Key result
Repeat revision hip arthroscopy yields inferior results compared to primary surgery, with poorly executed previous surgery being the leading etiology of failure.
While repeat revision hip arthroscopy can provide clinical improvement, outcomes remain inferior to primary surgery, emphasizing the importance of a well-executed primary procedure.
The increasing use of hip arthroscopy has been accompanied by an associated increase in revision hip arthroscopy. The results of revision surgery are generally inferior to primary hip arthroscopy. When revision hip arthroscopy fails, repeat revision hip arthroscopy may be indicated. Addressing the etiology of failure of the primary and first revision surgery is fundamental to achieving optimal outcomes in repeat revision cases. Unfortunately, poorly executed previous surgery is the leading etiology of failure, with unaddressed femoroacetabular impingement, labral damage, and capsular deficiency most commonly encountered during repeat revision surgery. Complex secondary soft-tissue procedures may be required to address capsular and labral deficiency from previous surgery. Despite clinically significant improvement in repeat revision cases, results are inferior to those after primary hip arthroscopy. The best opportunity for a patient to achieve an optimal outcome is a well-executed primary surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
F. Winston Gwathmey (2021) conducted an editorial in Failed primary and first revision hip arthroscopy. Repeat revision hip arthroscopy vs. Primary hip arthroscopy was evaluated. Repeat revision hip arthroscopy yields inferior results compared to primary surgery, with poorly executed previous surgery being the leading etiology of failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: