Minimum 5-Year Outcomes for Revision Hip Arthroscopy With a Prospective Subanalysis Against a Propensity-Matched Control Primary Group
Authors: Maldonado DR, Kyin C, Rosinsky PJ, Shapira J, Diulus SC, Lall AC, Domb BG
DOI: 10.1177/03635465211013006
Background
Revision hip arthroscopy is increasingly performed for persistent or recurrent symptoms after primary surgery, but long-term outcomes remain understudied.
Methods
This prospective study followed patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for a minimum of 5 years and compared their outcomes to a propensity-matched primary hip arthroscopy group.
Key Findings
- Revision surgery patients achieved significant improvements in pain and function and reached clinically important milestones.
- However, outcomes were generally lower than those seen in primary surgery patients.
- Revision patients had an increased risk of eventually progressing to total hip arthroplasty.
Conclusions
Revision hip arthroscopy offers meaningful clinical benefit over the long term but is less effective than primary surgery and carries a higher risk of future hip replacement.
What Does This Mean for Providers?
- Revision hip arthroscopy is a viable option for symptomatic patients but requires careful patient selection and counseling regarding expected outcomes.
- Providers should set realistic expectations for improvements, emphasizing that revision outcomes may not match those of primary procedures.
- Awareness of the increased risk of conversion to total hip arthroplasty is important for long-term planning and follow-up.
- Consider thorough evaluation of persistent symptoms to optimize revision surgical indications.