Skip to main content
Log in

Learning curve of basic hip arthroscopy technique: CUSUM analysis

  • Hip
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

Hip arthroscopy is known to have a steep learning curve by measuring operation times or complication rates. However, these measures are arbitrary and are based on the number of procedures performed rather than clinical outcomes. Recently, Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis has been used to monitor the performance of a single surgeon by evaluating clinical outcomes. Our purpose was to determine the learning curve for basic hip arthroscopy technique using CUSUM technique.

Methods

Forty consecutive patients who underwent hip arthroscopy were evaluated. Modified Harris Hip Score less than 80 at 6 months postoperatively was considered as treatment failure. Patients were chronologically stratified in two groups (the early group—cases 1–20, and the late group—cases 21–40), and age, gender, body mass index, and operation time were compared in both group. CUSUM analysis was then used to plot the learning curve.

Results

Eight patients (20 %) experienced treatment failure. Although there was no significant difference of treatment failure rate between the early and late groups (30 vs. 10 %, n.s.), the operation time was shorter in the late group (p = 0.014). In addition, CUSUM analysis showed that failure rates diminished rapidly after 21 cases and reached an acceptable rate after 30 cases.

Conclusions

Surgeon’s experience is an important predictor of failure after hip arthroscopy, and CUSUM analysis revealed that a learning period is required to become proficient at this procedure, and that experience of approximately 20 cases is required to achieve satisfactory outcomes in terms of clinical outcomes. Surgeon can use the present learning curve for self-monitoring and continuous quality improvement in hip arthroscopy.

Level of evidence

Retrospective case series, Level IV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Byrd JW, Jones KS (2010) Prospective analysis of hip arthroscopy with 10-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:741–746

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Callaghan JJ, Heekin RD, Savory CG, Dysart SH, Hopkinson WJ (1992) Evaluation of the learning curve associated with uncemented primary porous-coated anatomic total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 282:132–144

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Fabricant PD, Heyworth BE, Kelly BT (2012) Hip arthroscopy improves symptoms associated with FAI in selected adolescent athletes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:261–269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Garras DN, Crowder TT, Olson SA (2007) Medium-term results of the Bernese periacetabular osteotomy in the treatment of symptomatic developmental dysplasia of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89(6):721–724

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Harris WH (1969) 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 51-A(4):737–755

    Google Scholar 

  6. Jaffer U, Cameron AE (2008) Laparoscopic appendectomy: a junior trainee’s learning curve. JSLS 12(3):288–291

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Klingenstein GG, Martin R, Kivlan B, Kelly BT (2012) Hip injuries in the overhead athlete. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:1579–1585

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Konan S, Rhee SJ, Haddad FS (2011) Hip arthroscopy: analysis of a single surgeon’s learning experience. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(Suppl 2):52–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lodhia P, Slobogean GP, Noonan VK, Gilbart MK (2011) Patient-reported outcome instruments for femoroacetabular impingement and hip labral pathology: a systematic review of the clinimetric evidence. Arthroscopy 27(2):279–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McCarthy JC, Jarrett BT, Ojeifo O, Lee JA, Bragdon CR (2011) What factors influence long-term survivorship after hip arthroscopy? Clin Orthop Relat Res 469:362–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. McCarthy JC, Lee J (2005) Hip arthroscopy: indications and technical pearls. Clin Orthop Relat Res 441:180–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McCarthy JC, Lee JA (2004) Arthroscopic intervention in early hip disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res 429:157–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McCarthy JC, Lee JA (2006) Hip arthroscopy: indications, outcomes, and complications. Instr Course Lect 55:301–308

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nunley RM, Zhu J, Brooks PJ, Engh CA Jr, Raterman SJ, Rogerson JS, Barrack RL (2010) The learning curve for adopting hip resurfacing among hip specialists. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:382–391

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Okrainec A, Ferri LE, Feldman LS, Fried GM (2011) Defining the learning curve in laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repair: a CUSUM analysis. Surg Endosc 25(4):1083–1087

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Philippon MJ, Briggs KK, Yen YM, Kuppersmith DA (2009) Outcomes following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement with associated chondrolabral dysfunction: minimum two-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 91(1):16–23

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Philippon MJ, Souza BG, Briggs KK (2012) Hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement in patients aged 50 years or older. Arthroscopy 28(1):59–65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Philippon MJ, Yen YM, Briggs KK, Kuppersmith DA, Maxwell RB (2008) Early outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement in the athletic adolescent patient: a preliminary report. J Pediatr Orthop 28(7):705–710

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sampson TG (2001) Complications of hip arthroscopy. Clin Sports Med 20(4):831–835

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Schilders E, Dimitrakopoulou A, Bismil Q, Marchant P, Cooke C (2011) Arthroscopic treatment of labral tears in femoroacetabular impingement: a comparative study of refixation and resection with a minimum two-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 93(8):1027–1032

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Souza BG, Dani WS, Honda EK, Ricioli W Jr, Guimaraes RP, Ono NK, Polesello GC (2010) Do complications in hip arthroscopy change with experience? Arthroscopy 26(8):1053–1057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Stevens MS, Legay DA, Glazebrook MA, Amirault D (2010) The evidence for hip arthroscopy: grading the current indications. Arthroscopy 26(10):1370–1383

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tolo VT (2011) Orthopaedic journals and conflict of interest. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(23):2145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Williams SM, Parry BR, Schlup MM (1992) Quality control: an application of the cusum. BMJ 304(6838):1359–1361

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yong-Chan Ha.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, YK., Ha, YC., Hwang, DS. et al. Learning curve of basic hip arthroscopy technique: CUSUM analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21, 1940–1944 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2241-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-012-2241-x

Keywords

Navigation