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
David R. Maldonado, Cynthia Kyin, Jacob Shapira, Philip J. Rosinsky, Mitchell B. Meghpara, Mitchell J. Yelton, Ajay C. Lall, Benjamin G. Domb
Abstract
Background: Hip arthroscopy in patients with borderline dysplasia continues to be surrounded by controversy. Even more controversial is the management of the failed hip arthroscopy in this population. There is a paucity of studies in contemporary literature regarding outcomes after arthroscopic revision surgery. Purpose: (1) To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores in patients with borderline dysplasia who underwent revision hip arthroscopy and (2) to compare these PRO scores with those of a propensity-matched control group without dysplasia who underwent revision hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were prospectively collected between August 2009 and November 2017. Inclusion criteria were revision arthroscopic surgery, capsular plication, and baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up for the following PROs: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patients with Tönnis grade >1 or previous hip conditions were excluded. Two groups were created: a study group with borderline dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA], 18°-25°) and a control group without dysplasia (LCEA, 25°-40°). Groups were propensity-matched in a 1:3 ratio for sex, age, body mass index, and follow-up time. Results: A total of 22 revision borderline dysplastic hips (21 patients) had a minimum 2-year follow-up during the study period. Patients in this group reported significant improvements for all PROs from baseline and achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the mHHS at a rate of 70%. Moreover, 21 borderline dysplastic hips (21 patients) were matched to 63 control hips (63 patients). Mean LCEA for the study and control groups was 22.6 ± 1.7 and 32.0 ± 5.0, respectively. Both groups reported similar improvement in all PROs. The rate for achieving the MCID for the mHHS and VAS was similar between groups; however, the control group had higher rates of meeting the MCID for the HOS-SSS and NAHS ( P = .042 and P = .025, respectively). The rates of conversion to hip arthroplasty were 7.9% (n = 5) in the control group and 23.8% (n = 5) in the borderline dysplasia propensity-matched group ( P = .052). The rate of re-revision arthroscopy was 11.1% (n = 7) in the control group and 19.0% (n = 4) on the borderline dysplasia group ( P = .350). Conclusion: After revision hip arthroscopy, significant improvement was obtained for all PROs in patients with borderline dysplasia at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Moreover, outcomes, patient satisfaction, the rate for achieving the MCID for the mHHS and VAS, and the rate for secondary surgery were similar to those of a propensity-matched control group without dysplasia. Nevertheless, there was a nonsignificant trend toward higher secondary procedures in the study group; therefore, arthroscopic revision surgery in the borderline patients should be approached with measured prognosis.