Poster 203: Staged Hip Arthroscopy and Periacetabular Osteotomy Versus Hip Arthroscopy Alone in Patients with Borderline Hip Dysplasia: A Propensity-Matched Study
Authors: Alvero Alexander B. , Wright-Chisem Joshua , Kazi Omair , Williams Joel , Nho Shane 
Published: August 2024

Objectives:

The management of borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) remains an area of interest in the field of hip preservation. The purpose of this study was to (1) evaluate mean 2-year outcomes for patients with BHD treated with staged hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) to those who underwent hip arthroscopy alone, and (2) evaluate rates of complications, hardware removal, reoperations, conversions to total hip arthroplasty (THA), along with conversions to PAO.

Methods:

Hips with a lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) values 18° ≤ LCEA < 25° that underwent a hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) between January 2018 and June 2022 were reviewed. Patients who underwent staged periacetabular osteotomy and hip arthroscopy were identified. Staged hips were propensity-matched 1:4 to other borderline dysplastic hips that underwent hip arthroscopy alone. Matching was performed based on age, sex, and body-mass index (BMI). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected, including Hip Outcome Score – Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), HOS-Sports Specific (HOS-SS) subscale, 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) questionnaire, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI) subscale, and PROMIS-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) subscale. Cohort-specific minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds were calculated. Postoperative PROs, rates of MCID/PASS achievement, and rates of reoperation and conversion to THA were compared.

Results:

Twenty-four patients who underwent staged hip arthroscopy and PAO were successfully matched to 96 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy alone. Both groups were similar in terms of age, sex, and BMI. The patients who underwent a PAO had smaller LCEAs and larger Tönnis angles (21.0° vs. 23° and 11.6° vs. 9.1°, respectively). Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in PROs at minimum 1-year postoperatively (p < 0.001, for all). There were no significant differences in postoperative PRO scores between the groups (p ≥ 0.223, for all). There were no significant differences in MCID/PASS achievement (p ≥ 0.224. for all). There were no reoperations or conversion to THA in the staged hip arthroscopy and PAO group. In the hip arthroscopy alone cohort, reoperation rates were 5.2% and conversion to THA occurred in 1% of the patients. There were no significant differences in secondary surgery rates between the groups (p = 1.000). Three patients in the hip arthroscopy alone group ultimately underwent PAO, 1 underwent a proximal femoral osteotomy (PFO), and one underwent a revision hip arthroscopy. These female patients were young and athletic with an LCEA < 20°.

Conclusions:

Patients undergoing staged PAO and hip arthroplasty and isolated hip arthroplasty for treatment of BHD demonstrate similar clinical improvement. Rates of revision surgery and conversion to THA were similarly low. A small subset of patients who were initially treated arthroscopically ultimately received a PAO. This group was entirely made up of young, athletic female patients. This is encouraging early data and more long-term data is needed to evaluate the differences in survivorship. [Figure: see text]