Primary Hip Arthroscopy in Patients With Acetabular Dysplasia: A Systematic Review of Published Clinical Outcomes at Minimum 5-Year Follow-up.

backgroundHip arthroscopy in patients with borderline hip dysplasia has satisfactory outcomes at short-term follow-up; however, the data on midterm outcomes are inconsistent, and failure rates are high in some studies, limiting understanding of the role and utility of hip arthroscopy in this patient cohort. PURPOSE: To provide an up-to-date, evidence-based review of the clinical outcomes of primary hip arthroscopy in patients with frank or borderline hip dysplasia at ≥5-year follow-up and report the failure rate and progression to total hip arthroplasty in this cohort. STUDY

designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were included if they evaluated outcomes of primary hip arthroscopy in patients with lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) <25° at ≥5-year follow-up. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies scoring system. Level of evidence was determined using criteria from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine.

resultsNine studies were included in this review. Patients with LCEA <25° demonstrated satisfactory clinical outcomes, high patient satisfaction, and significant postoperative improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at follow-up ranging from a ≥5 to 10 years. Studies comparing patients with dysplasia to those without did not demonstrate significant differences in preoperative, postoperative, or delta PROs or in failure, reoperation, or revision rates. There was no overall significant correlation between outcomes and LCEA stratification.

conclusionHip arthroscopy in carefully selected patients with LCEA <25° can be successful at mid- to long-term follow-up and may provide clinical outcomes and failure rates comparable with patients with normal LCEA, understanding that this is a singular, 2-dimensional radiographic measure that does not differentiate instability from impingement or combinations thereof, warranting future studies delineating these differences. These findings suggest that hip dysplasia may not be an absolute contraindication for isolated hip arthroscopy and may serve as a viable intervention with consideration of staged future periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). Importantly, this review does not suggest that hip arthroscopy alters the natural history of dysplasia; therefore, patients with dysplasia should be counseled on the potential utility of PAO by appropriate hip preservation specialists.