Download PDF
The Journal of Hip Surgery 2022; 06(04): 177-188
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1757328
Original Article

Determining Clinically Meaningful Outcomes after Isolated Acetabuloplasty in the Context of Age and Arthritic Severity: A Retrospective Review of Prospectively Collected Data

Fernando A. Huyke-Hernández
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
,
Sanjum P. Samagh
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas, Encinitas, California
,
Mahad M. Hassan
3   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
4   TRIA Orthopaedic Center, Bloomington, Minnesota
,
Vehniah K. Tjong
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
5   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois
,
Michael A. Terry
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
5   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Outcomes after isolated acetabuloplasty in mixed-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) patients can be favorable but are relatively unknown in the context of clinically important outcome variables (CIOVs) such as minimum clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS). Prognostic roles of age and osteoarthritis (OA) in hip arthroscopy are still unclear. We aimed to evaluate isolated acetabuloplasty outcomes including CIOVs while controlling for age and arthritis.

This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data. We analyzed patients with available 1-year follow-up for Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scales for Physical Function (PF) and Pain Interference (PI). Patients were divided into two age groups (< 40 years old vs. ≥ 40 years old) and two Outerbridge arthritis grade groups (grade 0–I vs. grade II–IV). Demographic, radiographic, and surgical characteristics as well as revision surgeries and complications were extracted. Our outcome was the proportion of patients that achieved values over literature-reported CIOV thresholds for PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI.

A total of 63 patients of 96 eligible (65.6%) had minimum 1-year data. Characteristics were comparable between patients aged younger than 40 and 40 and over as well as between grade 0 to I and grade II to IV patients. Overall, average PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI scores improved. Approximately 81.0% of patients reached values over CIOV threshold (71.4% for PROMIS-PF, 54.0% for PROMIS-PI), with 44.4% reporting these outcomes for both PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI. Approximately 30.2% of patients reported values over PASS threshold for both PROMIS-PF and PROMIS-PI, with 25.4% of patients achieving values above all CIOV thresholds. Only one patient required revision surgery. When evaluating the effect of age while controlling for OA severity and vice versa, there were no significant outcome differences (p > 0.615). When comparing patients reporting values above CIOV threshold versus those that did not, there were no differences in age (41.2 ± 13.0 [37.7, 44.8] vs. 45.9 ± 13.2 [38.4, 53.4], p = 0.265) or Outerbridge grade distribution (p = 0.177).

This study uses CIOVs to describe clinically meaningful isolated acetabuloplasty outcomes for mixed-type FAI. Most patients over a wide spectrum of age and OA achieved favorable clinically meaningful outcomes following surgery. Isolated acetabuloplasty can alleviate symptomatology in mixed-type FAI patients on a case-by-case basis.

Keywords

isolated acetabuloplasty - hip arthroscopy - femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) - Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS)

Disclosures

Vehniah K. Tjong is a member of the AAOS International Committee and a paid consultant for Smith & Nephew. She is on the editorial boards of American Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, and Video Journal of Sports Medicine. Michael A. Terry is a paid speaker for and receives material and research support from Smith & Nephew. He also receives publishing royalties from Saunders/Mosby-Elsevier. For all other authors, no conflicts of interest or disclosures were declared.




