Return to Sports and Minimum 2-Year Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy in Elite Athletes With and Without Coexisting Low Back Pain: A Propensity-Matched Comparison
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January, 2022
Return to Sports and Minimum 2-Year Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy in Elite Athletes With and Without Coexisting Low Back Pain: A Propensity-Matched Comparison
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and return to sports (RTS) after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) have not been established in elite athletes with coexisting low back pain (LBP).
Purpose:
(1) To report minimum 2-year PROs and RTS rates after primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS in elite athletes with coexisting LBP and (2) to compare clinical results with a propensity-matched control group of elite athletes without back pain.
Study Design:
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods:
Data were reviewed for elite athletes (college and professional) who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS and had coexisting LBP between October 2009 and October 2018. Inclusion criteria were preoperative and minimum 2-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <18°), and previous ipsilateral hip or spine surgery or conditions. Rates of achieving the minimal clinically importance difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold were recorded in addition to RTS. For the subanalysis, the elite athlete study group was propensity matched to an elite athlete control group without back pain.
Results:
A total of 48 elite athletes with LBP who underwent primary hip arthroscopy met inclusion criteria, and follow-up was available for 42 (87.5%) at 53.2 ± 31.6 months (mean ± SD). Elite athletes with coexisting LBP demonstrated significant improvements in all recorded PROs and achieved the MCID and PASS for the HOS-SSS at rates of 82.5% and 67.5%, respectively. They also returned to sports at a high rate (75.8%), and 79% of them did not report LBP postoperatively. PROs, rates of achieving the MCID and PASS for the HOS-SSS, and RTS rates were similar between the study group and propensity-matched control group.
Conclusion:
Elite athletes with coexisting LBP who undergo primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS may expect favorable PROs, rates of achieving the MCID and PASS for the HOS-SSS, and RTS rates at minimum 2-year follow-up. These results were comparable to those of a propensity-matched control group of elite athletes without back pain. In athletes with hip-spine syndrome, successful treatment of their hip pathology may help resolve their back pain.
AkpinarBLinLJBloomDAYoumT. Concomitant lumbar spinal stenosis negatively affects outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy. Published online February10, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2021.01.068
2.
AliMSPrieto-AlhambraDLopesLC, et al. Propensity score methods in health technology assessment: principles, extended applications, and recent advances. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:973. doi:10.3389/fphar.2019.00973
3.
AlradwanHPhilipponMJFarrokhyarF, et al. Return to preinjury activity levels after surgical management of femoroacetabular impingement in athletes. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(10):1567-1576. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2012.03.016
4.
ApratoAJayasekeraNVillarRN. Does the modified Harris Hip Score reflect patient satisfaction after hip arthroscopy?Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(11):2557-2560. doi:10.1177/0363546512460650
5.
AustinPC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011;10(2):150-161. doi:10.1002/pst.433
6.
AustinPC. Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biom J. 2009;51(1):171-184. doi:10.1002/bimj.200810488
7.
BarryJJSingDCVailTPHansenEN. Early outcomes of primary total hip arthroplasty after prior lumbar spinal fusion. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(2):470-474. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.07.019
8.
BartonCSalinerosMJRakhraKSBeauléPE. Validity of the alpha angle measurement on plain radiographs in the evaluation of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(2):464-469. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1624-x
9.
BeckECGowdAKLiuJN, et al. How is maximum outcome improvement defined in patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy for rotator cuff repair? A 1-year follow-up study. Arthroscopy. Published online March20, 2020. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2020.02.047
10.
BeckECNwachukwuBUChapmanRGowdAKWatermanBRNhoSJ. The influence of lumbosacral spine pathology on minimum 2-year outcome after hip arthroscopy: a nested case-control analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(2):403-408. doi:10.1177/0363546 519892916
11.
BlizzardDJSheetsCZSeylerTM, et al. The impact of lumbar spine disease and deformity on total hip arthroplasty outcomes. Orthopedics. 2017;40(3):e520-e525. doi:10.3928/01477447-20170327-03
12.
