Patients Undergoing Postless Hip Arthroscopy Demonstrate Significantly Better Patient-Reported Outcomes and
Matthew J Kraeutler1, Ryan S Marder2, Sydney M Fasulo2
1Department of Orthopedics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado, U.S.A..
Purpose:
To prospectively compare the short-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with versus without the use of a perineal post.
Methods:
A prospective, single-surgeon cohort study was performed on a subset of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy between 2020 and 2022. A post-free hip distraction system was used at 1 center at which the senior author operates, and a perineal post was used at another surgical location. An electronic survey of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was completed by each patient at a minimum of 1 year postoperatively. PROMs included a visual analog scale for pain; University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale; modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS); Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS); and a Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation. Postoperative scores and clinically significant outcomes, including the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state, for each PROM were compared between groups.
Results:
Sixty-nine patients were reached for follow-up (41 post, 28 postless) of 87 patients eligible for the study (79%). No significant differences were found between groups in terms of sex (post: 61% female, postless: 54% female, P = .54), age (post: 34 years, postless: 29 years, P = .11), body mass index (post: 26, postless: 24, P = .23), or follow-up duration (post: 24.4 months, postless: 21.3 months, P = .16). There was a significantly higher visual analog scale (3.1 vs 1.4, P = .01), a significantly lower UCLA Activity Scale score (7.0 vs 8.4, P = .02), and a significantly lower mHHS (73.7 vs 82.2, P = .03) in the post-assisted group. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the postless group achieved a patient acceptable symptom state for the UCLA (89.3% vs 68.3%, P = .04), mHHS (84.6% vs 61.0%, P = .04), and HOS-SSS (84.0% vs 61.0%, P = .048) and a substantial clinical benefit for HOS-SSS (72.0% vs 41.5%, P = .02). One patient (2.6%) in the post group underwent revision hip arthroscopy, and another was indicated for total hip arthroplasty by the time of follow-up.
Conclusions:
Postless hip arthroscopy may result in better clinical outcomes compared with post-assisted hip arthroscopy.
Level Of Evidence:
Level III, retrospective cohort study.
