ArticleJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews2021
Favorable Outcomes of Revision Hip Arthroscopy Irrespective of Whether Index Surgery was Performed by the Same Surgeon or a Different Surgeon.
Article in Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Global research & reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Periacetabular osteotomy after failed hip arthroscopy demonstrates improved outcomes in a heterogenous patient population: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Pooled it
- Changing Surgeons for Revision Hip Arthroscopic Surgery Is Associated With Insurance Status, Geography, and Diagnosis of Anxiety or Depression.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- What the papers say.Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe purpose of this study was to compare minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) after revision hip arthroscopy between two different patient cohorts who had undergone primary hip arthroscopy with the same surgeon (SS) and a different surgeon (DS). We hypothesized no difference in clinical outcomes between the groups despite differences in intraoperative findings based on the surgical decision making in a revision setting at a high-volume center.
methodsBetween January 2012 and August 2017, 71 SS patients were matched for age, sex, body mass index, and follow-up to 71 DS patients. Modified Harris hip score (mHHS), nonarthritic hip score, and hip outcome score-sports-specific subscale (HOS-SSS) were collected prospectively. The minimal clinically important difference was calculated for mHHS and HOS-SSS.
resultsAll the DS patients had labral tears, and 94.4% had femoroacetabular impingement from residual bony deformity (P < 0.001). The SS and DS groups demonstrated significant and comparable improvement in mHHS (Δ = 18.3 ± 21.5 versus 19 ± 20.1; P = 0.837), nonarthritic hip score (Δ = 18.8 ± 18.8 versus 18.2 ± 18.8; P = 0.850), and HOS-SSS (Δ = 22 ± 27.4 versus 17.5 ± 28.1; P = 0.275). The rates of achieving minimal clinically important difference for mHHS and HOS-SSS were similar. Furthermore, the need for revision surgery and conversion to total hip arthroplasty were comparable (P = 0.228 and P = 0.383).
conclusionsPatients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy reported notable and comparable improvement in multiple patient-reported outcomes at a minimum 2-year follow-up, irrespective of intraoperative findings or primary source of patient pool.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.