Patient Factors Influencing Outcomes at 12-Year Follow-up of Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement

9Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement has increased in popularity since the early 2000s when it was first described, although only a few midterm follow-up studies have been published. Purpose: To describe the outcomes of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement at a mean 12-year follow-up and to determine the risk factors for failure. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS) and a radiographic evaluation were completed preoperatively and at midterm follow-up. Participants were divided into 2 groups according to their clinical evolution. The success group consisted of patients whose NAHS at the final follow-up was above the established Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) threshold of 81.9, whereas patients who underwent a second surgical intervention or did not reach the PASS threshold at final follow-up were assigned to the failure group. These groups were compared to identify preoperative differences in demographic, pathological, and surgical factors. Results: A total of 95 hips were included, after 23 were lost to follow-up (80.5% follow-up). At a mean follow-up of 12.1 years (range, 9.2-16.0 years), 9 hips required total hip arthroplasty (9.5%), 5 required revision hip arthroscopy (5.3%), 29 did not achieve the NAHS PASS threshold (30.5%), and 52 achieved the NAHS PASS threshold (54.7%). The mean NAHS was 82.4 at final follow-up compared with 66.9 preoperatively (mean difference = 15.5; P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Champagne, G., Dartus, J., Pelet, S., Matache, B. A., & Belzile, E. L. (2024). Patient Factors Influencing Outcomes at 12-Year Follow-up of Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement. American Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(10), 2586–2595. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241265721

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free