Patient-Reported Outcomes Are Similar in the First Two Years After Staged Versus Combined Hip Arthroscopy and Periacetabular Osteotomy for Hip Dysplasia.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare early patient-reported outcomes after staged versus combined hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy for hip dysplasia.

METHODS: A prospective database was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients that underwent combined or staged hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) from 2012 to 2020. Patients were excluded if they were >40 years of age, had prior ipsilateral hip surgery, or did not have at least 12-24 months of postoperative patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. PROs included the Hip Outcomes Score (HOS) Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Sports Subscale (SS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and the Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). Paired t-tests were used to compare preoperative to postoperative scores for both groups. Outcomes were compared using linear regression adjusted for baseline characteristics, including age, obesity, cartilage damage, acetabular index, and procedure timing (early vs late practice).

RESULTS: Sixty-two hips were included in this analysis (39 combined, 23 staged). The average length of follow-up was similar between the combined and staged groups (20.8 vs 19.6 months; P = .192). Both groups reported significant improvements in PROs at final follow up compared to preoperative scores (P < .05 for all). There were no significant differences in HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, NAHS, or mHHS scores between groups preoperatively or at 3, 6, or 12 months postoperatively (P > .05 for all). There was no significant difference in PROs between the combined and staged groups at the final postoperative time point: HOS-ADL (84.5 vs 84.3; P = .77), HOS-SS (76.0 vs 79.2; P = .68), NAHS (82.2 vs 84.5; P = .79), and mHHS (71.0 vs 71.0, P = .75), respectively.

CONCLUSION: Staged hip arthroscopy and PAO for hip dysplasia leads to similar PROs at 12-24 months compared to combined procedures. This suggests that with careful and informed patient selection, staging these procedures is an acceptable option for these patients and does not change early outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative.