Does Prior Hip Arthroscopy Affect Outcomes of Subsequent Hip Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review

Abstract

Purpose: To compare outcomes of hip arthroplasty in patients with and without a history of hip arthroscopy through a systematic review.

Methods: A comprehensive search of the PubMed (MEDLINE) and Cochrane Central databases was performed using combinations of the keywords "hip," "arthroscopy," "arthroscopic," "arthroplasty," "replacement," and "conversion" in December 2017. Level I through III studies directly comparing outcomes of total or resurfacing hip arthroplasty between patients with and without a history of hip arthroscopy were included in this review if they reported at least 1 outcome measure.

Results: Seven retrospective case-control studies collectively evaluating arthroplasty outcomes of 235 patients (104 male and 131 female patients) with a history of hip arthroscopy and 374 matched controls met the inclusion criteria. The mean age in the arthroscopy and control groups was 47.2 years and 49.1 years, respectively. The mean follow-up period after arthroplasty was 3.2 years in the hip arthroscopy group and 3.3 years in the control group. The mean time between arthroscopy and arthroplasty was 1.8 years. A posterior approach was used in 83.6% of arthroplasties. No statistically significant differences were noted in intraoperative measures, postoperative complications, or revision rates, with the exception of 1 study that reported an increased operative time among controls. Most studies reported similar subjective outcomes between groups, with a single study noting worse postoperative findings for the Harris Hip Score, Forgotten Joint Score-12, visual analog scale pain score, and patient satisfaction in the prior hip arthroscopy group.

Conclusions: The current literature suggests that short-term and midterm outcomes of hip arthroplasty are comparable in patients with and without a history of hip arthroscopy. However, the available literature is limited given the small sample sizes and therefore greater potential for β error. Nevertheless, our findings may be useful for surgeons evaluating risks and prognoses in this patient population.

Level of evidence: Level III, systematic review of Level III studies.