souza; Thomas P Vail; Alan L Zhang Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 3.102
Authors: Kadir Buyukdogan; Hajime Utsunomiya; Ioanna Bolia; Lorenzo Fagotti; George F Lebus; Karen K Briggs; Marc J Philippon Journal: Arthrosc Tech Date: 2017-10-09