Femoro-Acetabular Surgery for Hip Impingement Syndrome

Number: 0736

Policy
Applicable CPT / HCPCS / ICD-10 Codes
Background
References

Policy

Scope of Policy

This Clinical Policy Bulletin addresses femoro-acetabular surgery for hip impingement syndrome.

Medical Necessity
1. Aetna considers femoro-acetabular surgery, open or arthroscopic, for the treatment of hip impingement syndrome medically necessary for persons who fulfill all the following criteria:
  1. Diagnosis of definite femoro-acetabular impingement (FAI) defined by appropriate imaging studies (X-rays, MRI or CT scans), showing labral pathology (e.g. partial or full thickness labral tearing or labral damage) with one or more of the following:
    1. cam impingement (alpha angle greater than 50 degrees)
    2. pincer impingement (acetabular retroversion or coxa profunda) (center edge angle greater than or equal to 40 degrees), or
    3. pistol grip deformity (non-spherical femoral head shape); and
  2. Moderate to severe symptoms typical of FAI (hip or groin pain that is worsened by flexion activities (e.g., squatting or prolonged sitting) that significantly limits activities, with duration of at least 6 months where diagnosis of FAI has been made as above; and
  3. Positive impingement sign with sudden pain on 90 degree hip flexion with adduction and internal rotation or extension and external rotation; and
  4. Failure to respond to all available conservative treatment options including: activity modification (e.g., restriction of athletic pursuits and avoidance of symptomatic motion), pharmacological intervention (e.g., nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs [NSAIDS]), injections of local anesthetics into the joint) and physiotherapy. The treatment should be for at least 12 weeks in the past year with at least 6 weeks being formal physiotherapy (in-person not virtual); and
  5. Member is 15 years of age or older or skeletally mature (as indicated by epiphyseal closure); and
  6. Absence of advanced osteoarthritis change on pre-operative Xray (Tonnis grade 2 or more) or severe cartilage injury (Outerbridge grade III or IV); and
  7. Absence of joint space narrowing on plain radiograph of the pelvis. Joint space is not less than 2 mm wide anywhere along the sourcil; and
  8. Member does not have generalized joint laxity especially in diseases connected with hypermobility of the joints, such as Marfan syndrome and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome; and
  9. Member does not have osteogenesis imperfecta.
2. Aetna considers hip arthroscopy to repair a labral tear medically necessary for:
  1. Traumatic labral tears causing mechanical symptoms; or
  2. An adjunct to FAI surgery.
  Note: Iliopsoas tendon release surgery, capsular repair and capsular release surgery are considered integral to the primary procedure and not separately reimbursable.
  
  Note: Aetna recognizes that revision hip arthroscopy for FAI may be required, though infrequently, and any case would need documentation as to the reasons for failure of the prior surgery and the potential benefits of the proposed revision surgery, based on the criteria for FAI surgery listed above.
  
  Note: For purposes of this policy, Aetna will consider the official written report of complex imaging studies (e.g., CT, MRI, myelogram). If the operating surgeon disagrees with the official written report, the surgeon should document that disagreement. The surgeon should discuss the disagreement with the provider who did the official interpretation, and there should also be a written addendum to the official report indicating agreement or disagreement with the operating surgeon.
  
  Note: CPT Code 29860 - Diagnostic hip arthroscopy is generally not covered as it is not medically necessary (hip arthroscopy should only be performed with radiologically proven pathology that meets the above criteria), but if at the time of surgery the radiologically proven pathology is not found, then 29860 may be billed.
  
  Note: CPT Code 29862 - Debridement during hip arthroscopy is considered integral to the FAI surgery codes 29914/5/6 and would therefore not be covered. Arthroscopic debridement of the hip as an isolated procedure is considered experimental/investigational as its efficacy has never been proven.
Medically Necessary Procedures

Medically necessary procedures, when above criteria are met, include:
1. Femoro-acetabular surgery, open or arthroscopic, for the treatment of hip impingement syndrome;
2. Hip arthroscopy to repair a labral tear for traumatic labral tears causing mechanical symptoms or an adjunct to FAI surgery;
3. Repair of complete gluteus medius tears;
4. Hip arthroscopy for removal of foreign bodies;
5. Hip arthroscopy for the removal of loose bodies when no significant osteoarthritis is present (Tonnis 0 or 1);
6. Hip arthroscopy for synovectomy in limited instances of inflammatory arthritis, when no significant osteoarthritis is present (Tonnis 0 or 1).
Aetna considers surgery for FAI impingement experimental and investigational for all other indications.
Experimental and Investigational
1. Autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty in combination with femoral neck osteochondroplasty for the treatment of FAI
2. Capsular plication
3. Debridement or repair of the ligamentum teres when provided as an adjunct to FAI surgery
4. Endoscopic tenotomy (or lengthening) for iliopsoas tendinopathy following total hip arthroplasty
5. Hip arthroscopy to repair degenerative labral tears (e.g., due to early osteoarthritis)
6. Hip arthroscopy to treat members with acetabular dysplasia, without addressing the dysplasia via osteotomy
7. Labrum reconstruction for the treatment of FAI Note: Labral reconstruction uses a graft to reconstruct the native labrum. This is distinct from a labral repair, which is to repair the torn tissue by sewing it back together and/ or to its attachment site.
8. The following procedures are considered experimental and investigational when provided as an adjunct to FAI surgery because they have not been proven to improve the outcomes of FAI surgery:
  1. Anterior-inferior iliac spine decompression
  2. Debridement of trochanteric bursitis;
  3. Hip microfracture;
  4. Lesser trochanteric resection;
  5. Repair of partial gluteus medius tears. Note: Repair of complete gluteus medius tears is considered medically necessary.
Related CMS Coverage Guidance

This Clinical Policy Bulletin (CPB) supplements but does not replace, modify, or supersede existing Medicare Regulations or applicable National Coverage Determinations (NCDs) or Local Coverage Determinations (LCDs). The supplemental medical necessity criteria in this CPB further define those indications for services that are proven safe and effective where those indications are not fully established in applicable NCDs and LCDs. These supplemental medical necessity criteria are based upon evidence-based guidelines and clinical studies in the peer-reviewed published medical literature. The background section of this CPB includes an explanation of the rationale that supports adoption of the medical necessity criteria and a summary of evidence that was considered during the development of the CPB; the reference section includes a list of the sources of such evidence. While there is a possible risk of reduced or delayed care with any coverage criteria, Aetna believes that the benefits of these criteria – ensuring patients receive services that are appropriate, safe, and effective – substantially outweigh any clinical harms.

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):

42 CFR 417; 42 CFR 422; 42 CFR 423.

Internet-Only Manual (IOM) Citations:

CMS IOM Publication 100-02, Medicare Benefit Policy Manual; CMS IOM Publication 100-03 Medicare National Coverage Determination Manual.

Medicare Coverage Determinations:

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicare Coverage Database [Internet]. Baltimore, MD: CMS; updated periodically. Available at: Medicare Coverage Center. Accessed November 7, 2023.

Table:
Applicable CPT / HCPCS / ICD-10 Codes
Code	Code Description
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
29914	Arthroscopy, hip, surgical; with femoroplasty (ie, treatment of cam lesion)
29915	Arthroscopy, hip, surgical; with acetabuloplasty (ie, treatment of pincer lesion)
29916	Arthroscopy, hip, surgical; with labral repair
CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:
Iliopsoas tendon release surgery, capsular plication, endoscopic tenotomy, labrum reconstruction, autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty in combination with femoral neck osteochondroplasty, debridement of trochanteric bursitis, hip microfracture, gluteus medius repair, lesser trochanteric resection, and capsular release surgery - no specific code
Other CPT codes related to the CPB:
27140	Osteotomy and transfer of greater trochanter of femur (separate procedure)
27146	Osteotomy, iliac, acetabular or innominate bone
27147	with open reduction of hip
27151	with femoral osteotomy
27156	with femoral osteotomy and with open reduction of hip
27161	Osteotomy, femoral neck (separate procedure)
29860	Arthroscopy, hip, diagnostic with or without synovial biopsy (separate procedure)
29862	Arthroscopy, hip, surgical; with debridement/shaving of articular cartilage (chondroplasty), abrasion arthroplasty, and/or resection of labrum
ICD-10 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
M24.151 - M24.159	Other articular cartilage disorders, hip [hip impingement syndrome]
M24.451 - M24.459	Recurrent dislocation, hip [hip impingement syndrome]
M24.551 - M24.559	Contracture, hip [hip impingement syndrome]
M24.851 - M24.859	Other specific joint derangements of hip, not elsewhere classified [hip impingement syndrome]
M25.151 - M25.159	Fistula, hip [hip impingement syndrome]
M25.551 - M25.559	Pain in hip [hip impingement syndrome]
M25.651 - M25.659	Stiffness of hip, not elsewhere classified [hip impingement syndrome]
M25.9	Joint disorder [hip impingement syndrome]
R26.2	Difficulty in walking, not elsewhere classified [hip impingement syndrome]
S73.001A – S73.199S	Dislocation and sprain of joint and ligament of hip [hip impingement syndrome]
ICD-10 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB (not all-inclusive):
M16.0 - M16.9	Osteoarthritis of hip [advanced osteoarthritis]
M13.151 - M13.159	Monoarthritis not elsewhere classified, hip
M13.851 - M13.859	Other specified arthritis, hip
Q78.0	Osteogenesis imperfecta
Q79.6	Ehlers-Danlos syndrome
Q87.40 - Q87.43	Marfan's syndrome
*Hip arthroscopy for removal of foreign bodies and loose bodies*:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
29861	Arthroscopy, hip, surgical; with removal of loose body or foreign body [when no significant osteoarthritis is present]
ICD-10 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
M24.051 – M24.059	Loose body in hip
S70.251A - S70.259S	Superficial foreign body of hip
S71.021A - S71.029S	Laceration with foreign body of hip
S71.041A - S71.049S	Puncture wound with foreign body of hip
Z18.81 – Z18.89	Other specified retained foreign body [hip]
*Hip arthroscopy for synovectomy*:
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
29863	Arthroscopy, hip, surgical; with synovectomy [in limited instances of inflammatory arthritis when no significant osteoarthritis is present] [not covered for debridement of trochanteric bursitis as an adjunct to FAI surgery]
ICD-10 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
M05.051 - M05.059	Felty's syndrome, hip
M05.151 - M05.159	Rheumatoid lung disease with rheumatoid arthritis of hip
M05.251 - M05.259	Rheumatoid vasculitis with rheumatoid arthritis of hip
M05.351 - M05.359	Rheumatoid heart disease with rheumatoid arthritis of hip
M05.451 - M05.459	Rheumatoid myopathy with rheumatoid arthritis of hip
M05.551 - M05.559	Rheumatoid polyneuropathy with rheumatoid arthritis of hip
M05.651 - M05.659	Rheumatoid arthritis of hip with involvement of other organs and systems
M05.751 - M05.759	Rheumatoid arthritis with rheumatoid factor of hip without organ or systems involvement
M05.851 - M05.859	Other rheumatoid arthritis with rheumatoid factor of hip
M06.051 - M06.059	Rheumatoid arthritis without rheumatoid factor, hip
M06.251 – M06.259	Rheumatoid bursitis, hip
M06.351 – M06.359	Rheumatoid nodule, hip
M06.851 – M06.859	Other specified rheumatoid arthritis, hip
M07.651 – M07.659	Enteropathic arthropathies, hip
M08.051 - M08.059	Unspecified juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, hip
M08.251 - M08.259	Juvenile rheumatoid arthritis with systemic onset, hip
M08.451 - M08.459	Pauciarticular juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, hip
M08.851 - M08.859	Other juvenile arthritis, hip
M08.951 - M08.959	Juvenile arthritis, unspecified, hip
M10.051 - M10.059	Idiopathic gout, hip
M10.151 - M10.159	Lead-induced gout, hip
M10.251 - M10.259	Drug-induced gout, hip
M10.351 - M10.359	Gout due to renal impairment, hip
M10.451 - M10.459	Other secondary gout, hip
M11.051 - M11.059	Hydroxyapatite deposition disease, hip
M11.151 - M11.159	Familial chondrocalcinosis, hip
M11.251 - M11.259	Other chondrocalcinosis, hip
M11.851 - M11.859	Other specified crystal arthropathies, hip
M12.051 - M12.059	Chronic postrheumatic arthropathy [Jaccoud], hip
M12.151 - M12.159	Kaschin-Beck disease, hip
M12.251 - M12.259	Villonodular synovitis (pigmented), hip
M12.351 - M12.359	Palindromic rheumatism, hip
M12.451 - M12.459	Intermittent hydrarthrosis, hip
M12.551 - M12.559	Traumatic arthropathy, hip
M12.851 - M12.859	Other specific arthropathies, not elsewhere classified, hip
M13.151 - M13.159	Monoarthritis, not elsewhere classified, hip
M13.851 - M13.859	Other specified arthritis, hip
M14.651 –M14.659	Charcot's joint, hip
M14.851 –M14.859	Arthropathies in other specified diseases classified elsewhere, hip
M1A.0510 - M1A.0591	Idiopathic chronic gout, hip
M1A.1510 - M1A.1591	Lead-induced chronic gout, hip
M1A.2510 - M1A.2591	Drug-induced chronic gout, hip
M1A.3510 - M1A.3591	Chronic gout due to renal impairment, hip
M1A.4510 - M1A.4591	Other secondary chronic gout, hip

Background

Hip impingement syndrome, also known as femoro-acetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome, is a recently accepted pathological condition that primarily affects young and middle-aged adults. It is characterized by hip pain felt mainly in the groin, and can result in chronic pain and decreased range of motion in flexion and internal rotation. Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) occurs as a result of friction in the hip joint caused by abnormal contact between the femoral head and the rim of the acetabulum (hip socket). Over time, the repetitive contact can cause damage to the articular or labral cartilage, which may lead to degenerative joint disease.

Femoro-acetabular impingement syndrome has been reported to be associated with progressive osteoarthritis of the hip. History, physical examination, as well as supportive radiographical findings including evidence of articular cartilage damage, acetabular labral tearing, and early-onset degenerative changes can aid in diagnosing this condition. Several pathological changes of the femur and acetabulum are known to predispose individuals to develop FAI syndrome.

The three types of FAI include excessive acetabular covering (pincer type), nonspherical femoral head (cam type) or a combination of the two. The two basic mechanisms of FAI are cam impingement (most common in young athletic males) and pincer impingement (most common in middle-aged women). This classification is based on the type of anatomical anomaly contributing to the impingement process. Cam Impingement is a type of impingement in which the femoral head is aspherical, which prevents it from rotating smoothly inside the acetabulum (i.e., femoral cause). Pincer Impingement is a type of impingement in which extra bone extends out over the normal rim of the acetabulum (ie, acetabular cause). Cam impingement is the result an abnormal morphology of the proximal femur, usually at the femoral head-neck junction; while pincer impingement is the result of an abnormal morphology or orientation of the acetabulum (Kassajian et al, 2007). These changes can be found on conventional radiography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) examinations (Beall et al, 2005; Bredella and Stoller, 2005).

Characteristic magnetic resonance arthrographic findings of cam FAI entail large alpha angles and cartilage lesions at the antero-superior position and osseous bump formation at the femoral neck (Pfirrmann et al, 2006). The alpha angle is a measurement of the hip ball (femoral head and neck junction) to determine how much cam impingement exists. The severity of the impingement increases along with the degree of the alpha angle.

Characteristic magnetic resonance arthrographic findings of pincer FAI include a deep acetabulum and postero-inferior cartilage lesions (Pfirrmann, et al., 2006). The term coxa profunda refers to a deep acetabulum with excessive acetabular coverage; also referred to as "deep socket." A center edge angle greater than or equal to 40 degrees has been found to be a reliable predictor of pincer impingement (Kutty, et al., 2012). The center edge angle is the angle formed by a vertical line and a line connecting the femoral head center with the lateral edge of the acetabulum. A normal center edge angle varies between 25º and 39º (Tannast, et al., 2007).

Management of individuals with FAI ranges from conservative therapies (e.g., modification of activities to reduce excessive motion and burden on the hip, the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and discontinuation of activities associated with the painful hip movement) to surgery (e.g., peri-acetabular osteotomy, hip dislocation and debridement). Conservative measures, including physical therapy, restriction of activities, core strengthening, improvement of sensory-motor, and control and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories are the mainstays of nonsurgical treatment (Samora, et al., 2011).

The main goal of surgical treatment for this condition is to improve the clearance for motion at the hip joint and lessen the femoral thrust against the acetabular rim. Surgical treatments for treating FAI include arthroscopic or open surgery and hip replacement. Arthroscopic surgery involves the insertion of an arthroscope and small surgical instruments through several small skin incisions into the joint for examination, shaving of bone spurs or removal of damaged cartilage as needed. Open surgery is performed when large defects are present. Hip replacement is necessary when no articular cartilage is present.

Surgical intervention usually focuses on improving the clearance for hip motion and alleviation of femoral abutment against the acetabular rim. Peri-acetabular osteotomy entails an incision over the front of the hip. With the aid of fluoroscopy, the surgeon cuts through the pelvic bones (i.e., ilium, ischium, and pubis) around the acetabulum to free it from its original position. When the surgeon is satisfied with the new location of the acetabulum (facing the right direction with good coverage), it is secured with 3 to 6 screws. From the same incision, the surgeon can also access the hip joint to debride extra bone from the head/neck as needed. Hip dislocation and debridement is usually performed through an incision over the side of hip where the surgeon can dislocate the hip after preserving the vascular supply to the head. After exposing the femoral head and acetabulum, the surgeon can debride extra bone that contributes to the impingement. After removal of bone and damaged tissue, the greater trochanter is re-attached to the femur with screws.

It has been suggested that the surgical trauma sustained during the open procedure for the treatment of FAI syndrome may make it difficult for high-level/professional athletes to return to professional sports. As a result, an arthroscopic approach to treat FAI syndrome has been developed (Philippon and Schenker, 2006).

The iliopsoas (or hip flexors) refer to the combination of the psoas major and the iliacus muscles at their inferior ends where they join together and form a common tendon that attaches onto the lesser trochanter of the thigh bone (femur). Iliopsoas impingement occurs when the muscle and tendon of the iliopsoas become inflamed and tight, causing an audible snap or click when the iliopsoas tendon moves over the labrum and femoral head. The tightness of the iliopsoas causes rubbing against the labral cartilage and may cause irritation, pain and tearing.

Iliopsoas tendon release (tenotomy) is a surgical procedure that may be performed to provide relief of tension by a partial release and lengthening of the tendon. This procedure can be performed in a natural hip or after total hip arthroplasty. A tenotomy is the total or partial severing of a tendon to allow lengthening.

Ayeni et al (2012) systematically reviewed the clinical literature to determine the consistently reported indications for arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). The indications for FAI surgery reported in the literature included a positive impingement sign, symptoms or pain for more than 6 months, and a series of positive special tests. Commonly reported radiographic indicators for arthroscopic FAI management included the following: results from a computed tomography scan or magnetic resonance imaging, cam or pincer lesions evident on anteroposterior and/or lateral radiographs, loss of sphericity of the femoral neck, acetabular retroversion, magnetic resonance arthrography, reduction in head-neck offset, an alpha angle greater than 50^°, and coxa profunda.

Guidance on arthroscopic femoroacetabular surgery for hip impingement syndrome from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE, 2011) found evidence is adequate for symptom relief in the short- and medium-term. The consultation documents stated, however, that additional research is needed on patient selection and long-term outcomes specifically related to the development of osteoarthritis. The Committee noted that the available evidence was from observational studies. The guidance stated that, while this was considered adequate for the present recommendation, further studies would be useful. The Committee stated that they recognized the difficulties of comparative research and acquisition of long-term data on this procedure. The guidance noted that the British Hip Society is establishing a registry nfor arthroscopic femoroacetabular surgery for hip impingement syndrome, and stated that clinicians should submit details of all patients undergoing femoroacetabular surgery for hip impingement syndrome to the registry once it is available. The guidance noted that a prime purpose of the registry is to provide data on the long-term outcomes of the procedure. The guidance also stated that it is important that both the registry and other studies report details of patient selection to allow clear understanding of these outcomes.

Matsuda et al (2011) performed a systematic evidence review to analyze the current approaches to the surgical management of symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), including open dislocation, mini-open, and arthroscopic surgeries for femoroacetabular impingement. A total of 18 peer-reviewed treatment outcome studies met the inclusion criteria with minimum 1-year follow-up of the surgical treatment of skeletal pathoanatomy and associated chondrolabral pathology in skeletally mature patients with FAI. There were 6 open surgical dislocation, 4 mini-open, and 8 arthroscopic studies, all with Levels of Evidence III or IV. The only prospective studies were in the arthroscopic category. Outcome data were extracted and analyzed with respect to surgical efficacy, failure rates, and complications. The authors concluded that the open dislocation, mini-open, and arthroscopic methods for treating symptomatic FAI are effective in improving pain and function in short-term to midterm studies and are relatively safe procedures. The authors said that the historical gold standard of open dislocation surgery had a comparatively high major complication rate primarily because of trochanteric osteotomy-related issues. The mini-open method showed comparable efficacy but a significant incidence of iatrogenic injury to the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve in some studies. The authors found that the arthroscopic method had surgical outcomes equal to or better than the other methods with a lower rate of major complications when performed by experienced surgeons. A critique of the systematic evidence review by Matsuda et al conducted by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD, 2011) concluded that Matsuda et al's conclusions should be treated with caution, given potential bias in the review process, inclusion of weak study designs, limited statistical data and wide variation in the included studies. The CRD noted that most studies of femoroacetabular surgery included in Matsuda et al's systematic evidence review did not report confidence intervals and only one study provided power calculations and defined clinically meaningful changes in outcomes. The CRD stated that, given that most studies of FAI surgery were case series and no explicit methods were used to assess studies for quality, potential for bias was substantial as differences in participants, interventions and outcomes made it difficult to interpret the clinical relevance and reliability of the results. The CRD noted that 3 different surgical options reviewed by Matsuda et al were compared indirectly in potentially different populations, which made it difficult to interpret the findings. The CRD (2011) concluded that given the potential biases in the review by Matsuda et al (searching, data extraction and quality assessment), inclusion of weak study designs, limited statistical data and wide variation in the included studies, Matsuda et al's conclusions should be treated with caution.

Observational studies have demonstrated substantial improvements in symptoms with femoroacetabular surgery; however, observational studies may overestimate the actual degree of improvement from surgery. Studies of arthroscopy for shoulder impingement demonstrates the potential for observational studies to over-estimate the benefit of an orthopedic intervention, when compared to controlled clinical trials (compare Odenbring et al, 2008; Ketola et al, 2009). In addition, further research is needed on the structural variants that contribute to hip pain; one study failed to find an association in the community between one of the structural variants treated by arthroscopic hip surgery and hip joint pain (Gosvig et al, 2010; EMSCG, 2010).

The number of published studies of FAI surgery has increased exponentially over time. Haviv et al (2011) reviewed publications on FAI over the past decade, and found an exponential increase in numbers of publications on FAI over time; the authors found, however, that there has been no corresponding increase in the quality of published studies.

A number of studies have reported positive short- and mid-term outcomes. In a case-series study of 213 treated hips including 19 patients who underwent simultaneous inter-trochanteric osteotomy with a minimum follow-up of 2 years, Ganz and colleagues (2001) reported that most patients had an improved range of motion as well as a reduction in pain following surgical dislocation of the hip. In another case-series study (22 patients; 29 hips), Siebenrock et al (2003) examined if symptomatic anterior FAI due to acetabular retroversion can be treated effectively with a peri-acetabular osteotomy. Follow-up ranged from 24 months to 49 months (average of 30 months). These investigators reported that peri-acetabular osteotomy produced a good or excellent result in 26/29 (90 %) of hips. In a third case-series study, Murphy et al (2004) evaluated a group of 23 hips in 23 patients treated by surgical debridement for impingement: 22 patients were treated by full surgical dislocation and 1 patient was treated by relief of impingement without dislocation. Follow-up ranged from a minimum of 2 years to 12 years. These researchers reported that at 5.2 years' follow-up after debridement of the hip, 15/23 (65 %) of patients had functioning hips and had not required further surgery.

In a retrospective case series, Larson and Giveans (2008) assessed the early outcomes of arthroscopic management of FAI, reporting good to excellent results in 75 percent of patients. A total of 96 consecutive patients (100 hips) with radiographically documented FAI were treated with hip arthroscopy, labral debridement or repair/refixation, proximal femoral osteoplasty, or acetabular rim trimming (or some combination thereof). Outcomes were measured with the impingement test, modified Harris Hip Score, Short Form 12, and pain score on a visual analog scale (VAS) pre-operatively and post-operatively at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months, as well as yearly thereafter. Pre-operative and post-operative radiographical alpha angles were measured to evaluate the adequacy of proximal femoral osteoplasty. There were 54 male and 42 female patients with up to 3 years' follow-up (mean of 9.9 months). The mean age was 34.7 years. Isolated cam impingement was identified in 17 hips, pincer impingement was found in 28, and both types were noted in 55. Thirty hips underwent labral repair/refixation. A comparison of pre-operative scores with those obtained at most recent follow-up revealed a significant improvement (p < 0.001) for all outcomes measured: Harris Hip Score (60.8 versus 82.7), Short Form 12 (60.2 versus 77.7), VAS for pain (6.74 cm versus 1.88 cm), and positive impingement test (100 % versus 14 %). The alpha angle was also significantly improved after resection osteoplasty. Complications included heterotopic bone formation (6 hips) and a 24-hour partial sciatic nerve neurapraxia (1 hip). No hip went on to undergo repeat arthroscopy, and 3 hips have subsequently undergone total hip arthroplasty. The authors concluded that arthroscopic management of patients with FAI results in significant improvement in outcomes measures, with good to excellent results being observed in 75% of hips at a minimum 1-year follow-up. However, alteration in the natural progression to osteoarthritis and sustained pain relief as a result of arthroscopic management of FAI remain to be seen.

Ilizalitturi et al (2008) reported on short-term follow-up of an uncontrolled cohort of 19 patients with cam femoroacetabular impingement. The authors reported a modest improvement in Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score from preoperatively to 2 years post-operatively (mean of 82 points pre-operatively to mean of 89 points post-operatively). The authors conclude that "long-term follow-up is needed to fully understand the results of surgical intervention for the treatment of FAI".

In a preliminary report, Philippon et al (2008) reported on the treatment of FAI in the adolescent population. Between March 2005 and May 2006, a total of 16 patients (aged 16 years or younger) underwent hip arthroscopy for FAI. There were 14 females and 2 males, with 1 patient undergoing a bilateral procedure. Five patients had isolated pincer impingement, 2 had isolated cam impingement, and 9 had mixed pathology. All patients had labral pathology. Seven patients were treated with suture anchor repair of the labrum and 9 with partial labral debridement. Subjective data were collected from each patient during their initial visit and at follow-up after surgery. Subjective data included the modified Harris Hip score (MHHS), patient satisfaction, and hip outcome score (HOS) activities of daily living (ADL), and sports subscales. The mean age at the time of arthroscopy was 15 years old (range of 11 to 16 years). The mean pre-operative MHHS was 55 (range of 33 to 70), HOS ADL was 58 (range of 38 to 75), and HOS sport score was 33 (range of 0 to 78). The mean time from injury to surgery was 10.6 months (range of 6 weeks to 30 months). The mean time to follow-up was 1.36 years (range of 1 to 2 years). The mean post-operative MHHS improved 35 points to 90 (range of 70 to 100; p = 0.005), post-operative HOS ADL improved 36 points to 94 (range of 74 to 100; p = 0.001), and post-operative HOS sport score improved 56 points to 89 (range of 58 to 100; p = 0.001). The mean patient satisfaction score was 9 (range of 9 to 10). The authors concluded that hip arthroscopy for FAI in the adolescent population produces excellent improvement in function and a high level of patient satisfaction in the short-term.

Philippon and colleagues (2009) reported the outcomes following hip arthroscopy for FAI with associated chondrolabral dysfunction. These investigators prospectively enrolled 122 patients who underwent arthroscopic surgery of the hip for FAI and met the inclusion criteria for this study. Patients with bilateral hip arthroscopy, avascular necrosis and previous hip surgery were excluded; 10 patients refused to participate, leaving 112 in the study (62 women and 50 men). The mean age of the patients was 40.6 years (95 % confidence interval (CI) 37.7 to 43.5). At arthroscopy, 23 patients underwent osteoplasty only for cam impingement, 3 underwent rim trimming only for pincer impingement, and 86 underwent both procedures for mixed-type impingement. The mean follow-up was 2.3 years (2.0 to 2.9). The mean MHHS improved from 58 to 84 (mean difference = 24 (95 % CI 19 to 28)) and the median patient satisfaction was 9 (1 to 10). Ten patients underwent total hip replacement at a mean of 16 months (8 to 26) after arthroscopy. The predictors of a better outcome were the pre-operative modified HHS (p = 0.018), joint space narrowing greater than or equal to 2 mm (p = 0.005), and repair of labral pathology instead of debridement (p = 0.032). The authors concluded that hip arthroscopy for FAI, accompanied by suitable rehabilitation, gives a good short-term outcome and high patient satisfaction.

Byrd and Jones (2009) prospectively assessed 200 patients (207 hips) who underwent arthroscopic correction of cam impingement from December 2003 to October 2007, using a MHHS. The minimum follow-up was 12 months (mean of 16 months; range of 12 to 24 months); no patients were lost to follow-up. The average age was 33 years with 138 men and 62 women. A total of 158 patients (163 hips) underwent correction of cam impingement (femoroplasty) alone while 42 patients (44 hips) underwent concomitant correction of pincer impingement. The average increase in MHHS was 20 points; 0.5 % converted to total hip arthroplasty. There were a 1.5 % complication rate. The authors stated that the short-term outcomes of arthroscopic treatment of cam-type FAI are comparable to published reports for open methods with the advantage of a less invasive approach.

Bardakos and Villar (2009) investigated the effect of several radiological parameters, each indicative of a structural aspect of the hip joint, on the progression of osteoarthritis. Pairs of plain antero-posterior pelvic radiographs, taken at least 10 years apart, of 43 patients (43 hips) with a pistol-grip deformity of the femur and mild (Tönnis grade 1) or moderate (Tönnis grade 2) osteoarthritis were reviewed. Of the 43 hips, 28 showed evidence of progression of osteoarthritis. There was no significant difference in the prevalence of progression between hips with initial Tönnis grade 1 or grade 2 osteoarthritis (p = 0.31). Comparison of the hips with and without progression of arthritis revealed a significant difference in the mean medial proximal femoral angle (81 degrees versus 87 degrees, p = 0.004) and the presence of the posterior wall sign (39 % versus 7 %, p = 0.02) only. A logistic regression model was constructed to predict the influence of these two variables in the development of osteoarthritis. Mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis in hips with a pistol-grip deformity will not progress rapidly in all patients. In one-third, progression will take more than 10 years to manifest, if ever. The individual geometry of the proximal femur and acetabulum partly influences this phenomenon. A hip with cam impingement is not always destined for end-stage arthritic degeneration.

Horisberger et al (2010) prospectively followed a cohort of 105 hips (88 patients; 60 males, 28 females) who underwent arthroscopic surgery for symptomatic cam or mixed femoroacetabular impingement. At a minimum follow-up of 1.3 years (average, 2.3 years; range, 1.3 to 4.1 years), all clinical outcome measures improved. Nine patients (8.6%) underwent total hip arthroplasty during follow-up.

Gedouin et al (2010) reported on outcomes of arthroscopic surgery for hip impingement in 111 hips in 110 patients (78 male, 32 female; mean age of 31 years). A total of 65 patients showed no radiographic sign of osteoarthritis, and 36 showed grade-1 early osteoarthritis on the Tönnis scale. The investigators reported that mean WOMAC score rose from 60.3 pre-operatively to 83 (p < 0.001) at a mean 10 months' follow-up (range of 6 to 18 months); 77 % of patients were satisfied or very satisfied with their result. The investigators noted that patients with early osteoarthritis had significantly lower WOMAC and satisfaction scores than those free of osteoarthritis. Operative crossover to open surgery for femoroacetabular impingement occurred in one case. Five patients (4 %) had total hip replacement or resurfacing. There were 7 complications (6 %): 3 cases of heterotopic ossification, 1 of crural palsy, 1 of pudendal palsy, 1 of labium majus necrosis, and 1 non-displacement stress fracture of the femoral head/neck junction. There was no palsy of the territory of the lateral cutaneous nerve of the thigh.

The labrum is a ring of fibrocartilage (fibrous cartilage) around the edge of the articular (joint) surface of a bone. In a case series study, Philippon et al (2010) examined the indications for and outcomes of arthroscopic labral reconstruction in the hip by use of ilio-tibial band (ITB) autograft. Between August 2005 and May 2008, the senior author performed 95 arthroscopic labral reconstructions using an ITB autograft in patients with advanced labral degeneration or deficiency. There were 47 patients (32 men, 15 women, mean age 37 years (range of 18 to 55 years)) who had undergone surgery at a minimum of 1 year previously and met the inclusion criteria. The mean time from the onset of symptoms to labral reconstruction was 36 months (range of 1 month to 12 years). Subsequent total hip arthroplasty was performed in 4 patients (9 %). Follow-up was obtained in 37 of the remaining 43 patients. The mean time to follow-up was 18 months (range of 12 to 32 months). The mean modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS) improved from 62 (range of 35 to 92) pre-operatively to 85 (range of 53 to 100) post-operatively (p = 0.001). Median patient satisfaction was 8 out of 10 (range of 1 to 10). Patients who were treated within 1 year of injury had higher modified Harris Hip Scores than patients who waited longer than 1 year (93 versus 81, p = 0.03). The independent predictor of patient satisfaction with outcome after labral reconstruction was age. The authors concluded that these findings showed that patients who have labral deficiency or advanced labral degeneration had good outcomes and high patient satisfaction after arthroscopic intervention with acetabular labral reconstruction. Lower satisfaction was associated with joint space narrowing and increased age. Patients who waited longer than 1 year from the time of injury to surgery had lower function at follow-up than those treated in the 1st year. The study by Philippon et al (2010) was a case series that examined arthroscopic labral reconstruction in the hip by use of ilio-tibial band autograft in patients with advanced labral degeneration or deficiency. It is unclear how many of the studied cases involved hip impingement syndrome/femoro-acetabular syndrome.

