We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
REVIEW
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Revision Hip Arthroscopy Indications and Outcomes: A Systematic Review.
Arthroscopy 2015 October
PURPOSE: To identify the indications and outcomes in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy.
METHODS: The electronic databases Embase, Medline, HealthStar, and PubMed were searched from 1946 to July 19, 2014. Two blinded reviewers searched, screened, and evaluated the data quality of the studies using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies scale. Data were abstracted in duplicate. Agreement and descriptive statistics are presented.
RESULTS: Six studies were included (3 prospective case series and 3 retrospective chart reviews), with a total of 448 hips examined. The most common indications for revision hip arthroscopy included residual femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), labral tears, and chondral lesions. The mean interval between revision arthroscopy and the index procedure was 25.6 months. Overall, the modified Harris Hip Score improved by a mean of 33.6% (19.3 points) from the baseline score at 1-year follow-up. In 14.6% of patients, further surgical procedures were required, including re-revision hip arthroscopy (8.0%), total hip replacement (5.6%), and hip resurfacing (1.0%). Female patients more commonly underwent revision hip arthroscopy (59.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence examined in this review supports revision hip arthroscopy as a successful intervention to improve functional outcomes (modified Harris Hip Score) and relieve pain in patients with residual symptoms after primary FAI surgery, although the outcomes are inferior when compared with a matched cohort of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for FAI. The main indication for revision is a candidate who has symptoms due to residual cam- or pincer-type deformity that was either unaddressed or under-resected during the index operation. However, it is important to consider that the studies included in this review are of low-quality evidence. Surgeons should consider incorporating a minimum 2-year follow-up for individuals after index hip-preservation surgery because revisions tended to occur within this time frame.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.
METHODS: The electronic databases Embase, Medline, HealthStar, and PubMed were searched from 1946 to July 19, 2014. Two blinded reviewers searched, screened, and evaluated the data quality of the studies using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies scale. Data were abstracted in duplicate. Agreement and descriptive statistics are presented.
RESULTS: Six studies were included (3 prospective case series and 3 retrospective chart reviews), with a total of 448 hips examined. The most common indications for revision hip arthroscopy included residual femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), labral tears, and chondral lesions. The mean interval between revision arthroscopy and the index procedure was 25.6 months. Overall, the modified Harris Hip Score improved by a mean of 33.6% (19.3 points) from the baseline score at 1-year follow-up. In 14.6% of patients, further surgical procedures were required, including re-revision hip arthroscopy (8.0%), total hip replacement (5.6%), and hip resurfacing (1.0%). Female patients more commonly underwent revision hip arthroscopy (59.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence examined in this review supports revision hip arthroscopy as a successful intervention to improve functional outcomes (modified Harris Hip Score) and relieve pain in patients with residual symptoms after primary FAI surgery, although the outcomes are inferior when compared with a matched cohort of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for FAI. The main indication for revision is a candidate who has symptoms due to residual cam- or pincer-type deformity that was either unaddressed or under-resected during the index operation. However, it is important to consider that the studies included in this review are of low-quality evidence. Surgeons should consider incorporating a minimum 2-year follow-up for individuals after index hip-preservation surgery because revisions tended to occur within this time frame.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app