ByrdJWTJonesKSSchmitzLMRDonerGP. Hip arthroscopy in the warrior athlete: 2 to 10 year outcomes. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2016;3(1):68-71. doi:10.1093/jhps/hnv077
13.
ChahalJThielGSVMatherRCLeeSSalataMJNhoSJ. The minimal clinical important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the modified Harris Hip Score and Hip Outcome Score among patients undergoing surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement. Orthop J Sports Med. 2014;2(2, suppl):2325967114S00105. doi:10.1177/2325967114S00105
14.
ChandrasekaranSDarwishNMuBH, et al. Arthroscopic reconstruction of the irreparable acetabular labrum: a match-controlled study. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(2):480-488. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2018 .09.024
15.
ChandrasekaranSGuiCWalshJPLodhiaPSuarez-AhedoCDombBG. Correlation between changes in visual analog scale and patient-reported outcome scores and patient satisfaction after hip arthroscopic surgery. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(9):2325967 117724772. doi:10.1177/2325967117724772
16.
ChonaDVBonanoJCAyeniORSafranMR. Definitions of return to sport after hip arthroscopy: are we speaking the same language and are we measuring the right outcome?Orthop J Sports Med. 2020;8(9):2325967120952990. doi:10.1177/2325967120952990
17.
ChristensenCPAlthausenPLMittlemanMALeeJMcCarthyJC. The Nonarthritic Hip Score: reliable and validated. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;406:75-83. doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000043047.84315.4b
18.
ChristianRALubbeRJChunDSSelleyRSTerryMAHsuWK. Prognosis following hip arthroscopy varies in professional athletes based on sport. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(3):837-842.e1. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2018.10.113
19.
ClappIMNwachukwuBUBeckECJanKGowdAKNhoSJ. Comparing outcomes of competitive athletes versus nonathletes undergoing hip arthroscopy for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(1):159-166. doi:10.1177/0363546519885359
20.
ClohisyJCCarlisleJCBeauléPE, et al. A systematic approach to the plain radiographic evaluation of the young adult hip. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(suppl 4):47-66. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00756
21.
DombBGAnninSChenJW, et al. Optimal treatment of cam morphology may change the natural history of femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(12):2887-2896. doi:10.1177/0363546520949541
22.
DombBGChaharbakhshiEORybalkoDCloseMRLitrentaJPeretsI. Outcomes of hip arthroscopic surgery in patients with Tönnis grade 1 osteoarthritis at a minimum 5-year follow-up: a matched-pair comparison with a Tönnis grade 0 control group. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(10):2294-2302. doi:10.1177/0363546517706957
23.
DombBGChenSLGoCC, et al. Predictors of clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy: 5-year follow-up analysis of 1038 patients. Am J Sports Med. Published online November5, 2020. doi:10.1177/0363546520968896
24.
DombBGHartiganDEPeretsI. Decision making for labral treatment in the hip: repair versus débridement versus reconstruction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017;25(3):e53-e62. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00144
25.
EkhtiariSde SADHaldaneCE, et al. Hip arthroscopic capsulotomy techniques and capsular management strategies: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(1):9-23. doi:10.1007/s00167-016-4411-8
26.
EsolaMAMcClurePWFitzgeraldGKSieglerS. Analysis of lumbar spine and hip motion during forward bending in subjects with and without a history of low back pain. Spine. 1996;21(1):71-78.
27.
FaderRRTaoMAGaudianiMA, et al. The role of lumbar lordosis and pelvic sagittal balance in femoroacetabular impingement. Bone Joint J. 2018;100(10):1275-1279. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.100B 10.BJJ-2018-0060.R1
28.
HarrisJDBrandJCCoteMPFaucettSCDhawanA. Research pearls: the significance of statistics and perils of pooling. Part 1: clinical versus statistical significance. Arthroscopy. 2017;33(6):1102-1112. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2017.01.053
29.
HarrisMDKapronALPetersCLAndersonAE. Correlations between the alpha angle and femoral head asphericity: implications and recommendations for the diagnosis of cam femoroacetabular impingement. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(5):788-796. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.02.005
30.
HassebrockJDMakovickaJLChhabraA, et al. Hip arthroscopy in the high-level athlete: does capsular closure make a difference?Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(10):2465-2470. doi:10.1177/0363546 520936255
31.
HawellekTHubertJHischkeS, et al. Calcification of the acetabular labrum of the hip: prevalence in the general population and relation to hip articular cartilage and fibrocartilage degeneration. Arthritis Res Ther. 2018;20(1):104. doi:10.1186/s13075-018-1595-y
32.
JesselRHZurakowskiDZilkensCBursteinDGrayMLKimY-J. Radiographic and patient factors associated with pre-radiographic osteoarthritis in hip dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(5):1120-1129. doi:10.2106/JBJS.G.00144
33.
JimenezAEOwensJSShapiraJ, et al. Hip capsular management in patients with femoroacetabular impingement or microinstability: a systematic review of biomechanical studies. Arthroscopy. Published online April30, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2021.04.004
34.
KellyBTBediARobertsonCMDela TorreKGiveansMRLarsonCM. Alterations in internal rotation and alpha angles are associated with arthroscopic cam decompression in the hip. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(5):1107-1112. doi:10.1177/0363546512437731
35.
LallACAnninSChenJW, et al. Achieving a perfectly spherical femoroplasty: pearls, pitfalls, and optimal surgical technique. Arthrosc Tech. 2020;9(3):e303-e313. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2019.10.011
36.
LallACSaadatAABattagliaMRMaldonadoDRPeretsIDombBG. Perineal pressure during hip arthroscopy is reduced by use of Trendelenburg: a prospective study with randomized order of positioning. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019;477(8):1851-1857. doi:10.1097/CORR.0000000000000804
37.
LequesneMde SezeJ. False profile of the pelvis. A new radiographic incidence for the study of the hip. Its use in dysplasias and different coxopathies. Article in French. Rev Rhum Mal Osteoartic. 1961;28:643-652.
38.
MaldonadoDRChenJWWalker-SantiagoR, et al. Radiographic and demographic factors can predict the need for primary labral reconstruction in hip arthroscopic surgery: a predictive model using 1398 hips. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(1):173-180. doi:10.1177/0363546519887749
39.
MaldonadoDRChenSLChenJW, et al. Prospective analysis of arthroscopic hip anatomic labral repair utilizing knotless suture anchor technology: the controlled-tension anatomic technique at minimum 2-year follow-up. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020;8(7):232596712093507. doi:10.1177/2325967120935079
40.
MaldonadoDRChenSLWalker-SantiagoR, et al. An intact ligamentum teres predicts a superior prognosis in patients with borderline dysplasia: a matched-pair controlled study with minimum 5-year outcomes after hip arthroscopic surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(3):673-681. doi:10.1177/0363546519898716
41.
MaldonadoDRKyinCShapiraJ, et al. Defining the maximum outcome improvement of the modified Harris Hip Score, the Nonarthritic Hip Score, the visual analogue scale for pain, and the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 in the arthroscopic management for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and labral tear. Arthroscopy. Published online January12, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2021.01.002
42.
MaldonadoDRLallACWalker-SantiagoR, et al. Hip labral reconstruction: consensus study on indications, graft type and technique among high-volume surgeons. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2019;6(1):41-49. doi:10.1093/jhps/hnz008
43.
MaldonadoDRLaReauJMPeretsI, et al. Outcomes of hip arthroscopy with concomitant periacetabular osteotomy, minimum 5-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(3):826-834.
44.
MaldonadoDRMuBHOrnelasJ, et al. Hip-spine syndrome: the diagnostic utility of guided intraarticular hip injections. Orthopedics. 2020;43(2):e65-e71. doi:10.3928/01477447-20191223-05
45.
MaldonadoDRRosinskyPJShapiraJDombBG. Stepwise safe access in hip arthroscopy in the supine position: tips and pearls from A to Z. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. Published online May22, 2020. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00856
46.
MaldonadoDRYeltonMJRosinskyPJ, et al. Return to play after hip arthroscopy among tennis players: outcomes with minimum five-year follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020;21(1):400. doi:10.1186/s12891-020-03424-w
47.
MansorYPeretsICloseMRMuBHDombBG. In search of the spherical femoroplasty: cam overresection leads to inferior functional scores before and after revision hip arthroscopic surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(9):2061-2071. doi:10.1177/0363546518779064
48.
MarattJDEspositoCIMcLawhornASJerabekSAPadgettDEMaymanDJ. Pelvic tilt in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty: when does it matter?J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(3):387-391. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.014
49.
MartinRLKivlanBRChristoforettiJJ, et al. Defining variations in outcomes of hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement using the 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12). Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(5):1175-1180. doi:10.1177/0363546520906408
50.
MartinRLPhilipponMJ. Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score in hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(8):822-826. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2007.02.004
51.
NormanGRSloanJAWyrwichKW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41(5):582-592. doi:10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4C
OgataSMoriyaHTsuchiyaKAkitaTKamegayaMSomeyaM. Acetabular cover in congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72(2):190-196. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.72B2.2312554
54.
OwensJSJimenezAEShapiraJ, et al. Capsular repair may improve outcomes in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review of comparative outcome studies. Arthroscopy. Published online April19, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2021.03.063
55.
PatelRVHanSLenherrCHarrisJDNoblePC. Pelvic tilt and range of motion in hips with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2020;28(10):e427-e432. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00155
56.
PerfettiDCSchwarzkopfRBucklandAJPaulinoCBVigdorchikJM. Prosthetic dislocation and revision after primary total hip arthroplasty in lumbar fusion patients: a propensity score matched-pair analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2017;32(5):1635-1640.e1. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.11.029
57.
PorterJLWilkinsonA. Lumbar-hip flexion motion: a comparative study between asymptomatic and chronic low back pain in 18- to 36-year-old men. Spine. 1997;22(13):1508-1513.
58.
RiffAJKunzeKNMovassaghiK, et al. Systematic review of hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: the importance of labral repair and capsular closure. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(2):646-656.e3. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2018.09.005
59.
ScholtesSAGombattoSPVan DillenLR. Differences in lumbopelvic motion between people with and people without low back pain during two lower limb movement tests. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2009;24(1):7-12. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2008.09.008
60.
SedaghatAR. Understanding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of patient-reported outcome measures. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;161(4):551-560. doi:10.1177/019459981 9852604
61.
SeldesRMTanVHuntJKatzMWiniarskyRFitzgeraldRH. Anatomy, histologic features, and vascularity of the adult acetabular labrum. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;382:232-240.
62.
SloanJA. Assessing the minimally clinically significant difference: scientific considerations, challenges and solutions. COPD. 2005;2(1):57-62. doi:10.1081/COPD-200053374
63.
SunYThompsonKADardenCYoumT. Surgical intervention for femoroacetabular impingement can lead to improvements in both hip and back function in patients with coexisting chronic back pain at 1-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2021;37(4):1163-1169.e1. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2020.11.043
64.
SungPS. A compensation of angular displacements of the hip joints and lumbosacral spine between subjects with and without idiopathic low back pain during squatting. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2013;23(3):741-745. doi:10.1016/j.jelekin.2013.02.003
65.
TurnerDSchünemannHJGriffithLE, et al. The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(1):28-36. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.024
66.
WongTKTLeeRYW. Effects of low back pain on the relationship between the movements of the lumbar spine and hip. Hum Mov Sci. 2004;23(1):21-34. doi:10.1016/j.humov.2004.03.0049
