Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 473, Issue 4, pp 1333–1341 | Cite as

Eighty Percent of Patients With Surgical Hip Dislocation for Femoroacetabular Impingement Have a Good Clinical Result Without Osteoarthritis Progression at 10 Years

  • Simon D. Steppacher
  • Helen Anwander
  • Corinne A. Zurmühle
  • Moritz Tannast
  • Klaus A. Siebenrock
Symposium: 2014 Bernese Hip Symposium
First Online:

Abstract

Background

We previously reported the 5-year followup of hips with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) that underwent surgical hip dislocation with trimming of the head-neck junction and/or acetabulum including reattachment of the labrum. The goal of this study was to report a concise followup of these patients at a minimum 10 years.

Questions/purposes

We asked if these patients had (1) improved hip pain and function; we then determined (2) the 10-year survival rate and (3) calculated factors predicting failure.

Methods

Between July 2001 and March 2003, we performed surgical hip dislocation and femoral neck osteoplasty and/or acetabular rim trimming with labral reattachment in 75 patients (97 hips). Of those, 72 patients (93 hips [96%]) were available for followup at a minimum of 10 years (mean, 11 years; range, 10–13 years). We used the anterior impingement test to assess pain and the Merle d’Aubigné-Postel score to assess function. Survivorship calculation was performed using the method of Kaplan and Meier and any of the following factors as a definition of failure: conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), radiographic evidence of worsening osteoarthritis (OA), or a Merle d’Aubigné-Postel score less than 15. Predictive factors for any of these failures were calculated using the Cox regression analysis.

Results

At 10-year followup, the prevalence of a positive impingement test decreased from preoperative 95% to 38% (p < 0.001) and the Merle d’Aubigné-Postel score increased from preoperative 15.3 ± 1.4 (range, 9–17) to 16.9 ± 1.3 (12–18; p < 0.001). Survivorship of these procedures for any of the defined failures was 80% (95% confidence interval, 72%–88%). The strongest predictors of failure were age > 40 years (hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval, 5.9 [4.8–7.1], p = 0.002), body mass index > 30 kg/m2 (5.5 [3.9–7.2], p = 0.041), a lateral center-edge angle < 22° or > 32° (5.4 [4.2–6.6], p = 0.006), and a posterior acetabular coverage < 34% (4.8 [3.7–5.6], p = 0.006).

Conclusions

At 10-year followup, 80% of patients with FAI treated with surgical hip dislocation, osteoplasty, and labral reattachment had not progressed to THA, developed worsening OA, or had a Merle d’Aubigné-Postel score of less than 15. Radiographic predictors for failure were related to over- and undertreatment of acetabular rim trimming.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Keywords