A controlled study of FAI surgery compared FAI surgery with resection of the torn labrum to FAI surgery with reattachment of the labrum to the acetabular rim (Espinosa et al, 2006). Espinosa and co-workers (2006) examined if labral re-fixation after treatment of FAI affects the clinical and radiographical results. These investigators retrospectively reviewed the clinical and radiographical results of 52 patients (60 hips) with FAI who underwent arthrotomy and surgical dislocation of the hip to allow trimming of the acetabular rim and femoral osteochondroplasty. In the first 25 hips, the torn labrum was resected (group 1); in the next 35 hips, the intact portion of the labrum was re-attached to the acetabular rim (group 2). At 1 and 2 years post-operatively, the Merle d'Aubigné clinical score and the Tönnis arthrosis classification system were used to compare the two groups. At 1-year follow-up, both groups showed a significant improvement in their clinical scores (mainly pain reduction) compared with their pre-operative values (p = 0.0003 for group 1 and p < 0.0001 for group 2). At 2-year follow-up, 28 % of the hips in group 1 (labral resection) had an excellent result, 48 % had a good result, 20 % had a moderate result, and 4 % had a poor result. In contrast, in group 2 (labral re-attachment), 80 % of the hips had an excellent result, 14 % had a good result, and 6 % had a moderate result. Comparison of the clinical scores between the two groups revealed significantly better outcomes for group 2 at 1-year (p = 0.0001) and 2-year (p = 0.01) follow-up. Radiographical signs of osteoarthritis were significantly more prevalent in group 1 than in group 2 at 1-year (p = 0.02) and at 2-year (p = 0.009) follow-up. The authors concluded that patients treated with labral re-fixation recovered earlier and had superior clinical and radiographical outcomes when compared with patients who had undergone resection of a torn labrum. These investigators noted that the results must be considered preliminary, but they recommend re-fixation of the intact portion of the labrum after trimming of the acetabular rim during surgical treatment of FAI. Furthermore, they stated that long-term follow-up will be needed to evaluate if use of this technique results in improved functional outcomes and a reduction in the prevalence of symptomatic osteoarthritis in affected patients.

Nho et al (2011) reported on a case series showing that arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement in a mixed group of high-level athletes resulted in a significant improvement in hip functional outcome: 78 % of athletes were able to return to play at 1 year and 73 % of athletes were able to play at 2-year follow-up. High-level athletes who underwent arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (rim trimming, labral refixation or debridement, femoral osteochondroplasty) with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were retrospectively identified. All patients completed hip-specific outcome scores (Modified Harris Hip Score [MHHS] and Hip Outcome Score [HOS]) at baseline and most recent follow-up. Forty-seven patients with an average age of 22.8 ± 6.2 years met the study criteria with a mean follow-up of 27.0 ± 5.5 months. Thirty-three patients (70.2 %) were available for follow-up. The level of competition was 27.7 % varsity high school, 53.2 % college, and 19.1 % professional athletes. There were statistically significant improvements in the mean MHHS score (pre-operative, 68.6 ± 12.8; post-operative, 88.5 ± 17.7; p = 0.002) as well as the HOS score (pre-operative, 78.8 ± 11.3; post-operative, 91.4 ± 14.0; p = 0.03). There was a significant improvement in the alpha angle, with 76.4° ± 14.5° pre-operatively and 51.4° ± 11.7° post-operatively (p = 0.0003). Seventy-nine percent of patients were able to return to play after hip arthroscopy at a mean of 9.4 ± 4.7 months (range of 4 to 26 months); of those patients, 92.3 % were able to return to the same level of competition. At 2-year follow-up, 73 % of patients were able to return to play.

Byrd and Jones (2011) also found that most athletes treated with arthroscopic hip surgery were able to resume their activities. The authors reported on a case series of 200 patients identified who underwent arthroscopic management of FAI, participated in athletic activities, and had achieved minimum 1-year follow up. The authors stated that there was 100 % follow-up at an average of 19 months (range of 12 to 60 months). A total of 116 athletes had achieved 2-year follow-up. For the entire cohort, the average age was 28.6 years (range of 11 to 60 years) with 148 males and 52 females. There were 159 cam, 31 combined, and 10 pincer lesions. There were 23 professional, 56 inter-collegiate, 24 high school, and 97 recreational athletes. The male:female ratio was 2.8:1 among cam lesions and 1:1 among pincer lesions. The median pre-operative score was 72 with a post-operative score of 96 and the median improvement was 20.5 points, which was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The authors reported that 95 % percent of professional athletes and 85 % of inter-collegiate athletes were able to return to their previous level of competition. There were 5 transient neurapraxias (all resolved) and 1 minor heterotopic ossification. One athlete (0.5 %) underwent conversion to total hip arthroplasty and 4 (2 %) underwent repeat arthroscopy. For the group with minimum 2-year follow-up, the median improvement was 21 points with a post-operative score of 96.

Schilders et al (2011) reported that labral repairs achieved superior results to labral resection. The investigators reviewed 151 patients (156 hips) with FAI and labral tears who had been treated arthroscopically. These were subdivided into those who had undergone a labral repair (group 1) and those who had undergone resection of the labrum (group 2). In order to ensure the groups were suitably matched for comparison of treatment effects, patients with advanced degenerative changes (Tönnis grade greater than 2, lateral sourcil height less than 2 mm and Outerbridge grade 4 changes in the weight-bearing area of the femoral head) were excluded, leaving 96 patients (101 hips) in the study. At a mean follow-up of 2.44 years (2 to 4), the mean modified Harris hip score in the labral repair group (group 1, 69 hips) improved from 60.2 (24 to 85) pre-operatively to 93.6 (55 to 100), and in the labral resection group (group 2, 32 hips) from 62.8 (29 to 96) pre-operatively to 88.8 (35 to 100). The mean modified Harris hip score in the labral repair group was 7.3 points greater than in the resection group (p = 0.036, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.51 to 14.09). Labral detachments were found more frequently in the labral repair group and labral flap tears in the resection group. The investigators reported that no patient in the study group required a subsequent hip replacement during the period of follow-up. The investigators concluded that this study shows that patients without advanced degenerative changes in the hip can achieve significant improvement in their symptoms after arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. The authors stated that this evidence also suggests that labral repair, where appropriate, provides a superior result to labral resection.

There are limited data on the efficacy of FAI surgery in adolescents. Fabricant et al (2012) reported on a small, retrospective case series of FAI surgery in adolescents. The investigators retrospectively reviewed the records of 27 hips in 21 patients 19 years of age or younger who underwent arthroscopic treatment for FAI between 2007 and 2008. From the records the investigators extracted demographic data, operative details, complications, and pre-operative and post-operative MHHS and the HOS. The minimum follow-up was 1 year (average of 1.5 years; range of 1 to 2.5 years). The investigators reported that modified HHS improved by an average of 21 points, the activities of daily living subset of the HOS improved by an average of 16 points, and the sports outcome subset of the HOS improved by an average of 32 points. The investigators stated that all patients' self-reported ability to engage in their pre-operative level of athletic competition improved. In 24 hips that underwent cam decompression, the mean alpha-angle improved from 64° ± 16° to 40° ± 5.3° post-operatively. The investigators concluded that they found short-term improvements in HOS and HHS with no complications for arthroscopic treatment of FAI in our cohort of adolescent athletes.

There is emerging evidence of the efficacy of FAI surgery in older patients. Javed and O'Donnell (2011) reported on a small retrospective case series of FAI surgery in patients over 60 years of age. The investigators reviewed the clinical outcome of arthroscopic femoral osteochondroplasty for cam femoroacetabular impingement performed between August 2005 and March 2009 in a series of 40 patients over 60 years of age. The group comprised 26 men and 14 women with a mean age of 65 years (60 to 82). The mean follow-up was 30 months (12 to 54). The mean modified Harris hip score improved by 19.2 points (95 % CI:13.6 to 24.9; p < 0.001) while the mean non-arthritic hip score improved by 15.0 points (95 % CI: 10.9 to 19.1, p < 0.001). Seven patients underwent total hip replacement after a mean interval of 12 months (6 to 24 months) at a mean age of 63 years (60 to 70). The investigatorrs reported that the overall level of satisfaction was high with most patients indicating that they would undergo similar surgery in the future to the contralateral hip, if indicated. No serious complications occurred.

Phillipon et al (2012) reported on a case series of patients age 50 years and older who underwent hip arthroscopy for femoracetabular impingement. Between 2006 and 2008, prospectively collected data were retrieved from the authors database on 153 patients aged 50 years or older undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAI. Data collected included range of motion, MHHS, HOS for activities of daily living, HOS for sports, and Short Form 12 score. Survivors were defined as patients not requiring total hip replacement (THR). Survivorship was analyzed by use of the Kaplan-Meier method. The authors reported that THR was required after the arthroscopic treatment in 20 % of patients (31 of 153). At 3 years (with data available in 64 patients), patients with greater than 2 mm of joint space had survivorship of 90 % whereas those with 2 mm or less had survivorship of 57 % (p = 0.001). In the patients who did not require THR, the MHHS improved from 58 to 84. The HOS for activities of daily living improved from 66 to 87 (p = 0.001), and the HOS for sports improved from 42 to 72 (p = 0.001). The physical component of the Short Form 12 improved from 38 to 49 (p = 0.001), whereas the mental component did not change (54 pre-operatively v 53 post-operatively, p = 0.53). Median patient satisfaction was 9. The authors concluded that, on the basis of early results, patients with greater than 2 mm of joint space can expect improvement over pre-operative status in pain and function after hip arthroscopy for FAI. In patients aged 50 years or older with 2 mm of joint space or less and low pre-operative MHHSs, early conversion to THR was seen.

There is evidence that persons with advanced joint space narrowing do not improve with FAI surgery. Between September 2004 and April 2008, Larson et al (2011) treated 210 patients (227 hips) with FAI and a minimum 12-month follow-up (mean of 27 months). Group FAI consisted of 154 patients (169 hips) without radiographic joint space narrowing, whereas Group FAI-OA consisted of 56 patients (58 hips) with pre-operative radiographic joint space narrowing. The authors collected Harris hip scores (HHS), Short Form-12 (SF-12), and pain scores on a visual analog scale (VAS) pre-operatively and post-operatively. The authors reported that score improvements were better for Group FAI compared with Group FAI-OA. The overall failure rate was greater for Group FAI-OA (52 %) than for Group FAI (12 %). The authors found that, although patients with less than 50 % joint space narrowing or greater than 2 mm joint space remaining on pre-operative radiographs had improved scores throughout the study, they observed no score improvements at any time with advanced pre-operative joint space narrowing. The authors found that greater joint space narrowing, advanced MRI chondral grade, and longer duration of pre-operative symptoms predicted lower scores.

A number of reviews have evaluated the published data on FAI surgery, indicating positive results. A systematic evidence review (Stevens et al, 2010) judged the evidence for femoroacetabular surgery as fair quality. Wettstein and Dienst (2006) stated that the early results after hip arthroscopy for the treatment of FAI syndrome are very promising. Guanche and Bare (2006) stated that arthroscopic treatment of FAI syndrome caused by an abnormal head-neck offset improves symptoms, restores hip morphology, and may arrest the progression toward degenerative joint disease in some patients. They noted that early results showed that if debridement of the impinging lesion and injured labrum is performed in the setting of normal femoral and acetabular articular surfaces, the results are promising.

Chládek and Trc (2007) noted that in the case of primary surgery for FAI, short- and middle-term results so far obtained are promising, and forthcoming long-term results will show whether, and for how many years, this therapy is able to postpone the necessity of total hip arthroplasty. Standaert et al (2008) stated that although a connection between anatomical abnormalities of the hip and the development of osteoarthritis has been recognized for some time, there are limited data on the natural history of FAI and no long-term studies on the effect of surgical treatment. Samora et al (2011) concluded that the literature is replete with short-term evidence to support surgical treatment; however, there are currently no long-term prospective data or natural history studies examining the implications of FAI and effects of early intervention.

Longo et al (2010) completed a systematic computerized literature search on hip arthroscopy. The authors found that almost all studies reporting on the outcome of hip arthroscopy are of moderate scientific quality, and the evidence-based knowledge regarding results of hip arthroscopy arises from studies with a short-term follow-up period. The authors stated that the future of hip arthroscopy will require better visualization, access, instrumentation and implants with longer follow-up studies to prove its equivalence to or superiority over arthrotomy. The authors concluded that preliminary studies support the use of hip arthroscopy as an alternative to arthrotomy with an enormous therapeutic potential.

Beaule et al (2009) stated that FAI is a recognized cause of hip pain and osteoarthritis in young adults. The clinical presentation of this pathology is quite varied in terms of the underlying deformity, patient age, and the degree of cartilage damage. Open hip surgery with surgical dislocation is the gold standard for treating femoral deformities and the damaged acetabular labral complex; however, less invasive techniques such as hip arthroscopy and arthroscopy combined with limited anterior hip arthrotomy may provide comparable outcomes with less surgical morbidity. Unresolved issues include the indications for acetabular rim trimming with labral refixation in the presence of acetabular retroversion and/or delaminated acetabular cartilage. Other issues involve the use of arthroplasty in older patients and/or in those with significant cartilage damage. The authors concluded that surgery should be tailored to treat individual patient's abnormal hip morphology and should address the major underlying impinging deformities.

In a review on arthroscopic treatment of FAI, Tzaveas and Villar (2009) stated that FAI is a recently recognized pathological entity. Arthroscopic treatment, as a modern and minimally invasive technique, has become an attractive and promising treatment. Also, Larson and associates (2009) noted that improved techniques and longer-term outcomes studies will further define the optimal role of hip arthroscopy.

Macfarlane and Haddad (2010) noted the increasing number of studies of FAI in the published literature. The authors reviewed the etiology, pathophysiology, clinical features, diagnosis and treatment of FAI. Search terms included femoro-acetabular impingement, arthroscopic treatment, open treatment, etiology, pathophysiology. The search was limited to articles published in English. All articles were read in full by the authors and selected for inclusion based on relevance to the article. An increasing number of studies relating to FAI have been produced in the 10 years since its recognition. A range of clinical and radiological features have been described. Surgical management can be performed using a number of techniques, with promising results from various studies. Early treatment with open surgery has paved the way for less invasive and arthroscopic approaches, with short-to-medium term data reporting favorable functional results for arthroscopic treatment of FAI. Thus, the results of long-term studies are awaited.

Katz and Gomoll (2007) examined recent trends in the use of arthroscopic surgical techniques to address musculoskeletal problems. These investigators focused on arthroscopic approaches to problems of the hip, wrist, elbow and ankle. They noted that hip arthroscopy is permitting novel, minimally invasive approaches to the management of FAI, labral tears, loose bodies and chondral lesions. Complications of arthroscopic procedures occur very rarely. However, they stated that virtually all the literature on arthroscopy outcomes comes from small uncontrolled studies.

In a review on the management of labral tears and FAI in young, active patients, Bedi and colleagues (2008) determined

the quality of the literature assessing outcomes after surgical treatment of labral tears and FAI,
patient satisfaction after open or arthroscopic intervention, and
differences in outcome with open or arthroscopic approaches.

Computerized literature databases were searched to identify relevant articles from January 1980 to May 2008. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they had a level I, II, III, or IV study design and if the patient population had a labral tear and/or FAI as the major diagnosis. Patients with severe pre-existing osteoarthritis or acetabular dysplasia were excluded. Of the 19 articles with reported outcomes after surgery, none used a prospective study design and 1 met the criteria for level III basis of evidence. Open surgical dislocation with labral debridement and osteoplasty is successful, with a good correlation between patient satisfaction and favorable outcome scores. The studies reviewed support that 65 % to 85 % of patients will be satisfied with their outcome at a mean of 40 months after surgery. A common finding in all series, however, was an increased incidence of failure among patients with severe pre-existing osteoarthritis. Arthroscopic treatment of labral tears is also effective, with 67 % to 100 % of patients being satisfied with their outcomes. The authors found that, although open surgical dislocation with osteoplasty is the historical gold standard, the scientific data do not show that open techniques have outcomes superior to arthroscopic techniques.

In an evaluation of the aformentioned systematic evidence review by Bedi et al, the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (2009) stated that the validity of the studies included in this systematic review was not assessed and the studies were of poor quality study design, so the reliability of their results is uncertain. The CRD concluded that Bedi et al's conclusions reflected the data presented, but the potential for various biases in the review made their reliability unclear.

A systematic evidence review prepared by the Health Care Insurance Board of the Netherlands (CVZ, 2010) found no prospective comparative studies of surgery for femoroacetabular hip impingement syndrome. The systematic evidence review noted that evidence consists largely of retrospective case-series, which are heterogeneous in terms of patient populations, treatment and outcomes.

Clohisy and colleagues (2010) performed a systematic review of the literature to

define the level of evidence regarding hip impingement surgery;
determine whether the surgery relieves pain and improves function;
identify the complications; and
identify modifiable causes of failure (conversion to total hip arthroplasty).

