Two-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy with Capsular Incompetency
Jourdan M Cancienne1, Edward C Beck1, Kyle N Kunze1
1Section of Young Adult Hip Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Purpose:
To determine clinical outcomes of patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for failure to improve with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and intraoperative evidence of a capsular incompetency as compared with (1) patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy without evidence of a capsular incompetency and (2) patients undergoing primary surgery for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) at a minimum follow up of 2 years.
Methods:
Data from consecutive patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with MRI/arthrogram-confirmed capsular incompetency between January 2012 and June 2016 were analyzed. All revision patients with capsular incompetency was matched 1:1 by age and body mass index to FAIS revision patients without capsular incompetency and primary FAIS patients. Outcomes included the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living (ADL), HOS-Sports Subscale (SS), Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), pain, and satisfaction. The minimal clinically important difference was calculated for HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, and mHHS.
Results:
In total, 49 patients (54.4%) of 90 undergoing revision hip arthroscopy had MRI evidence of a capsular incompetency. Most patients were female (79.6%), with a mean age of 30 ± 10.5 years and body mass index of 25.7 ± 5.5. The difference among pre- and postoperative HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, mHHS, and visual analog scale score for pain were all statistically significant (P < .05). Analysis of reported outcomes among matched groups demonstrated statistically significant differences, with the group undergoing primary surgery having the greatest 2-year outcomes. Only 66.7% of patients undergoing revision surgery with capsular incompetency achieved a minimal clinically important difference; however, there was no significant difference when compared with revision patients without capsular incompetency. When compared with patients undergoing primary surgery, the difference in frequency was statistically significant (66.7% vs 91.3%; P < .001).
Conclusions:
More than one half of patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy had MRI and intraoperative evidence of capsular incompetency. Revision arthroscopy for capsular incompetency results in significantly improved 2-year outcomes. However, patients undergoing revision for capsular incompetency and intact capsule revision patients reported significantly lower outcomes compared with primary patients.
Level Of Evidence:
Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study.