Publication History

Received: 27 March 2022

Accepted: 10 August 2022

Article published online:
02 November 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M, Leunig M, Nötzli H, Siebenrock KA. Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (417) 112-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Philippon MJ, Maxwell RB, Johnston TL, Schenker M, Briggs KK. Clinical presentation of femoroacetabular impingement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2007; 15 (08) 1041-1047
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Zhou J, Melugin HP, Hale RF. et al. The prevalence of radiographic findings of structural hip deformities for femoroacetabular impingement in patients with hip pain. Am J Sports Med 2020; 48 (03) 647-653
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Beck M, Kalhor M, Leunig M, Ganz R. Hip morphology influences the pattern of damage to the acetabular cartilage: femoroacetabular impingement as a cause of early osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87 (07) 1012-1018
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Philippon MJ, Schenker ML. Arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement in the athlete. Clin Sports Med 2006; 25 (02) 299-308 , ix
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Byrd JW, Jones KS. Arthroscopic femoroplasty in the management of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467 (03) 739-746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Byrd JW, Jones KS. Prospective analysis of hip arthroscopy with 10-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (03) 741-746
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Philippon M, Schenker M, Briggs K, Kuppersmith D. Femoroacetabular impingement in 45 professional athletes: associated pathologies and return to sport following arthroscopic decompression. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2007; 15 (07) 908-914
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Menge TJ, Briggs KK, Dornan GJ, McNamara SC, Philippon MJ. Survivorship and outcomes 10 years following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: labral debridement compared with labral repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99 (12) 997-1004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Minkara AA, Westermann RW, Rosneck J, Lynch TS. Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes after hip arthroscopy in femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med 2019; 47 (02) 488-500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Philippon MJ, Briggs KK, Yen Y-M, Kuppersmith DA. Outcomes following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement with associated chondrolabral dysfunction: minimum two-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91 (01) 16-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kuhns BD, Weber AE, Levy DM. et al. Capsular management in hip arthroscopy: an anatomic, biomechanical, and technical review. Front Surg 2016; 3: 13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Riff AJ, Kunze KN, Movassaghi K. et al. Systematic review of hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: the importance of labral repair and capsular closure. Arthroscopy 2019; 35 (02) 646-656.e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hartwell MJ, Morgan AM, Nelson PA. et al. Isolated acetabuloplasty for femoroacetabular impingement: favorable patient-reported outcomes and sustained survivorship at minimum 5-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2021; 37 (11) 3288-3294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Tjong VK, Gombera MM, Kahlenberg CA. et al. Isolated acetabuloplasty and labral repair for combined-type femoroacetabular impingement: are we doing too much?. Arthroscopy 2017; 33 (04) 773-779
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rath E, Sharfman ZT, Paret M, Amar E, Drexler M, Bonin N. Hip arthroscopy protocol: expert opinions on post-operative weight bearing and return to sports guidelines. J Hip Preserv Surg 2017; 4 (01) 60-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bedi A, Kelly BT, Khanduja V. Arthroscopic hip preservation surgery: current concepts and perspective. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (01) 10-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ilizaliturri Jr VM, Chaidez C, Villegas P, Briseño A, Camacho-Galindo J. Prospective randomized study of 2 different techniques for endoscopic iliopsoas tendon release in the treatment of internal snapping hip syndrome. Arthroscopy 2009; 25 (02) 159-163
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Oak N, Mendez-Zfass M, Lesniak BP, Larson CM, Kelly BT, Bedi A. Complications in hip arthroscopy. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2013; 21 (02) 97-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sener N, Gogus A, Akman S, Hamzaoglu A. Avascular necrosis of the femoral head after hip arthroscopy. Hip Int 2011; 21 (05) 623-626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 McCarthy JC, Jarrett BT, Ojeifo O, Lee JA, Bragdon CR. What factors influence long-term survivorship after hip arthroscopy?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011; 469 (02) 362-371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 McCormick F, Nwachukwu BU, Alpaugh K, Martin SD. Predictors of hip arthroscopy outcomes for labral tears at minimum 2-year follow-up: the influence of age and arthritis. Arthroscopy 2012; 28 (10) 1359-1364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kunze KN, Polce EM, Clapp IM, Alter T, Nho SJ. Association between preoperative patient factors and clinically meaningful outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: a machine learning analysis. Am J Sports Med 2022; 50 (03) 746-756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Philippon MJ, Briggs KK, Carlisle JC, Patterson DC. Joint space predicts THA after hip arthroscopy in patients 50 years and older. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471 (08) 2492-2496
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kemp JL, MacDonald D, Collins NJ, Hatton AL, Crossley KM. Hip arthroscopy in the setting of hip osteoarthritis: systematic review of outcomes and progression to hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (03) 1055-1073
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Redmond JM, Gupta A, Dunne K, Humayun A, Yuen LC, Domb BG. What factors predict conversion to THA after arthroscopy?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475 (10) 2538-2545
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Streich NA, Gotterbarm T, Barié A, Schmitt H. Prognostic value of chondral defects on the outcome after arthroscopic treatment of acetabular labral tears. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2009; 17 (10) 1257-1263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Perets I, Chaharbakhshi EO, Mu B. et al. Hip arthroscopy in patients ages 50 years or older: minimum 5-year outcomes, survivorship, and risk factors for conversion to total hip replacement. Arthroscopy 2018; 34 (11) 3001-3009
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ashberg L, Close MR, Perets I. et al. Do femoral head osteochondral lesions predict a poor outcome in hip arthroscopy patients? A matched control study with minimum 5-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2019; 35 (02) 419-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ueland TE, Disantis A, Carreira DS, Martin RL. Patient-reported outcome measures and clinically important outcome values in hip arthroscopy: a systematic review. JBJS Rev 2021; 9 (01) 00084