These investigators searched the literature between 1950 and 2009 for all studies reporting on surgical treatment of FAI. Studies with clinical outcome data and minimum 2-year follow-up were analyzed. A total of 11 studies met criteria for inclusion – 9 were Level IV and 2 were Level III. Mean follow-up was 3.2 years; range of 2 to 5.2 years. Reduced pain and improvement in hip function were reported in all studies. Conversion to total hip arthroplasty was reported in 0 % to 26 % of cases. Major complications occurred in 0 % to 18 % of the procedures. Current evidence regarding FAI surgery is primarily Level IV and suggests the various surgical techniques are associated with pain relief and improved function in 68 to 96 % of patients over short-term follow-up. The authors stated that long-term follow-up is needed to determine survivorship and impact on osteoarthritis progression and natural history.

Ng et al (2010) also reviewed the published evidence on the surgical treatment of FAI. A total of 23 reports of case studies on the surgical treatment of FAI were identified and 1 systematic review was conducted. This review of 970 cases included 2 level III studies, and 20 level IV studies. One randomized controlled trial (level I study) (citing Espinosa et al, 2006) was found, comparing labral repair to labral debridement. The authors found that those patients with Outerbridge grade III or IV cartilage damage seen intra-operatively or with pre-operative radiographs showing greater than Tonnis grade I osteoarthritis appear to have worse outcomes with treatment for FAI. The authors found 2 studies that directly compared labral re-fixation with labral debridement; the authors stated that this evidence appears to support labral re-fixation. Although several studies reported post-operative osteoarthritis findings, the authors found that it is too soon to predict whether progression of osteoarthritis is delayed or halted.

A review by ARIF (2010) concluded that the main limitation with the data identified in reviews of femoroacetabular surgery for hip impingement syndrome was that it had been derived from retrospective case series, limiting the conclusions one can draw about the effectiveness of arthroscopic surgery for hip impingement and/or hip pain compared with any conventional approach overall and within any particular subgroups.

An assessment by Public Health Wales (Webb, 2010) found that the available evidence from systematic reviews is mainly of level III (case series) and level IV (expert opinion/formal consensus) type and is suggestive of short term improvements in outcomes with both open and arthroscopic surgical procedures. The assessment found that small prospective cohort studies also confirm outcome improvement. The assessment stated that most studies documented decreased pain and improved function in the majority of patients with short term follow-up. However, long term follow up studies were not found. The assessment stated that predictors of treatment outcome and the efficacy of various surgical techniques need to be established in well-designed clinical trials.

A systematic evidence review commissioned by the Washington State Healthcare Authority (Dettori et al, 2011) found "no data to assess the short- or long-term efficacy of FAI surgery compared with no surgery". The assessment found "no evidence that one specific treatment resulted in better outcomes than another (surgery versus no surgery, labral debridement versus refixation, osteoplasty versus no osteoplasty)". The assessment identified several case series that reported improvement in pain, patient reported and clinician reported hip outcome scores, patient satisfaction and return to normal activities following FAI surgery. "However, whether this improvement is a result of the surgery, or the postoperative rehabilitation, or the change in activity subsequent to the surgery or placebo is not known". The assessment found "no data available to assess long-term effectiveness of FAI surgery compared with no surgery". The assessment stated that "there are no data yet published to test the hypothesis that FAI surgery prevents or delays hip osteoarthritis or the need for total hip arthroplasty". The Washington State Health Technology Clinical Committee (2011) concluded that the current evidence on surgery for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome demonstrates that there is insufficient evidence to cover. The committee stated that it considered all the evidence, including the comprehensive report, public comments, and utilization data, and gave greatest weight to the evidence it determined, based on objective factors, to be the most valid and reliable.

There is new emerging evidence of the long-term effectiveness of FAI surgery. Meftah et al (2011) reported on long-term outcomes of arthroscopic labral debridement. The investigators reported on fifty consecutive patients who underwent hip arthroscopy and labral debridement with a mean follow-up of 8.4 years. Patients' pre-operative Harris Hip Scores and co-existing pathologies such as FAI, dysplasia, or arthritis were recorded as variables. Post-operative Harris Hip Score and satisfaction at final follow-up were recorded as outcomes. The authors reported that good or excellent results were achieved in 62 % of cases (58 % in patients with untreated FAI and 19 % in patients with arthritis). Failures included 2 cases that were converted to total hip replacement (4.5 and 5.2 years after index procedure) due to advancement of arthritis and 1 case of repeat arthroscopy for cam decompression. Patients with no co-existing pathology had significantly higher satisfaction and Harris Hip Scores. The authors noted that almost all of the patients with low postoperative Harris Hip Scores had arthritic changes, and that arthritis had a significant correlation with low post-operative Harris Hip Scores and satisfaction. The authors found that co-existing pathology, especially arthritis and untreated FAI, can result in inferior outcomes. The authors concluded that arthroscopic labral debridement of symptomatic tears in selected patients with no co-existing pathology can result in favorable long-term results. The authors found that arthritis is the strongest independent predictor of poor outcomes.

Previously published long-term data come from Byrd and Jones (2010), who investigated the response to hip arthroscopy in a consecutive series of patients with 10 years follow-up. Since 1993, the authors assessed all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy prospectively with a modified Harris hip score pre-operatively and then post-operatively at 3, 12, 24, 60, and 120 months. A cohort of 50 patients (52 hips) was identified who had achieved 10-year follow-up and represent the substance of this study. The authors reported that there was 100 % follow-up of these patients. The average age of the patients was 38 years (range of 14 to 84 years), with 27 males and 23 females. The median improvement was 25 points (pre-operative, 56 points; post-operative, 81 points). Fourteen patients were converted to total hip arthroplasty (THA) and 2 died. Four patients underwent repeat arthroscopy. There were 2 complications in 1 patient. The presence of arthritis at the time of the index procedure was an indicator of poor prognosis. The authors concluded that this study substantiates the long-term effectiveness of arthroscopy in the hip as treatment for various disorders, including labral pathology, chondral damage, synovitis, and loose bodies. The authors found that arthritis is an indicator of poor long-term outcomes with these reported methods.

In summary, there is currently sufficient evidence to support the short- and mid-term effectiveness of surgery (open or arthroscopic) for the treatment of individuals with FAI syndrome. However, there is a lack of evidence that surgical intervention slows the rate of progression to osteoarthritis of the hip in these patients.

A systematic review of the evidence for FAI surgery (Harris et al, 2013) found that study methodological quality, analyzed using Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), was poor.

Clohisy et al (2013) stated that FAI surgery is at the development level, with only case series supporting the intervention. The authors stated that recently published systematic reviews of the literature indicate that the current evidence regarding FAI surgery primarily consists of level IV studies. These studies support the clinical efficacy of FAI surgery, with most patients reporting reduced pain, improved function, and a better quality of life after surgical intervention for symptomatic FAI. Similar to the data supporting many surgical interventions, these data have limitations, however, in that the study cohorts are relatively small, the surgical interventions are varied, and the follow-up duration is short- to midterm. The authors stated that, in the scheme of an ideal introduction of a new intervention, FAI surgery is at the development level, with only case series supporting the intervention. The authors stated that, to bolster the strength of clinical evidence regarding FAI surgery, larger clinical studies are needed to compare surgical and nonsurgical hip rehabilitation interventions, identify the predictive factors of treatment outcomes, and determine the long-term impact of FAI surgery on joint survivorship and disease modification, that is, the delay or prevention of secondary osteoarthritis.

The United Kingdom Feasibility study of a trial of ArthroscopicSurgery for Hip Impingement compared with Non-operative care (UK FASHIoN) is a large-scale multicenter pilot project funded by the Health Technology Assessment Programme, a division of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) of the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. The study began in March 2012, with a planned 18-month study period. The research team seeks to establish the feasibility of an RCT comparing hip arthroscopy with the so-called best nonsurgical care for symptomatic FAI.

Currently, there is insufficient evidence regarding the use of capsular plication as a treatment for FAI. Larson et al (2014) reported that capsular plication was a predictor of improved outcomes with revision arthroscopic surgery for residual FAI. The authors reviewed patients who underwent arthroscopic hip revision for residual FAI. The authors evaluated pathomorphological findings, intra-operative findings, and pre-operative and post-operative MHHS, SF-12, and pain on a VAS values. The authors compared outcomes after revision arthroscopic FAI correction with outcomes of a matched cohort who underwent primary arthroscopic FAI correction. A total of 79 patients (85 hips) with a mean age of 29.5 years underwent arthroscopic revision FAI correction (mean follow-up of 26 months). The labrum was debrided (27 hips), repaired (49 hips), or reconstructed (7 hips). Two labrums were stable and required no treatment. The authors compared results of revision arthroscopic FAI correction with those of 220 age- and sex-matched patients (237 hips) who underwent primary arthroscopic FAI correction (mean follow-up of 23 months). The mean improvement in outcome scores after revision FAI correction was 17.8 (MHHS), 12.5 (SF-12), and 1.4 (VAS) points compared with 23.4 (MHHS), 19.7 (SF-12), and 4.6 (VAS) points after primary arthroscopic FAI correction. The mean improvement was significantly better in the primary cohort compared with the revision cohort (p < 0.01 for MHHS, SF-12, and VAS values). Good/excellent results were achieved in 81.7 % of the primary cohort and 62.7 % of the revision cohort (p < 0.01). The authors reported that capsular plication (p = 0.032), greater post-operative head-neck offset (p = 0.024), subspine/anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) decompression (p = 0.014), and labral repair/reconstruction (p = 0.009) were significant predictors for better outcomes after revision surgery.

Bedi and colleagues (2011) noted that advances in the ability to treat various soft-tissue and osseous pathologic conditions of the hip arthroscopically have been predicated on an improved exposure of the pathology of the central, peripheral, and peri-trochanteric compartments. The management of the capsule is critical and must allow for an improved exposure without compromising stability and kinematics of the hip. Described approaches have included capsulectomy, limited capsulotomy, extensile capsulotomy, capsular plication, and capsular shift. The selected approach must consider various factors, including symptomatic complaints, underlying hyper-laxity, specific mechanical pathology, and surgical expertise. Universally using a single technique without consideration of the complex mechanical and anatomic factors unique to each patient may result in incomplete treatment of the patho-anatomy or iatrogenic instability.

Domb et al (2013) critically evaluated the available literature exploring the role of the hip joint capsule in the normal state (stable) and pathologic states (instability or stiffness). Furthermore, these researchers examined the various ways that arthroscopic hip surgeons address the capsule intra-operatively:

capsulotomy or capsulectomy without closure,
capsulotomy with closure, and
capsular plication.

Two independent reviewers performed a systematic review of the literature using PubMed and the reference lists of related articles by means of defined search terms. Relevant studies were included if these criteria were met:

written in English,
Levels of Evidence I to V,
focus on capsule and its role in hip stability, and
human studies and reviews.

Articles were excluded if they evaluated

total hip arthroplasty constructs using bony procedures or prosthetic revision,
developmental dysplasia of the hip where re-orientation osteotomies were used,
syndromic instability, and
traumatic instability with associated bony injury.

By use of the search method described, a total of 5,085 publications were reviewed, of which 47 met appropriate criteria for inclusion in this review. Within this selection group, there were multiple publications that specifically addressed more than 1 of the inclusion criteria. Relevant literature was organized into the following areas:

capsular anatomy, biomechanics, and physiology;
the role of the capsule in total hip arthroplasty stability;
the role of the capsule in native hip stability; and
atraumatic instability and capsulorrhaphy.

The authors concluded that as the capsule-ligamentous stabilizers of the hip continue to be studied, and their role defined, arthroscopic hip surgeons should become facile with arthroscopic repair or plication techniques to restore proper capsular integrity and tension when indicated.

In a cohort study, Skendzel et al (2014) determined if patients with narrow joint spaces had inferior outcomes at a post-operative minimum of 5 years and if they had a higher conversion rate to THA. The hypothesis was that patients with less than or equal to 2-mm joint spaces would report inferior outcomes and that patients with greater than 2-mm joint spaces would have improved survivorship (no conversion to THA). Between March 2005 and January 2008, prospectively collected data were analyzed for patients older than 18 years of age undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI. Radiographic measurements of joint space were collected, and hips were grouped as having preserved (greater than 2 mm) or limited (less than or equal to 2 mm) joint space. Outcome measures included the WOMAC, MHHS, HOS for ADL and sports-specific (HOS-ADL) and HOS-SS), and SF-12. There were 559 patients in this study, 466 (83 %) were contacted: 54 patients with limited joint spaces (86 %) converted to THA, while only 63 patients with preserved joint spaces (16 %) converted to THA. The mean survival time for patients with preserved joint spaces was 88 months (95 % CI: 85 to 91 months), and the mean survival time for patients with limited joint spaces was 40.0 months (95 % CI: 33.7 to 46.3 months) (p = 0.0001). Complete follow-up outcome data were available on 323 patients, none of whom had THA, with a mean follow-up of 73 months. The mean post-operative HOS for ADL and sports were significantly better in patients with preserved joint spaces (82 versus 62 [p = 0.012] and 77 versus 47 [p = 0.003], respectively) compared with those with limited joint spaces at a mean of 73 months post-operatively (range of 60 to 97 months). The authors concluded that hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI resulted in significantly better outcomes and activity levels at minimum 5-year follow-up in patients with preserved joint spaces. Hips with limited joint spaces converted to THA earlier than did those with preserved joint spaces.

Frank et al (2014) noted that hip capsular management after hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI is controversial. These researchers compared the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI with T-capsulotomy with partial capsular repair (PR; closed vertical incision, open interportal incision) versus complete capsular repair (CR; full closure of both incisions). The hypothesis was that there would be improved clinical outcomes in patients undergoing CR compared with those undergoing PR. Consecutive patients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI by a single fellowship-trained surgeon from January 2011 to January 2012 were prospectively collected and analyzed. Inclusion criteria included all patients between ages 16 and 65 years with physical examination and radiographic findings consistent with symptomatic FAI, with a minimum 2-year follow-up. For analysis, patients were matched according to sex and age ± 2 years. Primary clinical outcomes were measured via the HOS-ADL and HOS-SS subscales, the MHHS, patient satisfaction (measured on a VAS), and clinical improvement at baseline, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Statistical analysis was performed utilizing Student paired and unpaired t-tests, with p < 0.05 considered significant. A total of 64 patients were included in the study, with 32 patients (12 males, 20 females) in each group. The average follow-up was 29.9 ± 2.6 months. There were no significant demographic differences between the groups. The CR group demonstrated significantly superior outcomes in the HOS-SS at 6 months (PR: 63.8 ± 31.1 versus CR: 72.2 ± 16.1; p = 0.039), 1 year (PR: 72.7 ± 14.7 versus CR: 82.5 ± 10.7; p = 0.006), and 2.5 years (PR: 83.6 ± 9.6 versus CR: 87.3 ± 8.3; p < 0.0001) after surgery. Patient satisfaction at final follow-up was significantly better in the CR group (PR: 8.4 ± 1.0 versus CR: 8.6 ± 1.1; p = 0.025). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in the HOS-ADL (PR: 64.6 ± 17.0 to 90.7 ± 8.4 [p < 0.0001]; CR: 66.1 ± 15.7 to 92.1 ± 7.9 [p < 0.0001]) and HOS-SS (PR: 39.4 ± 23.9 to 83.6 ± 9.6 [p < 0.0001]; CR: 39.1 ± 24.2 to 87.3 ± 8.3 [p < 0.0001]) at final follow-up. There were no significant differences between the groups in the HOS-ADL at any time-point. There were no significant differences in the MHHS between the groups at final follow-up (PR: 82.5 ± 5.0 versus CR: 83.0 ± 4.4; p = 0.364). The overall revision rate was 6.25 %; all patients (n = 4) who required revision arthroscopic surgery were in the PR group (13 % of 32 patients), while no patients in the CR group required revision surgery. The authors concluded that while significant improvements were seen at 6 months, 1 year, and 2.5 years of follow-up regardless of the closure technique, patients who underwent CR of the hip capsule demonstrated superior sport-specific outcomes compared with those undergoing PR. There was a 13 % revision rate in the PR group, but no patients in the CR group required revision surgery. They stated that while longer term outcome studies are needed to determine if these results are maintained over time, these data suggested improved outcomes after CR compared with PR at 2.5 years after hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI.

This study provided Level 3 evidence. The authors stated that "This study had several limitations, including its retrospective nature and relatively short-term follow-up period of 29.9 months. In addition, the outcome instruments utilized in this study, including the MHHS and HOS, represent limitations to this study. The MHHS is limited because of its ceiling effects, as it was initially designed as a disease specific score for hip osteoarthritis. Although a validated hip-specific outcome instrument, the HOS is limited, as it is a patient-reported outcome score but not patient derived. The authors currently use validated hip-specific outcome scores such as the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12, iHOT-33); however, these data were not used at the time of data collection for the present study. The other potential limitation is that PR was performed initially, and then the senior author (S.J.N.) transitioned to CR, which may suggest an improvement in the overall surgical technique. The transition happened over a relatively short period of time, and no other variables were introduced in the surgical technique. As noted by multiple authors, the suggested learning curve for competency in hip arthroscopic surgery is 30 cases, and as the senior author had performed over 500 hip arthroscopic procedures before the initiation of this study, a learning curve was likely not a relevant factor in the overall outcomes found in this study. The patient characteristics and procedures performed were similar in both groups, including operative duration, and the only difference was the status of the closure. As noted, over this time period, patients were only included in the study after meeting strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, with the goal of eliminating variables that may have confounded the results; however, this may have resulted in selection bias. This study also had several strengths, including the use of age- and sex-matched study groups, the use of multiple validated hip-specific outcome scores, and the use of both 6-month and 1-year data for all patients, allowing for comparisons and trending of outcomes over time. Overall, this is the first study to directly compare partial capsular closure to complete capsular closure after hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI in age- and sex-matched cohorts. Utilizing these preliminary short-term outcome data, the authors recommend performing complete capsular closure in all appropriate patients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI. Future long-term studies are needed to determine if these results are maintained over time".

Wang and colleagues (2021) stated that it remains controversial whether abnormal femoral version (FV) affects the outcomes of hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI or labral tears. In a systematic review, these researchers examined the outcomes of hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI or labral tears in patients with normal versus abnormal FV. Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library were searched in July 2020 for studies reporting the outcomes after primary hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI or labral tears in patients with femoral retroversion (less than 5°), femoral anteversion (greater than 20°), or normal FV (5° to 20°). The primary outcome was the MHHS, and secondary outcomes were the VAS for pain, HOS-SSS, NAHS, failure rate, and patient satisfaction. The difference in pre-operative and post-operative scores (Δ) was also calculated when applicable. Included in this review were 5 studies with 822 patients who underwent hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI or labral tears; there were 166 patients with retroversion, 512 patients with normal version, and 144 patients with anteversion. Patients with retroversion and normal version had similar post-operative MHHS scores (MD, 2.42 [95 % CI: -3.42 to 8.26]; p = 0.42) and ΔmHHS scores (MD, -0.70 [96 % CI: -8.56 to 7.15]; p = 0.86). Likewise, the patients with anteversion and normal version had similar post-operative MHHS scores (MD, -3.09 [95 % CI: -7.66 to 1.48]; p = 0.18) and ΔmHHS scores (MD, -1.92 [95 % CI: -6.18 to 2.34]; p = 0.38). Regarding secondary outcomes, patients with retroversion and anteversion had similar ΔNAHS scores, ΔHOS-SSS scores, ΔVAS scores, patient satisfaction, and failure rates to those with normal version, although a significant difference was found between the patients with retroversion and normal version regarding post-operative NAHS scores (MD, 5.96 [95 % CI: 1.66 to 10.26]; p = 0.007) and post-operative HOS-SSS scores (MD, 7.32 [95 % CI: 0.19 to 14.44]; p = 0.04). The authors concluded that the findings of this review indicated that abnormal FV did not significantly influence outcomes after hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI or labral tears. Moreover, these researchers stated that a higher level of evidence is still needed to support these findings. Level of Evidence = IV.

The authors stated that this systematic review had several drawbacks. First, considering that Botser et al (2012) found an MD of 8.9° for FV between CT and MRI measurements, FV evaluated using different techniques in this review might result in a difference in FV values. Second, the various definitions of the proximal femoral axis in the studies might also have led to different FV values. Third, some of the data used for meta-analysis were calculated based on estimation, and the data on each FV group remained limited, which could also have introduced uncertainty into the pooled outcomes. Fourth, although no significant difference was found in radiographic data, the majority of radiographic findings was from the study by Hartigan et al (2017), which only included 59 patients each in the normal version and retroversion groups. Fifth, the percentage of patients who underwent the same surgical procedures was different among the included studies, which might have introduced heterogeneity to the outcomes.

Ferreira and associates (2021) stated that previous systematic reviews examining outcomes of hip arthroscopic surgery have reported meaningful improvements in patient outcomes and low complication rates. However, these conclusions were based upon a series of small observational studies. The ability of observational studies to provide a true estimate of the effect of hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI is limited; RCTs are needed to establish whether hip arthroscopic surgery is effective. Owing to the marked increase in the number of hip arthroscopies, there is a need to summarize evidence from RCTs on the effectiveness of hip arthroscopic surgery for patients with FAI. In a systematic review with meta-analysis., these researchers examined the effectiveness of hip arthroscopic surgery for the treatment of FAI. They carried out electronic database searches in MedlineE, Embase, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Scopus, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to July 10, 2019. These investigators included RCTs comparing hip arthroscopic surgery to a placebo/sham surgery and other non-operative comparators (e.g., no intervention, physiotherapy, etc.). Two authors independently selected studies, rated risk of bias, extracted data, and judged overall certainty of evidence using GRADE. Hip-specific quality of life (QOL) at 12 months was the primary outcome. They identified 3 RCTs (n = 650 participants). There was high certainty evidence from 3 RCTs (n = 574 participants) that hip arthroscopic surgery provided superior outcomes compared to non-operative care for hip-specific QOL at 12 months (MD: 11.02 points, 95 % CI: 4.83 to 17.21). Low-quality evidence suggested that arthroscopic surgery provided similar outcomes to non-operative care for hip-specific QOL at 24 months (MD: 6.3, 95 % CI: -6.1 to 18.7). The authors concluded that hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI provided superior outcomes compared to non-operative care at 12 months, but not at 24 months. Moreover, these researchers stated that although hip arthroscopic surgery provided superior outcomes to non-operative care, it is possible that it is not superior to a placebo; therefore, placebo-controlled trials are urgently needed to determine the efficacy of hip arthroscopic surgery.

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Bastos and co-workers (2021) examined the effects of surgical treatment compared to conservative treatment in FAI syndrome in the short-, medium-, and long-term. The following databases were searched on September 14, 2020: Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and PEDro. There were no date or language limits. The methodological quality assessment was performed using the PEDro scale and the quality of the evidence followed the GRADE recommendation. The outcomes pain, disability, and adverse effects were extracted. Of 6,264 initial studies, 3 met the full-text inclusion criteria. All studies were of good methodological quality. Follow-up ranged from 6 months to 2 years, with 650 participants in total. The meta-analyses found no difference in disability between surgical versus conservative treatment, with a MD between groups of 3.91 points (95 % CI: -2.19 to 10.01) at 6 months, MD of 5.53 points (95 % CI: -3.11 to 14.16) at 12 months and 3.8 points (95 % CI: -6.0 to 13.6) at 24 months. The quality of the evidence (GRADE) varied from moderate to low across all comparisons. The authors concluded that there is moderate-quality evidence that surgical treatment is not superior to conservative treatment for FAI syndrome in the short-term, and there is low-quality evidence that it is not superior in the medium-term. Level of Evidence = Ia.

Labral Reconstruction for the Treatment of Femoro-Acetabular Impingement Syndrome

Boykin and colleagues (2013) stated that FAI has been well characterized as a cause of hip pain and resultant damage to the acetabular labrum. It has become increasingly clear that an intact labrum is essential for normal joint mechanics, hip stability, and preservation of the articular cartilage. Elite athletes with a hypoplastic or irreparable labrum present a difficult clinical challenge. In a case-series study, these researchers assessed clinical outcomes and determined if elite athletes are able to return to a high level of function and sport after labral reconstruction. They performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected registry identified 21 elite athletes (23 hips) with an average age of 28.0 years (range of 19 to 41 years) who underwent an arthroscopic ilio-tibial band labral reconstruction. Concomitant procedures included femoral and acetabular osteoplasty in all patients and micro-fracture in 9 of 23 hips. Clinical outcomes were assessed with the MHHS, HOS, the SF-12, and patient satisfaction (on a scale from 1 to 10). Return to play was determined, as well as level of return to play, based on sport-specific statistics. Two patients progressed to arthroplasty. There were 2 revisions in this group of patients, both for lysis of capsulo-labral adhesions in which the graft was found to be well integrated at the time of surgery. The rate of return to play was 85.7 % (18/21), with 81 % (17/21) returning to a similar level. Subjective follow-up was obtained from 17 of the remaining 19 patients (89 %), with an average follow-up of 41.4 months (range of 20 to 74 months). The average MHHS improved from 67 to 84 (p = 0.026) and the average HOS Sport sub-score from 56 to 77 (p = 0.009). The overall median patient satisfaction with outcome was 8.2 (range of 3 to 10). The authors concluded that arthroscopic labral reconstruction using an ipsilateral ilio-tibial band autograft provided good short-term clinical outcomes, high patient satisfaction, and a satisfactory level of return to play in a select group of elite athletes. This was a small (n = 21), retrospective study with short-term (average of 41.4 months) results. Level of Evidence = IV.

In a cohort study, Domb et al (2014) compared the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic labral reconstruction (RECON) with those of arthroscopic segmental labral resection (RESEC) in patients with FAI of the hip. Between April 2010 and March 2011, all prospectively gathered data for patients with FAI who underwent arthroscopic acetabular labral reconstruction or segmental resection with a minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed. A total of 11 cases in the RECON group were matched to 22 cases in the RESEC group according to the preoperative Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS) and sex. The patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) used included the NAHS, the HOS, and the MHHS. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the change in PROs in both groups. There was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding the pre-operative NAHS (p = 0.697), any of the other pre-operative PROs, or demographic and radiographic data. The mean change in the NAHS was 24.8 ± 16.0 in the RECON group and 12.5 ± 16.0 in the RESEC group. The mean change in the HOS-activities of daily living (HOS-ADL) was 21.7 ± 16.5 in the RECON group and 9.5 ± 15.5 in the RESEC group. Comparison of the amount of change between groups showed greater improvement in the NAHS and HOS-ADL for the RECON group (p = 0.046 and 0.045, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean changes in the rest of the PROs, although there were trends in all in favor of the RECON group. All PROs in both groups showed a statistically significant improvement at follow-up compared with pre-operative levels. The authors concluded that arthroscopic labral reconstruction is an effective and safe procedure that provided good short-term clinical outcomes in hips with insufficient and non-functional labra in the setting of FAI. Again, this was a small (n = 11) study with short-term (minimum of 2 years) results. Level of Evidence = III.

In a systemic review, Ayeni et al (2014) explored and identified the reported indications and outcomes in patients who undergo labral reconstruction of the hip joint. The electronic databases Embase, Medline, and PubMed were searched for all available dates up to July 2013. Further hand search of the reference sections of the included studies was done. Two reviewers searched, screened, and evaluated the included studies for data quality using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) Scale. Data were also abstracted in duplicate, and agreement and descriptive statistics were presented. There were 5 eligible studies (3 case series, 1 prospective cohort, and 1 retrospective chart review) with a total of 128 patients, and an average 11/16 quality on the MINORS score included in this review. All patients were diagnosed with FAI and underwent labral reconstruction; 94 patients were assessed at follow-up (73.4 % survivorship) between a reported mean range of 10 and 49 months. There was variability between the studies with regard to the graft types utilized (ilio-tibial band, Gracilis tendon, Ligamentum teres), surgical approaches [open (18.7 %) versus arthroscopic (81.3 %)], and the reported outcome measures. Overall, improvement was observed in the PROs and functional scores (MHHS, HOS, UCLA, NASH, and SF-12). The failure rate or conversion to THA rate in all available patients was 20 %. The most common indication for labrum reconstruction was a young, active patient with minimal arthritis and non-salvageable or deficient labrum. Other indications included instability, pain, and hypotrophic dysfunctional labrum. The authors concluded that based on the current available evidence, hip labrum reconstruction is a new technique that shows short-term improvement in PROs and functional scores post-operatively. The main indication for reconstruction was a deficient labrum due to previous surgical excision or irreparable tears in young patients with no significant arthritis. They stated that long-term follow-up results with higher quality studies are still lacking based on this review.

White and Herzog (2015) stated that in the last 10 years, the understanding of the anatomy and function of the hip joint has continuously evolved, and surgical options for the hip have significantly progressed. Originally, surgical treatment of the hip primarily involved resection of damaged tissue. Procedures that maintain and preserve proper hip anatomy, such as labral repair and femoro-acetabular impingement (FAI) correction, have shown superior results, in terms of pain reduction, increased function, and ability to return to activities. Labral reconstruction is a therapeutic option that uses a graft to reconstruct the native labrum. The technique and outcomes of labral reconstruction have been described relatively recently, and labral reconstruction is a cutting-edge procedure that has shown promising early outcomes. These investigators reviewed the literature on hip labral reconstruction. They examined the indications for labral reconstruction, surgical technique and graft options, and surgical outcomes that have been described to-date. The authors concluded that labral reconstruction provided an alternative therapeutic option for challenging intra-articular hip problems; it restored the original anatomy of the hip and has the potential to preserve the longevity of the hip joint. This technique is an important tool in the orthopedic surgeon’s arsenal for hip joint treatment and preservation. Moreover, these researchers stated that long-term outcomes are needed to ascertain the longevity of this procedure.

White et al (2016) presented minimum 2-year outcomes in patients who underwent a modified technique for arthroscopic labral reconstruction using ilio-tibial band allograft tissue and a front-to-back fixation. From April 2011 to July 2012, all consecutive arthroscopic labral reconstruction patients were included in this Institutional Review Board-approved, prospective case-series study. Inclusion criteria were arthroscopic ilio-tibial band allograft labral reconstruction performed by a single surgeon, age greaterthan or equal to 16 years at the time of arthroscopy, and a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Patients completed subjective questionnaires both pre-operatively and post-operatively, including MHHS, the Lower Extremity Function Score (LEFS), VAS pain scores, and patient satisfaction. A modified front-to-back fixation technique for labral reconstruction was used. A total of 152 hips (142 patients) met the inclusion criteria for this study; 131 hips (86.2 %) had complete follow-up at a minimum of 2 years, and 21 hips (13.8 %) were lost to follow-up or had incomplete data during the study period; 70 hips had concomitant procedures performed; 27 microfracture, 30 chondroplasty, 26 psoas release, 5 os acetabuli resection, and 3 Ganz osteotomy. Overall, 18 hips (13.7 %) required revision procedures at a mean of 17 months (range of 1 to 37) after the labral reconstruction. In the remaining 113 hips, there was significant improvement in all outcome measures from pre-operative to most recent follow-up (p < 0.0001). The mean MHHS improved by 34 points (p < 0.0001), and the mean LEFS improved by 27 points (p < 0.0001). The mean VAS pain score improved by 3 points at rest (p < 0.0001), 4 points with average pain with daily activities (p < 0.0001), and 5 points with sport (p < 0.0001). Patients reported an overall satisfaction of 9 (range of 1 to 10). The authors concluded that arthroscopic ilio-tibial band allograft labral reconstruction of the hip showed promising outcomes at minimum 2-year follow-up. Level of Evidence = IV.

Khan et al (2016) provided a comprehensive review and summary of the research published in Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery and The American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM) related to hip arthroscopy for FAI. A comprehensive review was conducted in duplicate of Arthroscopy and AJSM from February 2012 to February 2015 for all articles related to FAI, and a quality assessment was completed for all included studies. Clinical outcomes were dichotomized into short-term (less than 6 months) and mid-term (less than 24 months) outcomes, and values were pooled when possible. These researchers identified 60 studies in Arthroscopy and 44 studies in AJSM, primarily from North America (78.8 %), that predominantly assessed clinical outcomes after arthroscopic hip surgery (46.1 %); 71 % of Arthroscopy studies and 20.5 % of AJSM studies were Level IV evidence. The MHHS was used by 81.5 % of included studies. Pooled weighted mean MHHS values after arthroscopic surgery for FAI showed improvements at the mid-term from 60.5 points (range of 56.6 to 83.6) to 80.5 points (range of 72.1 to 98.0) out of a possible 100 points. Pooled weighted outcomes for labral repair showed mean MHHS improvements from 63.8 points (range of 62.5 to 69.0) pre-operatively to 86.9 points (range of 85.5 to 89.9) up to 24 months post-operatively. The authors concluded that the is comprehensive review of research published in Arthroscopy and AJSM over the past 3 years identified a number of key findings. Arthroscopic intervention resulted in improvements in functional outcomes at both the short-term and mid-term for patients with symptomatic FAI in the absence of significant existing degenerative changes. They stated that labral repair may result in improvements over labral debridement. The most commonly used outcome score was the MHHS for objective assessment of surgical success. They stated that there is a need for continued focus on improvement of methodological quality and reporting of research pertaining to FAI.

In a systematic review, Trivedi and colleagues (2019) examined the evidence for the current indications and outcomes of arthroscopic labral reconstruction of the hip; the secondary objective was to assess the role of arthroscopic labral reconstruction in the management of reparable labral tears. The systematic review was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA check-list. Studies published between June 2009 and June 2018 that examined outcomes after arthroscopic labral reconstruction with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up were included. A total of 11 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria; and 373 patients were identified. Of the 11 studies, 9 reported that an irreparable labrum was their indication for reconstruction, with 8 reporting that this was ultimately determined intra-operatively. Substantial variability in surgical technique, graft choice, and concurrent pathology was found. All 11 studies used at least 1 validated functional outcome metric to assess surgical outcomes, with all studies reporting improvement greater than the minimal clinically important difference. Donor-site pain was the most common complication, although it was reported in only 2 studies. Reported rates of revision surgery and conversion to arthroplasty were low (range of 0 % to 9.1 % for both). The authors concluded that all 11 studies included in this systematic review reported clinically significant functional improvements after arthroscopic labral reconstruction and low rates of complications, revision surgery, and progression of arthritis, although graft types and concomitant procedures confounded the findings. The most common indication for reconstruction was a deficient labrum on intra-operative evaluation. The 6 studies that examined patient satisfaction reported favorable results, with a range of 6.73 to 8.7. Level of Evidence = IV.

