Skip to main content

Periacetabular osteotomy after failed hip arthroscopy demonstrates improved outcomes in a heterogenous patient population: a systematic review



To evaluate the literature on patients undergoing periacetabular osteotomy after failed hip arthroscopy (PAO-FHA) for (1) patient demographics and hip morphology, (2) changes in preoperative to postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and (3) PROs in comparison to primary periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) patients.


A systematic literature search of Pubmed, CINAHL/Medline, and cochrane databases was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The search phrase was “(periacetabular osteotomy or PAO or rotational osteotomy) and (hip arthroscopy or arthroscopic)”. The titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened for studies on PAO-FHA. Study quality was assessed, and relevant data were collected. A meta-analysis was not performed due to study heterogeneity.


The search identified 7 studies, including 151 hips (148 patients, 93.9% female) undergoing PAO-FHA, out of an initial 593 studies, with three Level IV and four Level III studies. Mean time from hip arthroscopy to PAO ranged from 17.0 to 29.6 months. Heterogenous hip morphologies and radiologic findings prior to PAO were observed, though patients most frequently demonstrated moderate-to-severe dysplasia (mean or median lateral center edge angle < 20°) and minimal osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade 0 or 1). In all 5 studies that reported concomitant procedures with PAO, femoral and/or acetabular osteoplasty was performed via arthroscopy or arthrotomy. Following PAO-FHA, radiographic acetabular coverage and PROs improved in all 6 studies that reported postoperative outcomes. All four comparative studies of primary PAO vs. PAO-FHA included patients with mean or median LCEAs < 20°, reporting mixed outcomes for the optimal treatment approach.


PAO-FHA is reported in a heterogenous patient population that frequently includes hips with moderate-to-severe dysplasia and minimal osteoarthritis. Regardless of hip morphology or concomitant procedures, all studies that reported postoperative outcomes demonstrated improved PROs following PAO-FHA.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

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

Fig. 1


  1. Ankem HK, Diulus SC, Kyin C, Jimenez AE, Maldonado DR, Sabetian PW, Saks BR, Lall AC, Domb BG (2021) Favorable outcomes of revision hip arthroscopy irrespective of whether index surgery was performed by the same surgeon or a different surgeon. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev 5(12):e21.00107.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Brusalis CM, Peck J, Wilkin GP, Robustelli S, Buly RL, Nawabi DH, Ranawat AS, Kelly BT, Sink EL (2020) Periacetabular osteotomy as a salvage procedure: early outcomes in patients treated for iatrogenic hip instability. J Bone Joint Surg Am 102:73–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chandrasekaran S, Darwish N, Martin TJ, Suarez-Ahedo C, Lodhia P, Domb BG (2017) Arthroscopic capsular plication and labral seal restoration in borderline hip dysplasia: 2-year clinical outcomes in 55 cases. Arthroscopy 33:1332–1340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Clohisy JC, Nepple JJ, Larson CM, Zaltz I, Millis M, Academic Network of Conservation Hip Outcome Research (ANCHOR) Members (2013) Persistent structural disease is the most common cause of repeat hip preservation surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:3788–3794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cvetanovich GL, Harris JD, Erickson BJ, Bach BR, Bush-Joseph CA, Nho SJ (2015) Revision hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of diagnoses, operative findings, and outcomes. Arthroscopy 31:1382–1390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Duplantier NL, McCulloch PC, Nho SJ, Mather RC, Lewis BD, Harris JD (2016) Hip dislocation or subluxation after hip arthroscopy: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 32:1428–1434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Flores SE, Sheridan JR, Borak KR, Zhang AL (2018) When do patients improve after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement? A prospective cohort analysis. Am J Sports Med 46:3111–3118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hirase T, Mallett J, Barter LE, Dong D, McCulloch PC, Harris JD (2020) Is the iliopsoas a femoral head stabilizer? A systematic review. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil 2:e847–e853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jackson TJ, Watson J, LaReau JM, Domb BG (2014) Periacetabular osteotomy and arthroscopic labral repair after failed hip arthroscopy due to iatrogenic aggravation of hip dysplasia. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:911–914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jimenez AE, Monahan PF, Miecznikowski KB, Saks BR, Ankem HK, Sabetian PW, Lall AC, Domb BG (2021) Achieving successful outcomes in high-level athletes with borderline hip dysplasia undergoing hip arthroscopy with capsular plication and labral preservation: a propensity-matched controlled study. Am J Sports Med 49:2447–2456

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jimenez AE, Owens JS, Shapira J, Saks BR, Ankem HK, Sabetian PW, Lall AC, Domb BG (2021) Hip Capsular management in patients with femoroacetabular impingement or microinstability: a systematic review of biomechanical studies. Arthroscopy 37:2642–2654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Johannsen AM, Ejnisman L, Behn AW, Shibata K, Thio T, Safran MR (2019) Contributions of the capsule and labrum to hip mechanics in the context of hip microinstability. Orthop J Sports Med 7:2325967119890846

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kain MSH, Novais EN, Vallim C, Millis MB, Kim Y-J (2011) Periacetabular osteotomy after failed hip arthroscopy for labral tears in patients with acetabular dysplasia. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(Suppl 2):57–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kuroda Y, Saito M, Sunil Kumar KH, Malviya A, Khanduja V (2020) Hip arthroscopy and borderline developmental dysplasia of the hip: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 36:2550-2567.e1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Novais EN, Coobs BR, Nepple JJ, Clohisy JC, ANCHOR Study Group (2018) Previous failed hip arthroscopy negatively impacts early patient-reported outcomes of the periacetabular osteotomy: an ANCHOR matched cohort study. J Hip Preserv Surg 5:370–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ricciardi BF, Fields KG, Wentzel C, Kelly BT, Sink EL (2017) Early functional outcomes of periacetabular osteotomy after failed hip arthroscopic surgery for symptomatic acetabular dysplasia. Am J Sports Med 45:2460–2467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ross JR, Clohisy JC, Baca G, Sink E, Investigators ANCHOR (2014) Patient and disease characteristics associated with hip arthroscopy failure in acetabular dysplasia. J Arthroplasty 29:160–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sardana V, Philippon MJ, de Sa D, Bedi A, Ye L, Simunovic N, Ayeni OR (2015) Revision hip arthroscopy indications and outcomes: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 31:2047–2055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sheean AJ, Barrow AE, Burns TC, Schmitz MR (2017) Iatrogenic hip instability treated with periacetabular osteotomy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 25:594–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Shin JJ, de Sa DL, Burnham JM, Mauro CS (2018) Refractory pain following hip arthroscopy: evaluation and management. J Hip Preserv Surg 5:3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73:712–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Vaudreuil NJ, McClincy MP (2020) Evaluation and treatment of borderline dysplasia: moving beyond the lateral center edge angle. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 13:28–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Yeung M, Kowalczuk M, Simunovic N, Ayeni OR (2016) Hip arthroscopy in the setting of hip dysplasia. Bone Joint Res 5:225–231

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


No funding was provided for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew J. Curley.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors report the following disclosures: CSM - consultant (Arthrex), MPM - royalties (Elizur, LLC). The remaining authors report no disclosures.

Ethical approval

Institutional review board approval was not required for this review study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 15 KB)

Supplementary file2 (DOCX 16 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Curley, A.J., Engler, I.D., Ruh, E.R. et al. Periacetabular osteotomy after failed hip arthroscopy demonstrates improved outcomes in a heterogenous patient population: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Hip/pelvis/thigh
  • Dysplasia
  • Instability
  • Femoroacetabular impingement
  • Hip arthroscopy
  • Periacetabular osteotomy