Acetabular Index Acetabular Coverage Negative Predictive Factor Labral Resection Anterior Impingement Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Albers CE, Steppacher SD, Ganz R, Tannast M, Siebenrock KA. Impingement adversely affects 10-year survivorship after periacetabular osteotomy for DDH. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:1602–1614.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beaule PE, Le Duff MJ, Zaragoza E. Quality of life following femoral head-neck osteochondroplasty for femoroacetabular impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:773–779.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beck M, Leunig M, Parvizi J, Boutier V, Wyss D, Ganz R. Anterior femoroacetabular impingement: part II. Midterm results of surgical treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;418:67–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brunner A, Horisberger M, Herzog RF. Sports and recreation activity of patients with femoroacetabular impingement before and after arthroscopic osteoplasty. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:917–922.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Byrd JW, Jones KS. Arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement: minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2011;27:1379–1388.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chiron P, Espie A, Reina N, Cavaignac E, Molinier F, Laffosse JM. Surgery for femoroacetabular impingement using a minimally invasive anterolateral approach: analysis of 118 cases at 2.2-year follow-up. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98:30–38.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cox DR. Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc B. 1972;34:187–220.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–213.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier JE, Bullinger M, Kaasa S, Leplege A, Prieto L, Sullivan M. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1171–1178.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ganz R, Gill TJ, Gautier E, Ganz K, Krugel N, Berlemann U. Surgical dislocation of the adult hip a technique with full access to the femoral head and acetabulum without the risk of avascular necrosis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:1119–1124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51:737–755.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holm I, Bolstad B, Lutken T, Ervik A, Rokkum M, Steen H. Reliability of goniometric measurements and visual estimates of hip ROM in patients with osteoarthrosis. Physiother Res Int. 2000;5:241–248.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ilizaliturri VM Jr, Orozco-Rodriguez L, Acosta-Rodriguez E, Camacho-Galindo J. Arthroscopic treatment of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement: preliminary report at 2 years minimum follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:226–234.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jackson TJ, Hanypsiak B, Stake CE, Lindner D, El Bitar YF, Domb BG. Arthroscopic labral base repair in the hip: clinical results of a described technique. Arthroscopy. 2014;30:208–213.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kalberer F, Sierra RJ, Madan SS, Ganz R, Leunig M. Ischial spine projection into the pelvis: a new sign for acetabular retroversion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:677–683.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirmit L, Karatosun V, Unver B, Bakirhan S, Sen A, Gocen Z. The reliability of hip scoring systems for total hip arthroplasty candidates: assessment by physical therapists. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19:659–661.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larson CM, Giveans MR, Stone RM. Arthroscopic débridement versus refixation of the acetabular labrum associated with femoroacetabular impingement: mean 3.5-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:1015–1021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Laude F, Sariali E, Nogier A. Femoroacetabular impingement treatment using arthroscopy and anterior approach. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:747–752.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lincoln M, Johnston K, Muldoon M, Santore R. Combined arthroscopic and modified open approach for cam femoroacetabular impingement: a preliminary experience. Arthroscopy. 2009;25:392–399.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Martin RL, Sekiya JK. The interrater reliability of 4 clinical tests used to assess individuals with musculoskeletal hip pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38:71–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McCarthy J, Mc Millan S. Arthrocopy of the hip: factors affecting outcome. Orthop Clin North Am. 2013;44:489–498.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McWhirk LB, Glanzman AM. Within-session inter-rater realiability of goniometric measures in patients with spastic cerebral palsy. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2006;18:262–265.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Merle d’Aubigné R, Postel M. Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prostesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1954;36:451–475.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Murphy S, Tannast M, Kim YJ, Buly R, Millis MB. Debridement of the adult hip for femoroacetabular impingement: indications and preliminary clinical results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;429:178–181.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Naal FD, Miozzari HH, Schar M, Hesper T, Nötzli HP. Midterm results of surgical hip dislocation for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40:1501–1510.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Naal FD, Miozzari HH, Wyss TF, Notzli HP. Surgical hip dislocation for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement in high-level athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39:544–550.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Palmer DH, Ganesh V, Comfort T, Tatman P. Midterm outcomes in patients with cam femoroacetabular impingement treated arthroscopically. Arthroscopy. 2012;28:1671–1681.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peters CL, Schabel K, Anderson L, Erickson J. Open treatment of femoroacetabular impingement is associated with clinical improvement and low complication rate at short-term followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:504–510.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Philippon MJ, Briggs KK, Yen YM, Kuppersmith DA. Outcomes following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement with associated chondrolabral dysfunction: minimum two-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:16–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Reynolds D, Lucas J, Klaue K. Retroversion of the acetabulum. A cause of hip pain. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1999;81:281–288.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Siebenrock KA, Schaller C, Tannast M, Keel M, Büchler L. Anteverting periacetabular osteotomy for symptomatic acetabular retroversion: results at ten years. J Bone Joint Surg. Epub ahead of print. DOI:  10.2106/JBJS.M.00842.
  34. 34.
    Sink EL, Leunig M, Zaltz I, Gilbert JC, Clohisy J. Reliability of a complication classification system for orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:2220–2226.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Steppacher SD, Huemmer C, Schwab JM, Tannast M, Siebenroc KA. Surgical hip dislocation for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: factors predicting 5-year survivorship. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:337–348.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Steppacher SD, Tannast M, Ganz R, Siebenrock KA. Mean 20-year followup of Bernese periacetabular osteotomy. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:1633–1644.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tannast M, Kakaty DK, Zheng G, Siebenrock K. What is a normal acetabulum? A computer-assisted radiographic study. In: Davies BL, Joskowicz L, Murphy SB, eds. Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery. Berlin, Germany: Pro Business; 2009:254–257.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tannast M, Mistry S, Steppacher SD, Reichenbach S, Langlotz F, Siebenrock KA, Zheng G. Radiographic analysis of femoroacetabular impingement with Hip2Norm-reliable and validated. J Orthop Res. 2008;26:1199–1205.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE. Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis—what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1540–1552.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tönnis D. General radiography of the hip joint. In: Tönnis D, ed. Congenital Dysplasia and Dislocation of the Hip. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 1987:100–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ware JJ, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wyss TF, Clark JM, Weishaupt D, Notzli HP. Correlation between internal rotation and bony anatomy in the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;460:152–158.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:890–895.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simon D. Steppacher
    • 1
  • Helen Anwander
    • 1
  • Corinne A. Zurmühle
    • 1
  • Moritz Tannast
    • 1
  • Klaus A. Siebenrock
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, InselspitalUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations