Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 24, 2025
The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
No Difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes for Periacetabular Osteotomy and Hip Arthroscopy With Capsular Plication
Octavian Andronic1, Edwin O Chaharbakhshi2, Patrick O Zingg1
1Department of Orthopaedics, Balgrist University Hospital, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Purpose:
To compare minimum 5-year patient-reported outcome measures after hip arthroscopy (HA) and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for borderline hip dysplasia.
Methods:
Hips with a lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) between 18° and less than 25° that underwent either PAO or HA were selected from 2 institutions. The exclusion criteria were as follows: LCEA less than 18°, Tönnis osteoarthritis grade greater than 1, prior hip surgical procedures, active inflammatory disease, Workers' Compensation, and concomitant surgery. Patients underwent propensity matching based on age, sex, body mass index, and Tönnis osteoarthritis grade. Patient-reported outcome measures included the modified Harris Hip Score, as well as calculation of the minimal clinically important difference, patient acceptable symptom state, and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold. Preoperative radiographic predictors included comparison of the Femoro-epiphyseal Acetabular Roof index and ligamentum teres lesions.
Results:
A total of 28 PAO patients underwent propensity matching to 49 HA patients. The 2 groups were similar in terms of mean age, sex, preoperative body mass index, and LCEA. The PAO group had a longer mean follow-up period (95.8 months vs 81.3 months, P = .001). The mean Femoro-epiphyseal Acetabular Roof index was significantly lower preoperatively in the HA group (P < .001). The 2 groups showed similar and significant improvements in the mean modified Harris Hip Score from preoperatively to latest follow-up (P < .001). The relative risk of subsequent surgery in the PAO group was 3.49 (P = .024), mostly attributed to hardware removal (25%). The revision rate was 3.6% in the PAO group and 8.2% in the HA group (P = .65). One patient in the PAO group required revision HA for intra-articular adhesions. Three of the patients requiring revision in the HA group underwent PAO because of persistent pain, and one underwent revision HA alone. Conversion to total hip arthroplasty was required in 1 patient in the HA group and no patients in the PAO group.
Conclusions:
Both PAO and HA with capsular plication provide borderline hip dysplasia patients with clinically significant improvements and low revision rates at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively.
Level Of Evidence:
Level III, retrospective, comparative therapeutic trial.
