BOSTON — Patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy experienced greater improvement in patient-reported outcome scores at 2-year follow-up compared with patients who underwent revision arthroscopy, according to results presented at the Arthroscopy Association of North America Annual Meeting.
“The relative risk of total hip arthroplasty was often two-times [greater] after revision arthroscopy compared to primary,” Parth Lodhia, MD, said in his presentation. “There was a significant improvement in all patient-reported outcome scores at 2 years for primary and for revision arthroscopies and, finally, primary arthroscopy patients showed greater patient-reported outcome scores compared to revision.”
Lodhia and his colleagues identified 1,038 hips in 872 patients who underwent either a primary or revision arthroscopy between February 2008 and June 2012 and had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Researchers collected modified Harris Hip scores, the non-arthritic hip score, VAS, and activities of daily living and the sport-specific subscales of the Hip Outcome Score preoperatively and at 3-months, 1-year and 2-years postoperatively.
Results showed significantly better outcomes in both groups at 2 years postoperatively. However, Lodhia noted patients who underwent primary arthroscopy had significantly better outcomes at all time points vs. the revision arthroscopy group. Researchers also found a significantly higher incremental increase in the improvement of patient-reported outcome scores in the primary arthroscopy group vs. the revision hip arthroscopy group at all time points.
“We went on to look at accumulative risk after primary arthroscopy of either having a revision arthroscopy or having a total hip arthroplasty,” Lodhia said. “When we looked at this at the 24-month level, we found that the rate of having total hip replacement was approximately 2.8% and the rate of having revision hip arthroscopy after primary hip arthroscopy was just over 6%.” – by Casey Tingle