BACKGROUND: Hip arthroscopy is increasingly being used in joint preservation surgery with clear benefits in the treatment of prearthritic conditions. A number of patients, however, will still go on to require subsequent hip arthroplasty, and at present, little evidence exists determining the impact that prior hip arthroscopy may have on the outcomes of a subsequent arthroplasty. METHODS: Using prospectively collated data, we identified 35 patients who had a hip arthroplasty (22 total hip arthroplasties and 13 hip resurfacing arthroplasties) after prior ipsilateral hip arthroscopy (cases). Cases were matched for age, gender, and prosthesis type with 70 controls (patients who received a primary arthroplasty over the same period, without prior arthroscopy). Outcome measures included range of movement, implant survival, complications, and functional outcome (Oxford Hip Score and Harris Hip Score). RESULTS: There was no demonstrable difference in improved range of motion after hip arthroplasty between the 2 groups, across any axis of movement (flexion, extension, internal/external rotation, abduction, and adduction; P = .07-.78). There was no significant difference in complication rate (P = .72). Overall 7-year implant survival was 85.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75-95.8). There was no difference in survival between cases (87.6%; 95% CI, 73.5-100) and controls (86.3%; 95% CI, 74.6%-98.0%; P = .2). Ten of the 11 revision arthroplasties performed were due to adverse reactions to metal debris in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty cases (P = .01). There was no difference in improvement of functional outcome postarthroplasty between groups (P = .48-.76). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that hip arthroscopy does not adversely influence outcome of a subsequent hip arthroplasty.
BACKGROUND: Hip arthroscopy is increasingly being used in joint preservation surgery with clear benefits in the treatment of prearthritic conditions. A number of patients, however, will still go on to require subsequent hip arthroplasty, and at present, little evidence exists determining the impact that prior hip arthroscopy may have on the outcomes of a subsequent arthroplasty. METHODS: Using prospectively collated data, we identified 35 patients who had a hip arthroplasty (22 total hip arthroplasties and 13 hip resurfacing arthroplasties) after prior ipsilateral hip arthroscopy (cases). Cases were matched for age, gender, and prosthesis type with 70 controls (patients who received a primary arthroplasty over the same period, without prior arthroscopy). Outcome measures included range of movement, implant survival, complications, and functional outcome (Oxford Hip Score and Harris Hip Score). RESULTS: There was no demonstrable difference in improved range of motion after hip arthroplasty between the 2 groups, across any axis of movement (flexion, extension, internal/external rotation, abduction, and adduction; P = .07-.78). There was no significant difference in complication rate (P = .72). Overall 7-year implant survival was 85.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75-95.8). There was no difference in survival between cases (87.6%; 95% CI, 73.5-100) and controls (86.3%; 95% CI, 74.6%-98.0%; P = .2). Ten of the 11 revision arthroplasties performed were due to adverse reactions to metal debris in metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty cases (P = .01). There was no difference in improvement of functional outcome postarthroplasty between groups (P = .48-.76). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that hip arthroscopy does not adversely influence outcome of a subsequent hip arthroplasty.
Authors: Bailey J Ross; Ryan J Wortman; Olivia C Lee; Alfred A Mansour; Wendell W Cole; William F Sherman Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2022-09-30
Authors: David A Bloom; Stephen W Yu; Matthew T Kingery; Nainisha Chintalapudi; Christopher Looze; Thomas Youm Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2020-12-24