Skip to main content

Acetabular retroversion does not affect outcome in primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement

A Correction to this article was published on 25 March 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

Purpose

The surgical treatment of femoral-acetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) in patients with acetabular retroversion (AR) is arthroscopical or by a reverse periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). The purpose of the present study was to investigate the results after arthroscopic treatment of FAIS in patients with and without radiographic signs of AR in a large, prospective cohort from the Danish Hip Arthroscopy Registry (DHAR). The hypothesis was there is no difference in clinical outcome between the two groups.

Methods

Data on 4914 hip arthroscopies performed during 2012–2019 were obtained from DHAR. Patients with radiographic signs of osteoarthritis (Tönnis > 1), hip dysplasia (CEA < 25°), other hip pathologies or previous hip surgery were excluded. The clinical outcomes for patients with AR [defined by a positive posterior wall sign (PWS) in combination with a positive Ischial Spine Sign (ISS)] and patients without AR (no PWS, no ISS) were analyzed 1 and 2 years after surgery. The primary outcomes were the six domains of the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome score (HAGOS), while secondary outcomes were the Hip Sports Activity Scale (HSAS), a visual analogue pain scale (VAS) and a numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain.

Results

A total of 3135 hip arthroscopies were included, of which 339 had AR, 1876 did not, and 920 presented one of the two signs (PWS and ISS). There were no statistically significant differences 1 and 2 years after surgery (n.s.) between patients with and without AR in HAGOS domain scores, HSAS, VAS, or NRS. Both groups showed improvement at both follow-ups. The two groups did not differ in relation to intraoperative findings and the procedures they have had.

Conclusion

The outcome 1 and 2 years after arthroscopic treatment of FAIS is not different for patients with and without AR.

Level of evidence

III.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Change history

References

  1. Ali M, Malviya A (2020) Complications and outcome after periacetabular osteotomy—influence of surgical approach. Hip Int 30(1):4–15

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bech N, Sierevelt I, de Waard S et al (2021) Capsular closure versus unrepaired interportal capsulotomy after hip arthroscopy in patients with femoroacetabular impingement, results of a patient-blinded randomised controlled trial. Hip Int. https://doi.org/10.1177/11207000211005762

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Beck M, Kalhor M, Leunig M et al (2005) Hip morphology influences the pattern of damage to the acetabular cartilage: femoroacetabular impingement as a cause of early osteoarthritis of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg Br 87(7):1012–1018

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chandrasekaran S, Darwish N, Close MR et al (2017) Minimum 2-year outcomes of arthroscopic management of symptomatic hip labrum tears in patients with global acetabular overcoverage. Arthroscopy 33(8):1514–1520

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Comins JD, Siersma VD, Lind M et al (2018) KNEES-ACL has superior responsiveness compared to the most commonly used patient-reported outcome measures for anterior cruciate ligament injury. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26:2438–2446

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Davila-Parrilla AD, Wylie J, O’Donnell C et al (2018) Reliability of and correlation between measurements of acetabular morphology. Orthopedics 41(5):e629–e635

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dippmann C, Albrecht-Olsen P, Boesen M et al (2020) Younger patients with hip joint pain. Ugeskr Laeger 182(2):V06180432

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Direito-Santos B, França G, Nunes J et al (2018) Acetabular retroversion: diagnosis and treatment. EFFORT Open Rev 3(11):595–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dufouil C, Brayne C, Clayton D (2004) Analysis of longitudinal studies with death and drop-out: a case study. Stat Med 23(14):2215–2226

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Duplantier N, McCulloch P, Nho S et al (2016) Hip dislocation or subluxation after hip arthroscopy: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 32(7):1428–1434

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ezoe M, Naito M, Inoue T (2006) The prevalence of acetabular retroversion among various disorders of the hip. J Bone Jt Surg Am 88(2):372–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fabricant PD, Fields KG, Taylor SA et al (2015) The effect of femoral and acetabular version on clinical outcomes after arthroscopic femoroacetabular impingement surgery. J Bone Jt Surg Am 97(7):537–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Flores S, Chambers C, Borak KR et al (2018) Arthroscopic treatment of acetabular retroversion with acetabuloplasty and subspine decompression: a matched comparison with patients undergoing arthroscopic treatment for focal pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement. Orthop J Sports Med 6(7):2325967118783741

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ganz R, Parvizi J, Beck M et al (2003) Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 417:112–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Giori NJ, Trousdale RT (2003) Acetabular retroversion is associated with osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin Orthop Relat Res 417:263–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Griffin DR, Dickenson EJ, O’Donnell J et al (2016) The Warwick Agreement on femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI syndrome): an international consensus statement. Br J Sports Med 50(19):1169–1176

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hansen CF, Jensen J, Siersma V et al (2021) A catalogue of PROMs in sports science—quality assessment of PROM development and validation. Scand J Med Sci Sports 31(5):991–998

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hansen CF, Jensen J, Siersma V et al (2021) Are adequate PROMs used as outcomes in randomized controlled trials? An analysis of 54 trials. Scand J Med Sci Sports 31(5):972–981

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hartigan DE, Perets I, Walsh JP et al (2016) Clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopy in radiographically diagnosed retroverted acetabula. Am J Sports Med 44(10):2531–2536

