The maximal outcome improvement threshold for willingness to undergo revision hip arthroscopy (MOWT) has not been defined yet.
Purpose:
To determine the percentage MOWT in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy and to identify predictors of achieving the MOWT.
Study Design:
Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
An anchor question was provided to patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between April 2008 and June 2020 who returned for follow-up between August 2019 and June 2021 at one institution. Patients were included if they underwent revision hip arthroscopy, had answered the anchor question, and had baseline and postoperative minimum 1-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia, previous hip conditions, or unwillingness to participate. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the MOWT. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine intraoperative predictors of achieving the MOWT.
Results:
In total, 153 patients (163 hips) were included, with 117 female hips (71.8%), a mean patient age of 34.3 ± 12.4 years, and an average follow-up time of 61.6 ± 42.7 months. It was determined that 77.3% of the patients reported that they would choose to undergo the revision hip arthroscopy again. The MOWT for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS was 43.1%, 53%, and 33.4%, respectively. The probability of choosing to undergo revision surgery if the MOWT was achieved was 77.5%, 77.6%, and 79.2%, for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS, respectively. Patients with residual cam-type morphology, which was addressed during the revision, were 2.3 times more likely to achieve the MOWT for the VAS (P = .014).
Conclusion:
Patients who improved 43.1%, 53%, and 33.4% of their MOWT for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS, respectively, were likely to be willing to undergo revision hip arthroscopy again. Moreover, the presence of residual cam-type femoroacetabular impingement morphology before their revision surgery was identified as a predictor to achieve the MOWT for the VAS.
AgarwallaAGowdAKLiuJN, et al. Predicting patient satisfaction with maximal outcome improvement after biceps tenodesis. Orthopedics. 2021;44(3):e359-e366.
2.
AgarwallaAPuzzitielloRNLiuJN, et al. Timeline for maximal subjective outcome improvement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(10):2501-2509.
3.
ApratoAJayasekeraNVillarRN. Does the modified Harris Hip Score reflect patient satisfaction after hip arthroscopy?Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(11):2557-2560.
4.
AshbergLCloseMRPeretsI, et al. Do femoral head osteochondral lesions predict a poor outcome in hip arthroscopy patients? A matched control study with minimum 5-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(2):419-431.
5.
BeckECGowdAKLiuJN, et al. How is maximum outcome improvement defined in patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy for rotator cuff repair? A 1-year follow-up study. Arthroscopy. 2020;36(7):1805-1810.
6.
BerglundDDDamodarDVakhariaRM, et al. Predicting outstanding results after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty using percentage of maximal outcome improvement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(2):349-356.
7.
BodendorferBMAlterTDWolffAB, et al. Multicenter outcomes after revision hip arthroscopy: comparative analysis of 2-year outcomes after labral repair versus labral reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2021;49(11):2968-2976.
8.
BotserIBMartinDEStoutCEDombBG. Tears of the ligamentum teres: prevalence in hip arthroscopy using 2 classification systems. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(1)(suppl):117-125.
9.
BrowningRBClappIMKrivicichLMNwachukwuBUChahlaJNhoSJ. Repeat revision hip arthroscopy outcomes match that of initial revision but not that of primary surgery for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Arthroscopy. 2021;37(12):3434-3441.
10.
CallaghanJJRosenbergAGRubashHE. The Adult Hip. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1998.
11.
CancienneJMBeckECKunzeKN, et al. Two-year patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with capsular incompetency. Arthroscopy. 2020;36(1):127-136.
12.
ChalupaRLRiveraJCTennentDJJohnsonAE. Correlation between femoral neck shaft angle and surgical management in trainees with femoral neck stress fractures. US Army Med Dep J. 2016;1-5.
13.
ChandrasekaranSDarwishNChaharbakhshiEOSuarez-AhedoCLodhiaPDombBG. Minimum 2-year outcomes of hip arthroscopic surgery in patients with acetabular overcoverage and profunda acetabulae compared with matched controls with normal acetabular coverage. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(11):2483-2492.
14.
ChristensenCPAlthausenPLMittlemanMALeeJMcCarthyJC. The nonarthritic hip score: reliable and validated. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;406:75-83.
15.
DeVitoPDamodarDBerglundD, et al. Predicting outstanding results after reverse shoulder arthroplasty using percentage of maximal outcome improvement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(7):1223-1231.
16.
DombBGAnninSChenJW, et al. Optimal treatment of cam morphology may change the natural history of femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(12):2887-2896.
17.
DombBGBattagliaMRPeretsI, 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(9):2045-2055.
18.
DombBGKyinCGoCC, et al. Arthroscopic circumferential acetabular labral reconstruction for irreparable labra in the revision setting: patient-reported outcome scores and rate of achieving the minimal clinically important difference at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2021;49(7):1750-1758.
19.
GrayAJVillarRN. The ligamentum teres of the hip: an arthroscopic classification of its pathology. Arthroscopy. 1997;13(5):575-578.
20.
GuptaARedmondJMHammarstedtJEStakeCELiuYDombBG. Arthroscopic decompression of central acetabular impingement with notchplasty. Arthrosc Tech. 2014;3(5):e555-e558.
21.
