Is Hip Arthroscopy Effective in Patients With Combined Excessive Femoral Anteversion and Borderline Dysplasia? A Match-Controlled Study

Abstract

Background: Appropriate patient selection is critical when hip arthroscopy is considered in the setting of borderline dysplasia (BD). It is presumable that excessive femoral anteversion (EFA) and BD may contraindicate arthroscopy. Hypothesis: Patients with combined EFA and BD (EFABD) demonstrate significantly inferior short-term outcomes after arthroscopic labral preservation and capsular closure when compared with a similar control group with normal lateral coverage and femoral anteversion. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed on patients undergoing hip arthroscopy between April 2010 and November 2014. The EFABD group’s inclusion criteria were BD (lateral center-edge angle, 18°-25°), labral tear, capsular closure, and femoral version ≥20°, as well as preoperative modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale, and visual analog scale. Exclusion criteria were workers’ compensation, preoperative Tönnis grade >1, microfracture, abductor pathology, or previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions. Patients in the EFABD group were matched 1:2 to a similar control group with normal coverage and femoral anteversion by age at surgery ± 6 years, sex, body mass index ± 5, acetabular Outerbridge grade (0, 1 vs 2, 3, 4), and iliopsoas fractional lengthening. Results: Sixteen EFABD cases were eligible for inclusion, and 100% follow-up was obtained at ≥2 years postoperatively. Twelve EFABD cases were matched to 24 control cases. Mean femoral version was 22.4° in the EFABD group and 10.2° in the control group ( P = .01). Mean lateral center-edge angle was 22.1° in the EFABD group and 31.5° in the control group ( P < .0001). Acetabuloplasty was performed significantly more frequently in the control group ( P = .0006). No other significant differences were found regarding demographics, findings, procedures, or preoperative scores. At latest follow-up, the EFABD group demonstrated significantly lower mean modified Harris Hip Score (76.1 vs 85.9; P = .005), Nonarthritic Hip Score (74.8 vs 88.5; P < .0001), Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale (58.3 vs 78.4; P = .02), and patient satisfaction (7.1 vs 8.3; P = .005). There were 4 secondary surgical procedures (33.3%) in the EFABD group and 1 (4.2%) in the control group ( P = .03). One patient in each group required arthroplasty. Conclusion: Patients treated with arthroscopic labral preservation and capsular closure in the setting of EFABD demonstrated significant improvements from presurgery to latest follow-up. However, their results are significantly inferior when compared with a matched-controlled group. Consideration of periacetabular osteotomy or femoral osteotomy may be warranted in the setting of EFABD to achieve optimal benefit.