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hashemi SA, Dehghani J, Vosoughi AR (2017) Can the crossover sign be a reliable marker of global retroversion of the acetabulum? Skelet Radiol 46(1):17–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hjermstad MJ, Fayers PM, Haugen DF et al (2011) Studies comparing Numerical Rating Scales, Verbal Rating Scales, and Visual Analogue Scales for assessment of pain intensity in adults: a systematic literature review. J Pain Symptom Manag 41(6):1073–1093

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ishøi L, Thorborg K, Ørum MG et al (2021) How many patients achieve an acceptable symptom state after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome? A cross-sectional study including PASS cutoff values for the HAGOS and iHOT-33. Orthop J Sports Med 9(4):2325967121995267

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jakobsen SS, Overgaard S, Søballe K et al (2018) The interface between periacetabular osteotomy, hip arthroscopy and total hip arthroplasty in the young adult hip. EFORT Open Rev 3(7):408–417

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, Søballe K et al (2004) The relationship of hip joint space to self-reported hip pain. Osteoarthr Cartil 12(9):692–697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Jo S, Lee SH, Wang SI et al (2016) The role of arthroscopy in the dysplastic hip—a systematic review of the intra-articular findings, and the outcomes utilizing hip arthroscopic surgery. J Hip Preserv Surg 3(3):171–180

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kappe T, Kocak T, Neuerburg C et al (2011) Reliability of radiographic signs for acetabular retroversion. Int Orthop 35(6):817–821

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Konan S, Rayan F, Meermans G et al (2011) Validation of the classification system for acetabular chondral lesions identified at arthroscopy in patients with femoroacetabular impingement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 93(3):332–336

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Li PLS, Ganz R (2003) Morphologic features of congenital acetabular dysplasia: one in six is retroverted. Clin Orthop Relat Res 416:245–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Litrenta J, Mu B, Chen AW et al (2019) Radiographic and clinical outcomes of adolescents with acetabular retroversion treated arthroscopically. J Pediatr Orthop 39(10):510–515

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Litrenta J, Mu B, Ortiz-Declet V et al (2018) Should acetabular retroversion be treated arthroscopically? A systematic review of open versus arthroscopic techniques. Arthroscopy 34(3):953–966

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Maldonado DR, Chen JW, Kyin C et al (2020) Hips with acetabular retroversion can be safely treated with advanced arthroscopic techniques without anteverting periacetabular osteotomy: midterm outcomes with propensity-matched control group. Am J Sports Med 48(7):1636–1646

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Mygind-Klavsen B, Nielsen TG, Maagaard N et al (2016) Danish Hip Arthroscopy Registry: an epidemiologic and perioperative description of the first 2000 procedures. J Hip Preserv Surg 3(2):138–145

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mygind-Klavsen B, Lund B, Nielsen TG et al (2019) Danish Hip Arthroscopy Registry: predictors of outcome in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27(10):3110–3120

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Naal FD, Miozzari HH, Kelly BT et al (2013) The Hip Sports Activity Scale (HSAS) for patients with femoroacetabular impingement. Hip Int 23(2):204–211

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Novais EN, Carry PM, Kestel LA et al (2016) Factors that predict blood loss after Bernese periacetabular osteotomy. Orthopedics 39(6):e1147–e1153

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Poulsen E, Lund B, Roos E (2020) The Danish Hip Arthroscopy Registry: registration completeness and patient characteristics between responders and non-responders. Clin Epidemiol 4(12):825–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rahr-Wagner L, Lind M (2016) The Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Registry. Clin Epidemiol 25(8):531–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sansone M, Ahldén M, Jónasson P et al (2017) Outcome after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement in 289 patients with minimum 2-year follow-up. Scand J Med Sci Sports 27(2):230–235

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Siebenrock KA, Schaller C, Tannast M et al (2014) Anteverting periacetabular osteotomy for symptomatic acetabular retroversion: results at 10 years. J Bone Jt Surg Am 96(21):1785–1792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Sierra RJ (2013) The management of acetabular retroversion with reverse periacetabular osteotomy. Instr Course Lect 62:305–313

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE (2007) Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis—what the radiologist should know. Am J Roentgenol 188(6):1540–1552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Thorborg K, Tijssen M, Habets B et al (2015) Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires for young to middle-aged adults with hip and groin disability: a systematic review of the clinimetric evidence. Br J Sports Med 49(12):812

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Tibor LM, Sink EL (2012) Periacetabular osteotomy for hip preservation. Orthop Clin N Am 43(3):343–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Vahedi H, Aalirezaie A, Schlitt PK et al (2019) Acetabular retroversion is a risk factor for less optimal outcome after femoroacetabular impingement surgery. J Arthroplasty 34(7):1342–1346

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Torsten Grønbech Nielsen from the Department of Orthopedics, Section of Sports Traumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark for providing the data from DHAR.

Funding

This work was not supported by any external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Dippmann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares to have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not needed for the present study. Handling of data from DHAR was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency under case number 1-16-02-184-18. DHAR is approved by the Danish Health Authority.

Informed consent

Formal consent was not required for this registry study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original online version of this article was revised: Subheading of fig. 1 and fig. 2 have been corrected.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dippmann, C., Siersma, V., Overgaard, S. et al. Acetabular retroversion does not affect outcome in primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30, 3535–3543 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-022-06918-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-022-06918-3

Keywords

  • Hip arthroscopy
  • Registry
  • Acetabular retroversion
  • FAIS