Domb and co-workers (2019) stated that labral reconstruction has demonstrated short-term benefit for the treatment of irreparable labral tears. Nonetheless, there is a scarcity of evidence for mid-term outcomes of this treatment. In a cohort study, these researchers hypothesized that arthroscopic segmental reconstruction in the setting of irreparable labral tears would show improvement in PROs and high patient satisfaction at minimum 5-year follow-up. They also hypothesized that primary labral reconstruction (PLRECON) would result in similar improvement in PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up when compared with a matched-pair primary labral repair (PLREPAIR) control group. Data from February 2008 to April 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if they underwent hip arthroscopy for segmental labral reconstruction in the setting of irreparable labral tear and FAI, with minimum 5-year follow-up for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SS, patient satisfaction, and VAS for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tonnis OA grade of greater than 1, prior hip conditions, or workers' compensation claims. PLRECON cases were matched in a 1:3 ratio to a PLREPAIR control group based on age ± 5 years, sex, and BMI ± 5 kg/m2. A total of 28 patients were eligible for the study, of which 23 (82.14 %) had minimum 5-year follow-up. These investigators found significant improvement from pre-operative to latest follow-up in all outcome measures recorded: 17.8-point increase in mHHS (p = 0.002), 22-point increase in NAHS (p < 0.001), 25.4-point increase in HOS-SS (p = 0.003), and a 2.9-point decrease in VAS pain ratings (p < 0.001). Mean patient satisfaction was 7.1 out of 10. In the nested matched-pair analysis, 17 patients who underwent PLRECON were matched to a control group of 51 patients who underwent PLREPAIR. PLRECON demonstrated comparable survivorship and comparable improvements in all PROs with the exception of patient satisfaction (6.7 versus 8.5, p = 0.04). The authors concluded that hip arthroscopy with segmental labral reconstruction resulted in significant improvement in PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up. PLRECON reached comparable functional outcomes when compared with a benchmark PLREPAIR control group but demonstrated lower patient satisfaction at latest follow-up. Level of Evidence = III.

The authors stated that this study had several drawbacks. First, it was based on a former segmental labral reconstruction technique, and these investigators had since employed a novel and likely far superior reconstruction technique. Second, although these researchers employed a matched-pair study design, this trial was non-randomized. As such, confounding variables may have influenced these findings. Third, this study was also retrospective, which introduced some bias; however, this bias was limited given the prospective collection of all data. Fourth, analysis was based on a single high-volume surgeon who specialized in hip preservation, which limited the generalizability of these findings. Longer follow-up is also needed to determine the durability of these findings. Fifth, the decision between labral reconstruction and repair, in both primary and revision cases, was based on the senior author’s expertise, which may have introduced bias. Although no significant differences were found between arthroscopic findings and procedures -- with the obvious exception of labral pathology and treatment -- these variables were not incorporated into the matching process; thus, introducing potential confounding bias. Based on the small sample size for revision reconstruction, sub-analysis in a matched-pair design was not possible for this population of patients. Finally, since conversion to THA was considered an endpoint outcome, post-operative scores for these patients were not included in the PRO analysis.

Al Mana et al (2019) presented an updated systematic review of the indications and outcomes of open and arthroscopic labral reconstruction. Due to the increasing popularity and recognition, the arthroscopic procedure has gained in recent years, these investigators examined for changes in indications, graft selection, and improvement in outcomes within the last 5 years. A total of 9 eligible studies (6 case series, 1 cohort, and 2 retrospective comparative studies) with a total of 234 patients (265 hips), and an average 12/16 (non-comparative studies) and 20/24 (comparative studies) quality on the MINORS score were included in this review. All patients underwent labral reconstruction, whether as primary surgery or revision (76 % versus 24 % respectively). There were 244 hips examined at final follow-up (92 %) with a reported mean range of 12 and 61 months. There were more graft variabilities found in this study compared with the previous review (ITB allograft, gracilis tendon autograft, indirect head of rectus femoris autograft, semitendinosus allograft, peroneus brevis allograft, labrum allograft, ligamentum capitus femoris). Surgical approaches differed (open 7.9 % (previously 18.7 %), arthroscopic 86 % (previously 81. 3 %), arthroscopic assisted mini-open technique (AAMOT) (6 %)). Overall, improvement was observed in the patient-reported outcomes and functional scores, with variability in their statistical significance. The failure rate or conversion to THA decreased compared with the previous review (20 % versus 9.5 % [conversion to THA was 5.7 % and revision surgery rate was 3. 8 %]). Indications for labrum reconstruction remained similar (i.e., young, active patients with no or minimal arthritis (Tonnis 0 to 1), irreparable or ossified labrum, and hypotrophic less than 2 mm or dysfunctional hypertrophic labrum greater than 8 mm). According to recent evidence, hip labrum reconstruction is a new technique that showed short- and mid-term improvement in patient-reported outcomes and functional scores postoperatively. The primary indication for reconstruction remained similar over time. The failure rates and/or conversion to THA appeared to have decreased over time. Long-term follow-up with higher quality studies was not available in the literature based on this review. Level of Evidence = II.

The authors stated that this review had several drawbacks. Variation in clinical outcome measures and discrepancy in follow-up durations among studies did not allow for data pooling. The available evidence was also noted to be predominantly observational in design (6 case series, 2 retrospective comparative, and 1 prospective cohort studies), lacking studies with high-quality level of evidence.

Bessa et al (2020) noted that the acetabular labrum plays a major role in hip function and stability. The gold standard treatment for labral tears is labral repair, but in cases where tissue is not amenable to repair, reconstruction has been demonstrated to provide superior outcomes compared to debridement. Many types of grafts have been used for reconstruction with good to excellent outcomes. Autograft options include ITB, semitendinosus, and indirect head of the rectus femoris tendon, while allografts have included fascia lata and gracilis tendon allografts. These researchers stated that as allografts are not always readily available and have some inherent disadvantages, they examined indications for labral reconstruction; and summarized outcomes, complications, and re-operation rates following arthroscopic labral reconstruction with autografts. They carried out a systematic review of the literature using 6 databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Google Scholar) to identify studies reporting outcomes for arthroscopic labral reconstruction utilizing autografts, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Study design, patient demographics, autograft choice, complications, donor site morbidity, re-operation rates, conversion to THA, and patient reported outcomes were extracted and reported. A total of 7 studies were identified for inclusion with a total of 402 patients (173 females, age range of 16 to 72; follow-up range of 12 to 120 months). The most commonly reported functional outcome score was the MHHS, which was reported in 6 of 7 studies. Pre-operative MHHS ranged from 56 to 67.3 and improved post-operatively to a range of 81.4 to 97.8. Conversion to THA and re-operation rates ranged from 0 to 13.2 % and 0 to 11 %, respectively . The most common indication for labral reconstruction was an irreparable labrum. Autografts utilized included ITB, hamstring tendons, indirect head of rectus femoris, and capsular tissue. The authors concluded that arthroscopic autograft reconstruction of the acetabular labrum resulted in significant improvement in the short- and mid-term patient reported outcomes, for properly selected patients presenting with pain and functional limitation in the hip due to an irreparable labral injury.

The authors stated that the drawbacks of this systematic review included the level of evidence of the retrospective level III and IV studies included, which were also limited to short and mid-term outcomes of relatively small patient sample sizes. These researchers stated that prospective and randomized trials, with longer follow-up and larger sample sizes would be preferred for a more comprehensive and reliable assessment of arthroscopic labral reconstructions. Such design, including randomization of graft choice, would permit the comparison of different graft choices and their impact on outcomes and donor site morbidity. Specifically, the most interesting comparisons would be hamstring and ITB grafts with grafts such as the indirect head of rectus femoris tendon that may be harvested without causing donor-site complications.

Rahl and associates (2020) stated that the acetabular labrum is critical to maintenance of hip stability and has been found to play a key role in preservation of the hip fluid seal. For irreparable labral damage, arthroscopic labral reconstruction is an evolving technique that has been shown to decrease hip pain and restore function. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, these investigators provided a comprehensive review of current literature for arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction, with a focus on determining if outcomes differ between autograft or allograft tissue. PubMed and Scopus online data-bases were searched with the key terms "hip", "labrum", "reconstruction", and "graft" in varying combinations. Procedures performed, complications, failures, and functional outcome measures were included in this analysis. The inverse variance method was used to calculate pooled estimates and 95 % CIs. A total of 8 studies with 537 hips were included. Mean age was 37.4 years (95 % CI: 34.5 to 40.4 years), and mean follow-up time was 29 months (95 % CI: 26 to 33 months). Survivorship after autograft reconstruction ranged from 75.7 % to 100 %, as compared with 86.3 % to 90.0 % in the allograft cohort. In the autograft cohort, failures included 0 % to 13.2 % conversion to THA and 0 % to 11.0 % revision hip arthroscopy. Failures in the allograft cohort included 0 % to 12.9 % THA conversion, 0 % to 10.0 % revision arthroscopy, and 0 % to 0.8 % open revision surgery. Based on 6 studies, the mHHS improved by a mean 29.0 points after labral reconstruction (p < 0.0001). The authors concluded that arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction resulted in clinically significant improvements in PROs. The findings of this analysis indicated that there are no significant differences in outcomes based on graft type alone. A number of factors may determine graft choice, including patient preference, surgeon experience, operative time, morbidity, and cost. Proper patient selection based on age and severity of degenerative joint disease will also optimize outcomes after labral reconstruction.

The authors stated that this systematic review had several drawbacks. First, the studies had heterogeneous patient populations and lacked control groups. Many patients had previous surgery on the operative hip, and the labral reconstruction often contained concurrent procedures that were highly variable. Second, the total sample size contained in this review was not as robust as other systematic reviews, given the emerging growth of this procedure. A larger patient population would allow for a more conclusive analysis of outcomes. Third, most studies contained in this study were retrospective reviews.

Maldonado et al (2020) noted that labral reconstruction has been advocated as an alternative to debridement for the treatment of irreparable labral tears, showing favorable short-term results. However, literature is scarce regarding outcomes and return-to-sport in the non-elite athletic population. In a case-series study, these investigators reported minimum 1-year clinical outcomes and the rate of return-to-sport in athletic patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction in the setting of FAI syndrome and irreparable labral tears. Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed for patients who underwent an arthroscopic labral reconstruction between August 2012 and December 2017. Patients were included if they identified as an athlete (high school, college, recreational, or amateur); had follow-up on the following PROs: mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SS, and VAS; and completed a return-to-sport survey at 1 year post-operatively. Patients were excluded if they underwent any previous ipsilateral hip surgery, had dysplasia, or had prior hip conditions. The proportions of patients who achieved minimal clinical important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for mHHS and HOS-SS were calculated. Statistical significance was set at p = 0.05. There were 32 (14 females) athletes who underwent primary arthroscopic labral reconstruction during the study period. The mean age and BMI of the group were 40.3 years (range of 15.5 to 58.7 years) and 27.9 kg/m2 (range of 19.6 to 40.1 kg/m2), respectively. The mean follow-up was 26.4 months (range of 12 to 64.2 months). All patients demonstrated significant improvement in mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SS, and VAS (p < 0.001) at latest follow-up. Additionally, 84.4 % achieved MCID and 81.3 % achieved PASS for mHHS, and 87.5 % achieved MCID and 75 % achieved PASS for HOS-SS. VAS pain scores decreased from 4.4 to 1.8, and the satisfaction with surgery was 7.9 out of 10; and the rate of return-to-sport was 78 %. The authors concluded that at minimum 1-year follow-up, primary arthroscopic labral reconstruction, in the setting of FAI syndrome and irreparable labral tears, was associated with significant improvement in PROs in athletic populations; return-to-sport within 1 year of surgery was 78 %. Level of Evidence = IV.

The authors stated that this study had several drawbacks. First, this was a non-randomized study with no control group. As such, confounding variables may have influenced these findings. Second, the retrospective nature introduced some bias. Third, this study included a single high-volume hip preservation surgeon, which may limit the generalizability of the results, especially since hip arthroscopy and particularly labral reconstruction have been recognized as procedures with steep learning curves. Fourth, the labral treatment decision algorithm was based on the senior author’s expertise, which may have introduced bias. Fifth, some patients who had surgery during this study period did not allow their surgical data to be used in research and statistical analysis, and this omission could have influenced the results. Sixth, this analysis included only patients who indicated participation in sports 1 year prior to surgery. Some athletes who were unable to participate in sports before surgery due to hip pain may have been excluded from analysis, which could have influenced these findings and conclusion. Seventh, as this study analyzed short-term follow-up, long-term studies are needed to examine the durability of the results.

Wu and colleagues (2020) noted that FAI is a common cause of hip pain and even tearing of the acetabular labrum in young adults and athletes; therapeutic options include arthroscopic labral debridement (LD) or labral repair (LR). In a systematic review and meta-analysis, these researchers compared the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic LD versus LR. A total of 5 studies were acquired from PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Data were extracted by 2 of the co-authors independently and were analyzed by RevMan 5.3. Mean differences (MDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95 % CIs were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias. A total of 4 observational studies and 1 prospective randomized study were examined. The methodological quality of the trials indicated a low-to-moderate risk of bias. The pooled results of NAHS, failure rate of surgeries and complications showed that the differences were not statistically significant between the 2 approaches. The difference of mHHS, VAS score and satisfaction rate was statistically significant between LD and LR intervention, and LR treatment was more effective. Sensitivity analysis proved the stability of the pooled results and there were too less included articles to verify the publication bias. The authors concluded that hip arthroscopy with either LR or LD was an effective treatment for symptomatic FAI. The difference of mHHS, VAS score, and satisfaction rate was statistically significant between LD and LR, and arthroscopic LR could re-create suction-seal effect, potentially reduce micro-instability, which demonstrated a trend toward better clinical efficacy and comparable safety compared with LD. The arthroscopic LR technique is recommended as the optimal choice for acetabular labrum tear with FAI. Moreover, these researchers stated that larger, multi-center, high-quality, RCTs with longer follow-up are needed to verify the outcomes of this meta-analysis.

The authors stated that this study had several drawbacks. First, the small sample size might have affected the significant difference between the 2 surgical procedures. Second, the retrospective design and the patient cohorts were not similar because one group had a fixable labrum and the other did not, which may have increased the clinical heterogeneity among trials. Third, this study only included 3 articles for conducting funnel plot and the publication bias could not be ignored. Last, the included studies were mostly observational studies and not RCTs, and they largely relied on retrospectively collected data, resulting in a high risk of selection bias.

In a case-series study, Scanaliato et al (2020) determined the return-to-play rates and hip-specific outcomes in athlete hips with FAI syndrome treated with circumferential labral reconstruction (CLR). All consecutive patients who underwent CLR from January through December 2016 performed by the senior surgeon with complete 2-year outcome scores were identified. The hips of 57 non-athletes who underwent CLR were excluded from analysis, as were 165 patients who underwent LR and 4 patients who underwent LD. Outcome measures were completed by patients within 1 week prior to surgery and between 22 and 26 months post-operatively. A total of 30 patients met the inclusion criteria for this study. They participated in regular, competitive athletic events and had magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA)-confirmed labral tears, and non-surgical measures had failed. Of the 30 patients, 5 (16.7 %) participated in cutting sports; 5 (16.7 %), asymmetrical or over-head sports; 4 (13.3 %), contact sports; 13 (43.3 %), endurance sports; and 3 (10.0 %), flexibility sports. Moreover, 25 of 30 (83.3 %) were high-level athletes; both primary (n = 23) and revision (n = 7) procedures were included. As determined by iHOT-12 score, 28 of 30 patients (93.3 %) met PASS whereas 30 of 30 (100 %) achieved substantial clinical benefit and exceeded the MCID for their operative hip. In addition, 23 of 30 patients (76.6%) met PASS whereas 30 of 30 (100 %) achieved substantial clinical benefit and exceeded MCID for the operative hip as determined by the VAS pain score. Of 30 patients, 26 (86.7 %) were able to return-to-play. The mean time to return-to-play was 6.6 months (standard deviation [SD] of 2.4 months). The authors concluded that the 2-year outcomes in this population of athletes undergoing CLR for FAI syndrome showed a statistically and clinically significant improvement in PROs, a statistically and clinically significant reduction in pain, and an overall return-to-play rate of 86.7 %. Level of Evidence = IV.

White et al (2020) examined outcomes of complete, primary, arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction among patients aged 40+ years compared to primary labral repair and to patients aged 30 to 39 years who underwent complete, primary labral reconstruction. All arthroscopic labral reconstruction patients between March 2010 and June 2015 who were 30 to 65 years old or arthroscopic LR patients between June 2009 and June 2015 who were 40 to 65 years old were recruited; mHHS, LEFS, and VAS for average pain were collected pre-operatively and at minimum 2-year follow-up. Failures were defined as the need for revision ipsilateral hip surgery. Rate of conversion to THA (a subset of failures) was assessed separately. A total of 363 hips met the inclusion criteria among 343 patients. Follow-up was available for 312 hips (86.0 %), and the average time to follow-up was 4.2 years (range of 2.0 to 8.5 years). After adjusting for differences in follow-up time between groups, hips in the 40+ repair group were 3.29 times more likely to fail than hips in the 40+ reconstruction group (relative risk [RR] = 3.29, 95 % CI: 1.25 to 8.69, p = 0.02), and there was no difference in failure rate for hips in the 40+ reconstruction group compared to the 30 to 39 reconstruction group (RR = 0.58, 95 % CI: 0.18 to 1.89, p = 0.37). The rate of conversion to THA was not meaningfully different among the 3 groups. Among hips that did not fail treatment, average mHHS improvement was 35 points and both labral reconstruction groups saw a greater mHHS improvement than 40+ labral repairs (p = 0.01 and p < 0.01). The authors concluded that labral reconstruction led to a lower failure rate, greater average improvement in mHHS, and equivalent post-operative PRO scores than LR among patients aged 40+ years in this cohort, and outcomes of labral reconstruction were similar among patients aged 40+ years compared to patients aged 30 to 39 years. Complete labral reconstruction may be particularly advantageous in patients aged 40+ years.

