Outcomes of Isolated Endoscopic Gluteal Tendon Repair Compared With Concomitant Endoscopic Gluteal Tendon Repair and Arthroscopic Hip Labral Repair: A Propensity-Matched Analysis With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Both gluteal and labral tears are common sources of hip pain, but no studies have evaluated how concomitant arthroscopic labral repair and correction of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) affect outcomes after endoscopic gluteus/minimus repair.

PURPOSE: (1) To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinically significant outcomes achievements between patients who underwent endoscopic gluteus medius/minimus and arthroscopic hip labral repair with correction of FAIS versus endoscopic gluteus medius/minimus repair without labral repair and (2) to define threshold scores required to achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 12-item international Hip Outcome Tool, and visual analog scale for pain in these patients.

STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS: Patients who underwent primary endoscopic gluteus medius/minimus repair between 2012 and 2020 were identified. Those who underwent concomitant arthroscopic labral repair and correction of FAIS with femoroplasty or acetabuloplasty as indicated were propensity matched in a 1 to 1 ratio by sex, age, and body mass index to patients who underwent gluteus medius/minimus repair without labral repair. Patients who completed the study PROs were assessed preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively. Threshold scores required to achieve the MCID and PASS thresholds were calculated.

RESULTS: A total of 32 patients who underwent simultaneous gluteal and labral repair (G+L) were matched to 32 patients who underwent gluteal repair without labral repair (G); 75% of patients in the G cohort underwent labral debridement, while 25% in this cohort received no labral treatment. A significant difference was observed between groups in preoperative mHHS scores (G+L, 54.4 ± 12.9 vs G, 46.3 ± 14; P = .048) but no differences in any other PRO scores ( P ≥ .207). The MCID/PASS thresholds were as follows: Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (11.14/83.82), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific (16.07/59.72), mHHS (11.47/70.95), 12-item international Hip Outcome Tool (13.73/45.49), and visual analog scale for pain (14.30/22). There were no significant differences in MCID or PASS achievement rates between the 2 groups ( P ≥ .108).

CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent combined G+L demonstrated comparable PROs and clinically significant outcomes achievement rates to patients who underwent G, highlighting sustained successful outcomes for patients with gluteal tendon pathology and concomitant FAIS and labral tears.