Objectives: Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is utilized for the treatment of hip dysplasia, with a growing trend towards hip arthroscopy at the time of PAO or in a planned, staged manner prior to PAO in order to address intra-articular pathology such as labral tears. For patients with persistent or new pain following isolated PAO, a subset undergo unplanned, primary hip arthroscopy. To date, there is a paucity of available evidence regarding the risk factors for and outcomes of unplanned hip arthroscopy for persistent or new pain after PAO. The purpose of this study was to determine demographic and radiographic characteristics of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for persistent pain after PAO and also to compare radiographic parameters, surgical characteristics, and postoperative PROMs between patients that underwent hip arthroscopy following PAO and a demographically similar group of controls without acetabular dysplasia that underwent primary hip arthroscopy. Methods: An institutional database of 3014 hip arthroscopies performed between 1988 and 2022 was reviewed for patients having undergone unplanned (i.e. non-staged) first-time hip arthroscopy after PAO. These patients were propensity-matched on a 1:2 ratio with demographically similar, non-dysplastic patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with labral repair. All patients were contacted at final-follow-up to collect outcomes including subsequent procedures, progression to THA, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT), Tegner Activity Scores, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, and surgery satisfaction. Demographics, radiographic characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were compared. All statistical analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis was performed using R software (version 4.4.1). Results: We identified 22 hips in 21 patients (17 female, 4 male; age: 24.6 ± 8.5 years; BMI: 29.3 ± 7.4 kg/m²) who underwent first-time arthroscopy after ipsilateral PAO and were followed for a mean of 7.2 ± 2.8 years (Table 1). The median post-PAO LCEA was 28° (IQR: 24.6 – 31.7) and the mean Tönnis angle was 4.2° ± 5.9. The median time from the date of PAO to date of subsequent hip arthroscopy was 1.6 years (IQR: 1.1 - 3.4). Compared to the control group, there was a significantly lower rate of femoral osteochondroplasty (50% vs, 86%, p < 0.01), as well as trends towards lower rate of labral repair (77% vs. 95% p = 0.11), and higher rate of capsular repair (64% vs. 75%, p = 0.34). No differences were found between the PAO and control groups in any of the postoperative PROMs (Table 2). Among the PAO patients, 3 (20%) progressed to total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared to 1 (9%) in the control group (p=0.62). Conclusions: Hip arthroscopy after prior PAO was associated with postoperative improvements in pain and moderate rates of conversion to THA. When patients undergoing hip arthroscopy following PAO were compared to a demographically similar matched cohort of nondysplastic hips who underwent primary hip arthroscopy without a prior PAO, similar postoperative outcome scores were observed. This data provides valuable counselling information for clinicians discussing hip arthroscopy in the setting of patients with persistent pain following PAO.
Cleary et al. (Mon,) studied this question.