The authors stated that this study had several drawbacks. First, while these researchers adjusted for the differences in follow-up time between treatment groups through use of a log-Poisson regression model, this model may not adequately control for the impact of calendar time, and by association the surgeon’s learning curve and changes in operative technology, on the results. There may also be additional confounding variables that were not measured or accounted for in this analysis. Second, it was possible that the 51 hips where follow-up was unavailable had different outcomes than the group for which post-operative outcomes were assessed. Third, the results of this analysis were only generalizable to patients with similar characteristics to the study population, which in this case included patients aged 30 years and older with minimal or no cartilage pathology who had no prior hip procedures. Finally, the results of this study were likely surgeon-specific and may be impacted by surgeon-specific preferences. A single high-volume, hip specialist performed all surgeries that were included in this study. It is important to note that labral reconstruction, in particular, is technically demanding and requires proficiency in hip arthroscopy techniques; thus, results may not be generalizable to other patients or other surgeons.

Vap (2020) noted that the surgical treatment of labral deficiency has generated a tremendous amount of discussion and controversy among hip arthroscopists. The surgical reconstruction of the labrum has been viewed as the natural next step, after debridement and repair, in the advancement of the ability to treat patients with hip labral pathology. However, the indications for labral replacement and the profile of patients who would benefit from this complex intervention are still under debate. Every hip arthroscopist must have the technical ability to perform reconstruction when indicated. Repair or debridement does not always achieve best patient outcome.

Jimenez et al (2021) stated that labral reconstruction has shown promise for the treatment of irreparable labral tears in high-level athletes. The literature is scarce regarding outcomes and timing of return-to-sports (RTS) in these patients. In a cohort study, these investigators reported minimum 2-year PRO scores and RTS characteristics for high-level athletes undergoing primary labral reconstruction for irreparable labral tears and compared clinical results with a matched control group of athletes undergoing labral repair. Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for high school, college, and professional athletes who underwent a primary arthroscopic labral reconstruction between January 2010 and June 2018. Minimum 2-year PROs were compared for the mHHS, Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), as well as the VAS pain score, patient satisfaction, and RTS. The percentages of patients achieving the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) and MCID for the mHHS (PASS, greater than 74 points; MCID, greater than 8 points) and HOS-SSS (PASS, greater than 75 points; MCID, greater than 6 points) were also recorded. These patients were propensity score matched in a 1:3 ratio to other high-level athletes undergoing labral repair. A total of 17 high-level athletes with primary arthroscopic labral reconstruction were included with a median follow-up time of 37.1 months (95 % CI: 37.2 to 60.3 months). They demonstrated significant improvement from pre-operatively to the latest follow-up for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS for pain (p < 0.05). Furthermore, patients achieved PASS/MCID for mHHS at high rates (PASS, 84.2 %; MCID, 68.4 %). Athletes were able to RTS-specific training at a median of 3.33 months (95 % CI: 3.07 to 4.71 months) and RTS at a median of 6.2 months (95 % CI: 5.08 to 11.98 months); 14 (82.4 %) of reconstructions and 29 (82.8 %) of repairs either RTS or decided not to do so for reasons unrelated to the hip. PROs, RTS rate, and PASS/MCID rates were similar between the labral reconstruction group and a control labral repair group (p > 0.05). The authors concluded that primary arthroscopic labral reconstruction for irreparable labral tears was associated with significant improvement in PROs and high rates of RTS in high-level athletes. These results were comparable with those of a control group of athletes undergoing labral repair. Level of Evidence = III.

In a case-series study, Soares et al (2022) examined mid-term outcomes of arthroscopic hip labral augmentation for labral insufficiency after previous hip arthroscopy. Patients were identified from a prospectively collected database who underwent arthroscopic hip labral augmentation between January 2011 and January 2017 with a minimum 3-year follow-up. Pre- and post-operative PROs scores were compared and included the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey physical and mental component summaries, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), mHHS, and Hip Outcome Score (HOS) (Activities of Daily Living [ADL] and Sport). Post-operative Tegner Activity Scale and patient satisfaction (1-10) scores were also evaluated. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) between the pre-operative and minimum 3-year follow-up scores were calculated. A total of 88 patients (39 men, 49 women) underwent revision hip arthroscopy with labral augmentation. The average age was 32.8 ± 11 years. Of these, 77 patients (88 %) were available for the minimum 3-year follow-up. The survivorship (absence of conversion to THA) at 3 years and 5 years was 93 % at both time-points, with a mean survival time of 8.5 years (95 % CI: 8.0 to 8.9); 11 patients (14 %) required revision arthroscopic surgery for continued pain. Revisions occurred at a mean of 2.6 ± 1.4 years after augmentation. The mean follow-up was 5.2 ± 1.2 years (range of 3 to 9 years). For patients not requiring subsequent surgery (n = 61), all PROs measures significantly improved, which included a 20-point increase in HOS-ADL (MCID, 82 %; PASS, 72 %) and mHHS (MCID, 78 %; PASS, 70 %). The median post-operative Tegner score was 4 (range of 1 to 10). The median post-operative patient satisfaction score was 9 out of 10 (range of 1 to 10). The authors concluded that arthroscopic hip labral augmentation was a successful therapeutic option for patients with labral insufficiency after previous hip arthroscopy, showing improved PROs and survivorship of 93 % at 3 years and 5 years. This technique provided a valuable labral preservation option when addressing hip labral pathology when viable native labral tissue remains. Level of Evidence = IV.

In a multi-center study, Bodendorfer et al (2022) reported minimum 2-year follow-up PRO measures in patients undergoing labral repair (LR), segmental labral reconstruction (SLR), or circumferential labral reconstruction (CLR) in the primary setting; and compared minimum 2-year follow-up PRO measures among these groups. These investigators carried out a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multi-center database of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for treatment of labral tear and femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome between January 2014 and October 2017, and completion of minimum 2-year post-operative outcome scores. Exclusion criteria were patients undergoing revision hip surgery, labral treatment limited to debridement, lateral center-edge angle of less than 20°, osteoarthritis (Tonnis grade of greater than 1), slipped capital femoral epiphysis, workers compensation status, and patients undergoing concomitant gluteus medius and/or minimus repair. Labral reconstruction patients were matched (1:3) with labral repair patients on age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). The labral reconstruction group was further stratified into SLR, and CLR groups. Patient demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes including Hip Outcome Score - Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score - Sport Subscale, mHHS, international Hip Outcome Tool, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were analyzed, as well as achievement of the MCID. A p-value of less than 0.05 indicated statistical significance. A total of 416 patients were included (LR, n = 312; SLR, n = 53; CLR, n = 51). The age, BMI, and sex of the matched cohort were 42.3 ± 11.2 years, 24.7 ± 3.7, and 55.0 % female. At a minimum of 2-year after hip arthroscopic surgery, no differences were found in pre-operative, post-operative, or the delta VAS for pain, mHHS Hip Outcome Score - Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score - Sport Subscale, or international Hip Outcome Tool. Subsequently, the proportion of patients achieving the MCID and the PASS at latest follow-up were analyzed. This analysis revealed that no significant differences in the rate of MCID or PASS achievement for any outcome measure existed based on labral treatment. The authors concluded that in this study on labral treatment in the primary setting, patients undergoing LR, SLR, and CLR demonstrated no difference in pre-operative or post-operative scores, nor the proportion of patients achieving clinically significant outcome improvement. Level of Evidence = III

In a retrospective, comparative study, Maldonado et al (2022) compared a minimum of 2-year follow-up PROs in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy for acetabular circumferential labral reconstruction (CLR) and segmental labral reconstruction (SLR) using propensity-matched groups, in the setting of irreparable labral tear. Prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy from April 2010 to September 2018. Patients were included if they underwent labral reconstruction and had pre-operative and minimum 2-year PROs. Patients unwilling to participate, with Tonnis grade of greater than 1, or hip dysplasia were excluded. Patients in the CLR group were propensity-matched on the basis of age, sex, BMI, and Tonnis grade to patients in the SLR group in a 1:1 ratio. The MCID and the PASS rates were calculated. A total of 26 hips (25 patients) with CLR were propensity-matched to 26 hips (26 patients) with SRL. The mean follow-up time 25.92 and 27.78 months for the CLR and SLR, respectively (p = 0.845). Groups reported comparable findings for sex (p = 0.773), age (p = 0.197), BMI (p = 0.124), pre-operative Tonnis grade (p = 0.124), lateral-center edge angle (p = 0.144), and alpha angle (p = 0.264), and comparable improvement for all PROs at minimum 2-year follow-up. Patient satisfaction was similar (p = 0.612). Rates of achievement for the MCID and PASS were comparable. The authors concluded that following revision hip arthroscopy, patients who underwent CLR or SLR for complete and segmental irreparable labral tears, respectively, reported significant and comparable post-operative improvement for all PROs and rate of achievement for the MCID and PASS at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Level of Evidence = III.

In an editorial commentary, Khalil and Lynch (2022) stated that the arena of hip arthroscopy has seen leaps in practices over the last 10 years, evolving from surgical debridement of the labrum to improvements in techniques which now allow repair, augmentation, and circumferential reconstruction. However, as the operating theater continues to change its act, so too must the pre-operative choreography. Recent advancements in the understanding of pre-operative risk factors for failure of primary labral repair have identified the diminutive or hypoplastic labra on pre-screening MRI as a negative predictor of success. While this quantitative assessment predicts the anatomical coverage of the labrum, these researchers were still limited in their ability to qualify the latter's tissue substance pre-operatively. Ossified or degenerative labra may not have the inherent functional capacity to restore the suction seal of the hip in a primary repair setting. The authors stated that “If the applause from the audience failed to reach a significant threshold, we must re-think our act, and that begins with the choreography”. They stated that the next step in hip arthroscopy is determining if a primary augmentation or reconstruction, in lieu of primary repair, warrants further consideration. Until we develop reliable methods of quantifying and qualifying the labral tissue, both pre-operatively and optimally, we should establish backup for surprises encountered while on the stage".

In an editorial commentary, Kaplan (2023) stated that hip labral "width" should be defined as the distance from the chondro-labral junction to the tip of the labrum in triangular cross-section. "Height" should refer to the distance from the joint surface to the peri-labral recess (perpendicular to the width). "Length" is the distance from the anterior end of the labrum, adjacent to the anterior transverse acetabular ligament (TAL), to the posterior end of the labrum, adjacent to the posterior TAL (as may be relevant in reconstructions). Most studies of labral size focus on width, as it is thought to most contribute to the suction seal effect and hip stability. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) most accurately measures labral width. Labral width at the time of surgery should be considered its maximal size; the labrum is reduced in size after repair. Hypoplastic labrums may result in worse outcomes after hip arthroscopy, and hyperplastic labrums may result in higher scores than normo-plastic labrums in patients with primary FAI syndrome. The author concluded that diminutive labral width is a relative indication for labral reconstruction. Moreover, the author noted that “I do think labrum width may contribute to outcomes; but am not yet ready to make treatment decisions based solely on labral size. For our field to reach this point, we will need additional compelling biomechanical studies, as well as prospective investigations”.

In a systematic review, Curley et al (2023) reported the mid- to long-term PROs following hip labral reconstruction. These investigators carried out a literature search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for clinical studies reporting mid- to long-term PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up following arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction. A quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index of Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) grading system. Data collection included study characteristics, demographics, indications, radiographic metrics, peri-operative findings, surgical technique, baseline and most recent PROs, and subsequent surgeries. A total of 4 studies met inclusion criteria, with 182 hips (age range of 27.9 to 38.7 years) undergoing labral reconstruction in primary and revision hip surgery with minimum of 5 years of follow-up. There were 3 Level-III studies and 1 Level-IV study, with an average MINORS score of 16.6. All studies cited labral tissue characteristics as a factor for surgical indications, including the quality and/or size of the labrum; 3 studies performed segmental labral reconstructions, while another study employed a circumferential technique. Varying grafts were selected, including hamstring autograft/allograft, ligamentum teres autograft, ilio-tibial band autograft, and tensor fascia lata autograft. All studies showed improved PROs from baseline to most recent follow-up, with 4 studies reporting mHHS values that increased from baseline (range of 58.9 to 66.8) to most recent follow-up (range of 80.1 to 86.3). After labral reconstruction, rates of revision arthroscopy ranged from 4.8 % to 13.3 % and conversion to THA ranged from 1.6 % to 27 %. The authors concluded that improved PROs were observed in all studies at minimum 5-year follow-up, suggesting that labral reconstruction could offer durable results beyond short-term follow-up. While surgical indications for all studies included labral tissue characteristics, differing graft selection and surgical techniques were utilized across studies, limiting the ability to determine an optimal treatment approach.

Autologous Osteochondral Mosaicplasty in Combination with Femoral Neck Osteochondroplasty

Gungor et al (2015) stated that although FAI syndrome is included in the etiology of lesions involving the acetabular labrum and acetabular cartilage, it is one of many possible reasons behind osteochondral lesions in the femoral head. These researchers presented clinical findings and outcomes of 2 cases with osteochondral defects and cam type impingement of femoral head. Both cases underwent autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty along with femoral osteochondroplasty following controlled hip dislocation. Harris hip scores improved significantly post-operatively and MRI showed an adequate graft union and formation of a healthy chondral surface at the final assessment. The authors concluded that autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty of parafoveal region defects and femoral neck osteochondroplasty combination may be an effective treatment method for young patients with FAI syndrome. These preliminary findings need to be validated by well-designed studies.

Capsular Plication

Capsular plication is an arthroscopic procedure that involves suturing the ligaments around the joint for greater hip stability.

Wada et al (2012) stated that Kabuki syndrome is characterized by distinctive facial features, skeletal anomalies, persisting fingertip pads with dermatoglyphic abnormalities, post-natal growth deficiency and mental retardation. These investigators reviewed their results in the operative treatment of hip dislocations in patients with Kabuki syndrome. Between 2001 and 2009, a total of 7 dislocated hips (3 unilateral and 2 bilateral hips) in 5 patients (all girls) were operatively treated at the authors institution. The operative treatment consists of open reduction, femoral derotation varus osteotomy, pelvic osteotomy (Salter in 1 and incomplete peri-acetabular osteotomy in 6 hips) and capsular plication. The age of the patients at the time of surgery ranged from 2.4 to 5.7 years, with an average of 3.6 years. The follow-up post-operative period ranged from 3.2 to 6.3 years, with an average of 5.0 years. At the final follow-up, all patients reported no click and no pain, and showed well-contained hips by radiographs. All 7 hips were graded as Severin class I to II. One patient presented as having habitual dislocation of the hip 4.4 years after surgery. Computed tomographic (CT) scans revealed posterior acetabular wall deficiency, which was not corrected by the antero-laterally directed Salter osteotomy. The incomplete peri-acetabular osteotomy provided sufficient postero-lateral coverage of the acetabulum. The authors concluded that operative treatment combining open reduction, femoral derotation varus and incomplete peri-acetabular osteotomies, and capsular plication provided successful results in patients with Kabuki syndrome who had the characteristics of hip instability such as ligamentous laxity, muscular hypotonia and posterior acetabular wall deficiency.

Domb et al (2013) noted that the role of hip arthroscopy in the treatment of patients with dysplasia is unclear because of the spectrum of dysplasia that exists. Patients with borderline dysplasia are generally not candidates for peri-acetabular osteotomy because of the invasive nature of the procedure. However, arthroscopy in dysplasia has had mixed results and has the potential to exacerbate instability. These researchers hypothesized that patients with borderline dysplasia will demonstrate post-operative improvement, high satisfaction rates, and low re-operation rates after a surgical approach that includes arthroscopic labral repair augmented by capsular plication with inferior shift. Between April 2008 and November 2010, patients less than 40 years old who underwent hip arthroscopy for symptomatic intra-articular hip disorders, with a lateral center-edge (CE) angle greater than or equal to 18° and less than or equal to 25°, were included in this study. Patients with Tonnis grade 2 or greater, severe hip dysplasia (CE less than or equal to 17°), and Legg-Calve-Perthes disease were excluded. Patient-reported outcome scores, including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), non-arthritic hip score (NAHS), hip outcome score-sport-specific subscale (HOS-SSS), hip outcome score-activity of daily living (HOS-ADL), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were obtained in all patients pre-operatively and at 1, 2, and 3 years post-operatively. Revision surgery and complications were recorded for each group. A total of 26 patients met the criteria to be included in the study. Of these, 22 (85 %) patients were available for follow-up. The mean (± standard deviation) length of follow-up for this cohort was 27.5 ± 5.5 months (range of 17 to 39) and the average age was 20 years (range of 14 to 39). The mean lateral CE angle was 22.2° (range of 18° to 25°) and the mean Tonnis angle was 5.8° (range of 0° to 17°). There was significant improvement in all patient-reported outcome scores (mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and HOS-ADL) (p < 0.0001). There was a significant improvement in VAS scores from 5.8 to 2.9 (p < 0.0001). Overall patient satisfaction was 8.4 out of 10; 17 patients had good/excellent results (77 %); 2 patients required revision arthroscopy. The authors concluded that patients with borderline dysplasia have often fallen into a gray area between arthroscopy and peri-acetabular osteotomy, and viable treatment options have remained scarce. They stated that the current study demonstrated favorable results at 2-year follow-up for an arthroscopic approach that includes labral repair augmented by capsular plication with inferior shift.