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Philippon MJ, Stubbs AJ, Schenker ML, Maxwell RB, Ganz R, Leunig M. Arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement: osteoplasty technique and literature review. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35 (09) 1571-1580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kuhns BD, Reuter J, Lawton D, Kenney RJ, Baumhauer JF, Giordano BD. Threshold values for success after hip arthroscopy using the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system assessment: determining the minimum clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state. Am J Sports Med 2020; 48 (13) 3280-3287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Bodendorfer BM, DeFroda SF, Clapp IM, Newhouse A, Nwachukwu BU, Nho SJ. Defining clinically significant improvement on the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system test at 1-year follow-up for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Am J Sports Med 2021; 49 (09) 2457-2465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Tönnis D, Heinecke A. Acetabular and femoral anteversion: relationship with osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999; 81 (12) 1747-1770
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Reynolds D, Lucas J, Klaue K. Retroversion of the acetabulum. A cause of hip pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1999; 81 (02) 281-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Nötzli HP, Wyss TF, Stoecklin CH, Schmid MR, Treiber K, Hodler J. The contour of the femoral head-neck junction as a predictor for the risk of anterior impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2002; 84 (04) 556-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Wiberg G. Shelf operation in congenital dysplasia of the acetabulum and in subluxation and dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1953; 35-A (01) 65-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Milcan A, Yildiz A, Öztuna V, Eskandari MM, Şahin G, Kuyurtar F. The anterior center edge angle: a study of 102 volunteers. Joint Bone Spine 2004; 71 (03) 221-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Barrientos C, Barahona M, Diaz J, Brañes J, Chaparro F, Hinzpeter J. Is there a pathological alpha angle for hip impingement? A diagnostic test study. J Hip Preserv Surg 2016; 3 (03) 223-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE. Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis–what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188 (06) 1540-1552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Imai H, Kamada T, Takeba J, Shiraishi Y, Mashima N, Miura H. Anterior coverage after eccentric rotational acetabular osteotomy for the treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Orthop Sci 2014; 19 (05) 762-769
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Outerbridge RE. The etiology of chondromalacia patellae. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1961; 43-B (04) 752-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Bernstein DN, Nwachukwu BU, Bozic KJ. Value-based health care: moving beyond “minimum clinically important difference” to a tiered system of evaluating successful clinical outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2019; 477 (05) 945-947
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Gerlach E, Selley R, Johnson D. et al. Patient-reported outcomes measurement information system validation in hip arthroscopy: a shift towards reducing survey burden. Cureus 2021; 13 (02) e13265
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Griffin DW, Kinnard MJ, Formby PM, McCabe MP, Anderson TD. Outcomes of hip arthroscopy in the older adult: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (08) 1928-1936
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Lansdown DA, Kunze K, Ukwuani G, Waterman BR, Nho SJ. The importance of comprehensive cam correction: radiographic parameters are predictive of patient-reported outcome measures at 2 years after hip arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med 2018; 46 (09) 2072-2078
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Domb BG, Annin S, Chen JW. et al. Optimal treatment of cam morphology may change the natural history of femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med 2020; 48 (12) 2887-2896
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 van Klij P, Reiman MP, Waarsing JH. et al. Classifying cam morphology by the alpha angle: a systematic review on threshold values. Orthop J Sports Med 2020; 8 (08) 2325967120938312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Frank JM, Harris JD, Erickson BJ. et al. Prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement imaging findings in asymptomatic volunteers: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 2015; 31 (06) 1199-1204
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Briggs KK, Soares E, Bhatia S, Philippon MJ. Postoperative alpha angle not associated with patient-centered midterm outcomes following hip arthroscopy for FAI. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (10) 3105-3109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Han J, Won S-H, Kim J-T, Hahn M-H, Won Y-Y. Prevalence of cam deformity with associated femoroacetabular impingement syndrome in hip joint computed tomography of asymptomatic adults. Hip Pelvis 2018; 30 (01) 5-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Yépez AK, Abreu M, Germani B, Galia CR. Prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement morphology in asymptomatic youth soccer players: magnetic resonance imaging study with clinical correlation. Rev Bras Ortop 2017; 52 (Suppl 1): 14-20
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N. et al; PROMIS Cooperative Group. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care 2007; 45 (5, Suppl 1): S3-S11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Fries JF, Witter J, Rose M, Cella D, Khanna D, Morgan-DeWitt E. Item response theory, computerized adaptive testing, and PROMIS: assessment of physical function. J Rheumatol 2014; 41 (01) 153-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Chang C-H, Reeve BB. Item response theory and its applications to patient-reported outcomes measurement. Eval Health Prof 2005; 28 (03) 264-282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Engelhard MM, Schmidt KM, Engel CE, Brenton JN, Patek SD, Goldman MD. The e-MSWS-12: improving the multiple sclerosis walking scale using item response theory. Qual Life Res 2016; 25 (12) 3221-3230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Childs S, Canham C, Kenney RJ, Silas DR, Adler K, Giordano BD. Correlation of PROMIS CAT with validated hip outcome scores in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. Orthop J Sports Med 2017; 5 (7_suppl6): 2325967117S00451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Philippon MJ, Wolff AB, Briggs KK, Zehms CT, Kuppersmith DA. Acetabular rim reduction for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement correlates with preoperative and postoperative center-edge angle. Arthroscopy 2010; 26 (06) 757-761
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar