Revision Hip Arthroscopy in High-Level Athletes: Minimum 2-Year Outcomes Compared to a Propensity-Matched Primary Hip Arthroscopy Control Group
Authors: Monahan PF, Jimenez AE, Owens JS, Saks BR, Maldonado DR, Ankem HK, Sabetian PW, Lall AC, Domb BG
DOI: 10.1177/03635465211041760
Background
Revision hip arthroscopy in elite athletes remains less studied, particularly regarding return to sport (RTS) and functional outcomes when compared to primary arthroscopy. This study evaluates those differences in a matched cohort.
Methods
Outcomes of high-level athletes who underwent revision hip arthroscopy for FAIS or labral pathology were compared to a propensity-matched group who underwent primary hip arthroscopy. Minimum 2-year follow-up included patient-reported outcomes and RTS rates.
Key Findings
- Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in pain and function.
- Athletes undergoing revision arthroscopy had lower rates of RTS and slightly reduced clinical outcome scores compared to those in the primary group.
- Revision procedures were still effective, though with more modest gains.
Conclusions
Revision hip arthroscopy offers clinically meaningful improvements in function and pain reduction for high-level athletes but yields somewhat diminished RTS rates and outcome scores relative to primary arthroscopy.
What Does This Mean for Providers?
- Set realistic expectations for athletes undergoing revision hip arthroscopy—substantial improvements are achievable, but full return to pre-injury sport levels may be less likely.
- Careful preoperative evaluation to identify residual impingement or untreated pathology is essential to maximize revision outcomes.
- Early identification and treatment of residual or recurrent symptoms after primary arthroscopy may help optimize athletic recovery trajectories.