Since its creation, labral repair has become the preferred method among surgeons for the arthroscopic treatment of acetabular labral tears resulting in pain and dysfunction for patients. Labral reconstruction is performed mainly in revision hip arthroscopy but can be used in the primary setting when the labrum cannot be repaired or is calcified. The purpose of this study was to compare the survival between primary labral repair and labral reconstruction with survival defined as no further surgery (revision or total hip replacement). Patients who underwent labral repair or reconstruction between January 2005 and December 2018 in the primary setting were included in the study. Patients were included if they had primary hip arthroscopy with the senior author for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), involving either labral reconstruction or labral repair, and were within the ages of 18 and 65 at the time of surgery. Exclusion criteria included confounding injuries (Leggs Calves Perthes, avascular necrosis, femoral head fracture, etc.), history of unilateral or bilateral hip surgeries, or Tönnis grades of 2 or 3 at the time of surgery. Labral repairs were performed when adequate tissue was available for repair and labral reconstruction was performed when tissue was absent, ossified or torn beyond repair. A total of 501 labral repairs and 114 labral reconstructions performed in the primary setting were included in the study. Labral reconstruction patients were older (37±10) compared to labral repair (34±11).(p=0.021). Second surgeries were required in 19/114 (17%) of labral reconstruction and 40/501(8%) [odds ratio: 2.3; 95% CI 1.3 to 4.2] (p=0.008). Revision hip arthroscopy were required in 6/114(5%) labral reconstructions and 33/501(6.5%) labral repair (p=0.496). Total hip replacement was required in 13/114 labral reconstructions and 7/501 labral repairs [odds ratio:9.1 95%CI 3.5 to 23] (p=< 0.01). The mean survival for the labral repair group was 10.2 years (95%CI:10 to 10.5) and 11.9 years (98%CI:10.9 to 12.8) in the labral reconstruction group. Conversion to total hip was required more often following primary labral reconstruction. Revision hip arthroscopy rates were similar between groups as was the mean survival, with both over 10 years. Similar survival was seen in labral repair and reconstruction when strict patient selection criteria are followed

We present a prospective two-year follow-up study of 1038 hip arthroscopies performed at a high volume tertiary referral centre for hip preservation. We feel that this manuscript is both pertinent and timely due to the advances in the field of hip preservation. We used four validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores along with the visual analog scale (VAS) and patient satisfaction scores to assess preoperative and postoperative outcomes in all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. We divided the entire cohort into patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroscopies. We found a statistically significant improvement from preoperative to two-year postoperative PRO scores in the two subgroups. We also found a significant difference in the PRO scores at three months, one year, and two years postoperatively between the primary and revision subgroups. The revision subgroup had inferior VAS and patient satisfaction compared to the primary subgroup, however these results were not significant. The conversion to total hip arthroplasty/hip resurfacing (THA/HR) was 5.6% and 11.2% in the primary and revision subgroups, respectively. This resulted in a relative risk of 2.0 for conversion to THA/HR in the revision subgroup. We had a complication rate of 5.3 (only 0.5% of which were considered major) which was similar to that reported in the literature for hip arthroscopy. The primary purpose was to perform a survival analysis in a large mixed cohort of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy at a high volume tertiary referral centre for hip preservation with minimum two-year follow-up. The secondary purpose was to compare clinical outcomes of primary versus revision hip arthroscopy. From February 2008 to June 2012, data were prospectively collected on all patients undergoing primary or revision hip arthroscopy. Patients were assessed pre- and post-operatively with 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 Subscales (HOS-SSS). Pain was estimated on the visual analog scale (VAS). Patient satisfaction was measured on a scale from 0 to 10. There were a total of 1155 arthroscopies performed, including 1040 primary arthroscopies (926 patients) and 115 revision arthroscopies (106 patients). Of these, 931 primary arthroscopies (89.5%) in 824 patients (89.0%) and 107 revision arthroscopies (93.0%) in 97 patients (91.5%), were available for follow-up and included in our study. The mean change in patient reported outcome (PRO) scores at two-year follow-up in the primary subgroup was 17.4 for mHHS, 19.7 for HOS-ADL, 23.8 for HOS-SSS, 21.3 for NAHS, and −3.0 for VAS. The mean change in PRO scores at two-year follow-up in the revision subgroup was 13.4, 10.9, 16.1, 15.4, and −2.7, respectively. All scores improved significantly compared to pre-operatively (p<0.001). PRO scores were higher at all time points for the primary subgroup compared to the revision subgroup (p<0.05). Satisfaction was 7.7 and 7.2 for primary and revision subgroups, respectively. Of 931 primary arthroscopies, 52 (5.6%) underwent THA/HR. Of 107 revision arthroscopies, 12 (11.2%) underwent THA/HR. The relative risk of a THA/HR was 2.0 after revision procedures compared to primary procedures. The overall complication rate was 5.3%. Hip arthroscopy showed significant improvement in all PRO, VAS, and satisfaction scores at two years postoperatively. Primary arthroscopy patients showed greater PRO scores and a trend towards greater VAS compared to the revision subgroup. The relative risk of a THA/HR was 2.0 after revision procedures compared to primary procedures

Introduction. Persistent pain after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a prevailing reason for revision to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Many of these pathologies can be addressed arthroscopically. The purpose of this study is to examine the outcomes of patients who undergo an arthroscopy for any reason after medial UKA. Methods. A query of our practice registry revealed 58 patients who had undergone medial UKA between October 2003 and June 2015 with subsequent arthroscopy. Mean interval from UKA to arthroscopy was 22 months (range, 1–101 months). Indications for arthroscopy were acute anterior cruciate ligament tear (1), arthrofibrosis (7), synovitis (12), recurrent hemarthrosis (2), lateral compartment degeneration including isolated lateral meniscus tears (11), and loose cement fragments (25). Results. Mean follow-up after arthroscopy was 37 months (range, 1–134 months). Twelve patients have been revised from UKA to TKA. Relative risk of revision after arthroscopy for lateral compartment degeneration was 4.27 (6 of 11; 55%; p=0.002) and for retrieval of loose cement fragments was 0.05 (0 of 25; 0%; p=0.03). Relative risk for revision after arthroscopy for anterior cruciate ligament tear, arthrofibrosis, synovitis, or recurrent hemarthrosis did not meet clinical significance secondary to the low number of patients in these categories. Conclusions. The results of this study suggest that arthroscopic retrieval of cement fragments does not compromise UKA longevity. However, arthroscopy for lateral compartment degradation after UKA predicts a high risk of revision to TKA regardless of its relative radiographic insignificance

The outcomes of hip arthroscopy in the treatment of dysplasia are variable. Historically, arthroscopic treatment of severe dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA] < 18°) resulted in poor outcomes and iatrogenic instability. However, in milder forms of dysplasia, favorable outcomes have been reported. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes following hip arthroscopy for femorocetabular impingement (FAI) in borderline dysplastic (BD) patients compared with a control group of non-dysplastic patients. Between March 2009 and July 2012, a BD group (LCEA 18°–25°) of 46 patients (55 hips) was identified. An age and sex-matched control group of 131 patients (152 hips) was also identified (LCEA 25°–40°). Patient-reported outcome scores, including the Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Hip Outcome Score-Activity of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), the Sport-specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33), were collected pre-operatively, at 1, and 2 years. The mean LCEA was 22.4 ± 2.0° (range, 18.4°–24.9°) in the BD group and 31.0 ± 3.1° (range, 25.4°–38.7°) in the control group (p<0.001). The mean preoperative alpha angle was 66.3 ± 9.9° in the BD group and 61.7 ± 13.0° in the control group (p=0.151). Cam decompression was performed in 98.2% and 99.3% of cases in the BD and control groups. Labral repair was performed in 69.1% and 75.3% of the BD and control groups respectively, with 100% of patients having a complete capsular closure performed in both groups. At a mean follow-up of 31.3 ± 7.6 months (range, 23.1–67.3) in unrevised patients and 21.6 ± 13.3 months (range 4.7–40.6) in revised patients, there was significant improvement (p<0.001) in all patient reported outcome scores in both groups. Multiple regression analysis did not identify any significant differences between groups. Importantly, female sex did not appear to be a predictor for inferior outcomes. Two patients (4.3%) in the BD group and six patients (4.6%) in the control group required revision arthroscopy during the study period. Favorable outcomes can be expected following the treatment of impingement in borderline dysplastics when labral refixation and capsular closure are performed, with comparable outcomes to non-dysplastic patients. Further follow-up in larger cohorts is necessary to prove the durability and safety of hip arthroscopy in this challenging group and to further explore potential gender-related differences in outcome