HaeberleHSRamkumarPNKarnutaJM, et al. Predicting the risk of subsequent hip surgery before primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: a machine learning analysis of preoperative risk factors in hip preservation. Am J Sports Med. 2021;49(10):2668-2676.
22.
HosmerDLemeshowS. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. John Wiley; 2000.
23.
LallACSaadatAABattagliaMRMaldonadoDRPeretsIDombBG. Perineal pressure during hip arthroscopy is reduced by use of Trendelenburg: a prospective study with randomized order of positioning. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019;477(8):1851-1857.
24.
LaskoTABhagwatJGZouKHOhno-MachadoL. The use of receiver operating characteristic curves in biomedical informatics. J Biomed Inform. 2005;38(5):404-415.
25.
MakhniECRamkumarPNCvetanovichGNhoSJ. Approach to the patient with failed hip arthroscopy for labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28(13):538-545.
26.
MaldonadoDRChenJWLallAC, et al. Microfracture in hip arthroscopy: keep it simple!Arthrosc Tech. 2019;8(9):e1063-e1067.
27.
MaldonadoDRChenJWWalker-SantiagoR, et al. Forget the greater trochanter! Hip joint access with the 12 o'clock portal in hip arthroscopy. Arthrosc Tech. 2019;8(6):e575-e584.
28.
MaldonadoDRKyinCRosinskyPJ, et al. Minimum 5-year outcomes for revision hip arthroscopy with a prospective subanalysis against a propensity-matched control primary group. Am J Sports Med. 2021;49(8):2090-2101.
29.
MaldonadoDRKyinCShapiraJ, et al. Defining the maximum outcome improvement of the modified Harris Hip Score, the Nonarthritic Hip Score, the visual analog scale for pain, and the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 in the arthroscopic management for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and labral tear. Arthroscopy. 2021;37(5):1477-1485.
30.
MaldonadoDRKyinCShapiraJ, et al. Revision hip arthroscopy in the borderline dysplastic population: reporting outcomes with minimum 2-year follow-up, with a subanalysis against a propensity-matched nondysplastic control group. Am J Sports Med. 2021;49(1):66-75.
31.
MaldonadoDRLaReauJMPeretsI, et al. Outcomes of hip arthroscopy with concomitant periacetabular osteotomy, minimum 5-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(3):826-834.
32.
MaldonadoDRLaseterJRPeretsI, et al. The effect of complete tearing of the ligamentum teres in patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement and labral tears: a match-controlled study. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(1):80-88.
33.
MaldonadoDRPeretsIMuBH, et al. Arthroscopic capsular plication in patients with labral tears and borderline dysplasia of the hip: analysis of risk factors for failure. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(14):3446-3453.
34.
MansorYPeretsICloseMRMuBHDombBG. In 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(9):2061-2071.
35.
Martínez-CamblorPPardo-FernándezJC. The Youden index in the generalized receiver operating characteristic curve context. Int J Biostat. 2019;15(1):20180060. doi:10.1515/ijb-2018-0060
36.
NötzliHPWyssTFStoecklinCHSchmidMRTreiberKHodlerJ. The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2002;84(4):556-560.
37.
NwachukwuBUChangBRotterB-ZKellyBTRanawatASNawabiDH. Minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after revision hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(6):1862-1868.
38.
O’ConnorMSteinlGKPadakiASDuchmanKRWestermannRWLynchTS. Outcomes of revision hip arthroscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(5):1254-1262.
39.
OuterbridgeRE. The etiology of chondromalacia patellae. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1961;43:752-757.
40.
PeretsIRybalkoDMuBH, et al. In 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(14):3437-3445.
41.
RahlMDLaPorteCSteinlGKO’ConnorMLynchTSMengeTJ. Outcomes after arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(7):1748-1755.
42.
RosinskyPJChenJWYeltonMJ, et al. Does failure to meet threshold scores for mHHS and iHOT-12 correlate to secondary operations following hip arthroscopy?J Hip Preserv Surg. 2020;7(2):272-280.
43.
SardanaVPhilipponMJde SaD, et al. Revision hip arthroscopy indications and outcomes: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(10):2047-2055.
44.
SeldesRMTanVHuntJKatzMWiniarskyRFitzgeraldRH. Anatomy, histologic features, and vascularity of the adult acetabular labrum. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;382:232-240.
45.
ShapiraJBheemRKyinC, et al. Can patient-reported outcomes predict the need for secondary surgeries after hip arthroscopy?Am J Sports Med. 2021;49(1):97-103.
46.
ShapiraJKyinCGoC, et al. Indications and outcomes of secondary hip procedures after failed hip arthroscopy: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2020;36(7):1992-2007.
47.
Suarez-AhedoCGuiCRabeSMChandrasekaranSLodhiaPDombBG. Acetabular chondral lesions in hip arthroscopy: relationships between grade, topography, and demographics. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(11):2501-2506.
48.
YangSBerdineG. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Southwest Respir Crit Care Chronicles. 2017;5(19):34-36.
49.
ZusmanovichMHaselmanWSerranoBBanffyM. The incidence of hip arthroscopy in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and labral pathology increased by 85% between 2011 and 2018 in the United States. Arthroscopy. 2022;38(1):82-87.