Peterlein et al (2013) stated that the treatment of hip instability in patients with Down syndrome is challenging. These investigators have performed different pelvic osteotomies and corrections at the proximal femur for this indication. This retrospective study was conducted to evaluate the clinical and radiological outcome of each intervention. All in all, 166 patients with Down syndrome were treated at the authors’ orthopedic department in the observation period. Problems related to the hip joint were diagnosed in 63 of those patients. Only patients who underwent surgery were included in this study. The charts and X-rays of these 31 patients were evaluated with respect to the following parameters: incidence of the hip problem, concomitant diseases, temporal progress, kind of operation method and date, duration of stay in the hospital, after-care, follow-on surgery related to complications, AC angle, CE angle, ACM angle, CCD angle, index of migration according to Reimers, classification of Bauer and Kerschbauer and general morphology of the femoral head. The group was compared with an age-matched group of 21 patients with hip dysplasia. Those patients underwent the same sort of operation in the same year. In the Morbus Down group, these researchers performed surgery for preservation of the hip in 49 cases. This included 13 osteotomies according to Chiari, 11 triple osteotomies according to Tonnis, 10 corrections by femoral varus derotation osteotomy, 8 pelvic osteotomies according to Pemberton, 5 pelvic osteotomies according to Salter and 2 open reductions of the hip. With respect to the moment of surgery, these researchers detected 3 peaks of age. There was no difference in course of disease and quantity of complications between the groups. Satisfactory results concerning clinical and radiological outcome were achieved predominantly by complete re-directional acetabular osteotomies; 50 % of the patients who were solely treated by femoral varus derotation osteotomy needed follow-on surgery in the form of pelvic osteotomy. Comparison of pre-operative and post-operative range of motion (ROM) of the hip joint between groups detected capsular insufficiency, increased ligamentous laxity and muscular hypotonia in patients with Down syndrome. Comparison of pelvic radiographs demonstrated significant improvement concerning measured angles in both groups. Pre-operative values with respect to AC angle and CE angle were demonstrated to be lower in the hip dysplasia group (p < 0.01); whereas values for ACM angle were comparable between groups. The authors concluded that hypermobility and secondary dislocation of the hip joint is a common problem in patients with Down syndrome, which often requires surgical intervention at an early stage. According to the authors’ data and clinical results, they suggested a complete re-directional acetabular osteotomy in combination with capsular plication for treatment of this challenging condition.

Rosenbaum et al (2013) reported on the case of a 24-year old military policeman underwent arthroscopic femoral neck osteoplasty and labral repair of his right hip following failed conservative management of femoro-acetabular impingement (FAI). His post-operative course was complicated by recurring posterior instability of his right hip initially presenting as a posterior dislocation on post-operative day 19. Iatrogenic disruption of the hip's static stabilizers in the setting of underlying coxa valga was the likely culprit. Although anterior dislocation following hip arthroscopy has been described, posterior dislocation has not. Further, these investigators identified a successful and less-invasive approach to the treatment of this complication, in the form of a spica cast. Prior cases pertaining to post-arthroscopy hip instability have only described operative interventions, such as capsular repair and plication, as effective revision procedures.

Uchida et al (2014) noted that in addition to the underlying shallow acetabular deformity, a patient with hip dysplasia has a greater risk of development of a labral tear, a cam lesion, and capsular laxity. This combination of abnormalities exacerbates joint instability, ultimately leading to osteoarthritis. Unsurprisingly, only repairing the acetabular labrum remains controversial, and the outcome is unpredictable. In this technical note, with video, these researchers demonstrated an entirely endoscopic approach for simultaneously repairing the most common mechanical abnormalities found in moderate hip dysplasia: labral repair, cam osteochondroplasty, capsular plication, and shelf acetabuloplasty using an autologous iliac bone graft.

Chandrasekaran et al (2015) stated that atraumatic instability or micro-instability of the hip is a recognized cause of groin pain and hip instability. Risk factors include female sex, ligamentous laxity, and borderline dysplasia. Arthroscopically, the joint may distract easily, and there may be associated ligamentum teres tears and laxity of the capsule on manual probing. The use of arthroscopic capsular plication in this cohort of patients has shown good to excellent results. Biomechanically, a capsular plication aims to create an imbrication and inferior shift of the capsule to augment the screw-home mechanism of the capsule-ligamentous structures and thereby improve stability in extension and external rotation. These investigators detailed the step-by-step surgical technique of arthroscopic capsular plication, in addition to the indications, pearls, and pitfalls of the technique.

Larson et al (2015) presented outcomes in a series of patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (EDS)-hypermobility type who underwent hip arthroscopy for associated hip pain and extreme capsular laxity. A retrospective chart review identified 16 hips with confirmed EDS – hypermobility type that underwent hip arthroscopy for continued pain and capsular laxity. All patients had complaints of "giving way" and pain, an easily distractible hip with manual traction under fluoroscopy, and a patulous capsule at the time of surgery. No patient had osseous evidence of acetabular hip dysplasia or prior confirmed hip dislocation. Outcomes were evaluated pre-operatively and post-operatively with the mHHS, the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), and a VAS for pain. Evidence of symptomatic FAI was found in 15 hips (93.8 %). The 16th hip had subjective giving way with a positive anterior impingement test and was easily distractible, had a labral tear, and had a patulous capsule at the time of surgery. The mean follow-up period was 44.61 months (range of 12 to 99). The mean pre-operative lateral CE angle was 31.8° (range of 25° to 44°), and the mean Tonnis angle was 3.6° (range of -2° to 8°). Mean femoral version measured on CT scans was 19.2° (range of -4.0° to 31.0°). Of the hips, 13 underwent primary arthroscopy and 3 underwent revision. All hips underwent hip arthroscopy with an inter-portal capsular cut only and arthroscopic capsular plication. There were 13 labral repairs, 2 labral debridements, 8 rim resections, 15 femoral resections, 2 psoas tenotomies, and 1 micro-fracture. Improved stability with an inability to distract the hip with manual traction under fluoroscopy was noted in all hips after plication. The mean alpha angle pre-operatively was 58.7° on antero-posterior radiographs and 63.6° on lateral radiographs compared with 47.4° and 46.1°, respectively, post-operatively. There were significant improvements for all outcomes (mHHS, p = 0.002; SF-12 score, p = 0.027; and VAS score, p = 0.0004). The mean mHHS, SF-12 score, and VAS score were 45.6 points, 62.4 points, and 6.5 points, respectively, pre-operatively compared with 88.5 points, 79.3 points, and 1.6 points, respectively, at a mean follow-up of 45 months. No EDS patients were lost to follow-up or excluded from analysis. The mean improvement in mHHS from pre-operatively to post-operatively was 42.9 points, and there were no iatrogenic dislocations. One patient underwent further revision arthroscopy for recurrent pain, subjective giving way, and capsular laxity. The authors concluded that FAI and extreme capsular laxity can be seen in the setting of EDS. Although increased femoral version was common, acetabular dysplasia was not common in this study. They stated that meticulous capsular plication, arthroscopic correction of FAI when present, and labral preservation led to dramatic improvements in outcomes and subjective stability without any iatrogenic dislocations in this potentially challenging patient population.

Levy et al (2015) stated that the most commonly reported reasons for persistent hip pain after hip arthroscopy are residual FAI, dysplasia and dysplasia variants, or extra-articular impingement. There are some cases in which the underlying osseous pathomorphology has been appropriately treated, and the cause of persistent hip pain can be soft-tissue injuries such as chondrolabral tears or capsular abnormalities. Capsular defects after hip arthroscopy may suggest an alteration of the biomechanical properties of the ilio-femoral ligament and lead to iatrogenically induced hip instability. There are a growing number of biomechanical and clinical studies showing the importance of capsular management during hip arthroscopy. The authors described the work-up, examination under anesthesia, diagnostic arthroscopy, and technique of capsular plication for iatrogenic instability of the hip.

Mei-Dan et al (2015) noted that symptomatic anterior instability of the hip is typically iatrogenic in nature and poses a challenging problem for the orthopedist. With early recognition, capsular repair and plication are often effective in restoring stability. Cases involving multiple instability episodes or those with delayed presentation, however, may have patulous and deficient capsular tissue precluding successful capsulorrhaphy. Capsular reconstruction may play an important role in restoring stability in these difficult cases. The authors presented an arthroscopic technique for ilio-femoral ligament reconstruction, with Achilles tendon allograft, to address instability of the hip due to anterior capsular deficiency.

There is inadequate evidence that microfracture improves the outcomes of FAI surgery. An editorial (Lubowitz, et al, 2016) commenting on a systematic review of microfracture with FAI surgery noted that we are unable to determine from these studies whether improvements in pain are due to the microfracture or the FAI surgery.

Hip arthroscopy may be necessary for a traumatic labral tear that is causing mechanical symptoms (e.g., unstable tear in good quality labrum, such as may occur in a younger patient with traumatic etiology). However, degenerative tears are usually a sign of early osteoarthritis and there is a lack of adequate evidence that arthroscopic repair of degenerative tears improves clinical outcomes. Most peer-reviewed published medical literature regarding repair of torn labrum are in the context of hip impingement. There are a few studies of isolated repair of torn labrum in patients with dysplasia and bony impingement, and these are mostly case series (level IV evidence). In an evidence review, Haddad, et al (2014) stated that "It seems logical to repair an unstable tear in a good quality labrum with good potential to heal in order potentially to preserve its physiological function. A degenerative labrum on the other hand may be the source of discomfort and its preservation may result in persistent pain and the added risk of failure of re-attachment. The results of the present study do not support routine refixation for all labral tears."

Anterior-Inferior Iliac Spine Decompression during Femoro-Acetabular Impingement Surgery

Sharfman and colleagues (2016) stated that the anterior inferior iliac spine (AIIS) has variable morphology that correlates with hip ROM. Sub-spinal impingement is an extra-capsular cause for FAI and is clinically significant because it results in decreased ROM and groin pain with flexion-based activity. In symptomatic patients with AIIS extension to or below the acetabular rim, AIIS decompression is considered part of an FAI corrective procedure. A consistent exposed bony area on the anterior and infero-medial aspect of the AIIS serves as a "safe zone" of resection allowing for decompression with preservation of the origin of the rectus femoris tendon. This surgical note described a technique for AIIS decompression. The goal for low AIIS osteoplasty is to resect the AIIS to 2 burr widths (using a 5.5-mm burr) above the acetabular rim, achieving an 11-mm clearance, creating a type I AIIS. The resultant flat anterior acetabular surface between the most antero-inferior prominent point of the AIIS and the acetabular rim allows for free movement of the hip joint without impingement. Careful execution of AIIS decompression can alleviate clinical symptoms of FAI and restore function to the hip joint. However, there is limited evidence regarding the effectiveness of anterior inferior iliac spine decompression.

Bohnsack (2018) examined the clinical value of c complete arthroscopic decompression of the impinging sub-spinal soft tissues and resection of the hypertrophic bone formation between the anterior hip capsule and AIIS or decompression of a hypertrophic AIIS. Indications were painful anterior hip impingement and decreased hip flexion following a hypertrophic osseous sub-spinal deformation. Contra-indications were no clinical symptoms or decreased anterior hip function despite radiological osseous sub-spinal hip impingement. Surgical technique involved was hip arthroscopy in supine position on an extension table. Treatment of possible intra-articular hip pathologies in the central or peripheral compartment. Arthroscopic visualization of the hypertrophic impinging soft tissues below the AIIS and decompression using a shaver or radio-frequency (RF) device. Complete arthroscopic resection of the hypertrophic AIIS parts and the osseous sub-spinal deformation using a high speed burr under fluoroscopic control. Posy-operative management entailed early functional rehabilitation with full weight-bearing and unlimited hip motion; 3 weeks ossification prophylaxis and 8 weeks of limitation for jumping and running sports activities. The authors concluded that there are no comparative studies or medium- and long-term study results in the literature for arthroscopic AIIS decompression. However, currently published case series showed an improvement of the determined scores.

Michal and associates (2020) evaluated the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic sub-spinal decompression in patients with hip impingement symptoms and low AIIS, and assessed the presence of low anterior inferior iliac spine on the pre-operative radiographs of patients with established sub-spinal impingement diagnosed intra-operatively. Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent arthroscopic sub-spinal decompression has been performed. The indications for surgery were FAI, or sub-spinal impingement. Pre-operative radiographs were assessed for anterior inferior iliac spine type. Intra-operative diagnosis of low anterior inferior iliac spine was based on the level of anterior inferior iliac spine extension relative to the acetabulum and the presence of reciprocal labral and chondral lesions. In patients where low anterior inferior iliac spine was not diagnosed on pre-operative radiographs, the pre-operative radiographs were re-read retrospectively to assess missed signs of low anterior inferior iliac spine. A total of 34 patients underwent arthroscopic sub-spinal decompression between 2012 and 2015. They were followed for a median of 25 months (13 to 37 months). Intra-operatively, grade 2 anterior inferior iliac spine was found in 27 patients and grade 3 anterior inferior iliac spine was found in 7 patients; MHHS, HOS, and HOSS scores increased from median (range) pre-operative scores of 55 (11 to 90), 48 (20 to 91) and 20 (0 to 80) to 95 (27 to 100), 94 (30 to 100) and 91 (5 to 100), respectively (p < 0.0001, p = 0.001, p < 0.0001, respectively). Pre-operative diagnosis of low AIIS was made in 6/34 patients via AP radiographs. On retrospective analysis of pre-operative radiographs, signs of low AIIS were still not observed in 21/34 (61.8 %) patients. The authors concluded that arthroscopic sub-spinal decompression of low AIIS yielded significantly improved outcome measures and high patient satisfaction at a minimum of 13 months follow-up. Low AIIS was often under-diagnosed on AP pelvis and lateral frog radiographs and if left untreated, may result in unresolved symptoms and failed procedure. This was a retrospective study with small sample size (n = 34) and short-term follow-up (13 months). Level of Evidence: IV.

Tateishi and co-workers (2020) evaluated the additional effect of AIIS decompression on knee extensor and hip flexor strength and compared functional outcomes after arthroscopic FAI correction with and without AIIS decompression. A total of 60 patients who underwent arthroscopic FAI correction surgery were divided into 2 groups matched for AIIS morphology: 31 patients who underwent arthroscopic FAI surgery only (without AIIS decompression) (FAI group) (AIIS Type I; n = 5, Type II; n = 26, Type III; n = 0) and 29 patients who underwent arthroscopic FAI surgery with AIIS decompression (AIIS group) (AIIS Type I; n = 5, Type II; n = 24, Type III; n = 0). Knee extensor and hip flexor strength were evaluated pre-operatively and at 6 months after surgery; PRO scores using MHHS, NAHS and iHOT-12 were obtained pre-operatively and at 6 months after surgery. In the AIIS group, there was no significant difference between knee extensor strength pre- and post-operatively (non-significant). In the AIIS group, hip flexor strength was significantly improved post-operatively compared to pre-operative measures (p < 0.05). In the FAI group, there were no significant improvements regarding muscle strength (non-significant). While there were no significant differences of pre-operative and post-operative MHHS and NAHS between both groups (MHHS; non-significant, NAHS; non-significant), the mean post-operative iHOT-12 in the FAI group was inferior to that in the AIIS group. (p < 0.01). The revision surgery rate for the AIIS group was significantly lower compared with that in the FAI group (p < 0.05). The authors concluded that anterior inferior iliac spine decompression, as a part of an arthroscopic FAI corrective procedure, had a lower revision surgery rate and did not compromise knee extensor and hip flexor strength, and it improved clinical outcomes comparable to FAI correction without AIIS decompression. They stated that AIIS decompression for FAI correction improved post-operative PRO scores without altering the muscle strength of hip flexor and knee extensor. Level of Evidence: III.

The authors stated that this study had several drawbacks. This was a retrospective study with all the inherent limitations of such a study design. There were many cases in which rehabilitation follow-up was limited in the authors’ hospital because many surgery cases have come over from all over the country. Selection bias existed in this study because a number of patients were excluded, as they were seen at clinic sites where dynamometer testing was not performed. In addition, the sample size was relatively small (n = 29 for patients who underwent arthroscopic FAI surgery with AIIS decompression) and the follow-up was short term (6 months). These researchers stated that further studies are needed to evaluate the longer-term effects of various surgical procedures on hip function and muscle strength in a larger number of patients. It was unclear as to whether the addition of an AIIS decompression had an effect on the ultimate outcome other than the muscle strength measures noted previously. Post-operative inflammation of the origin of the direct head of the rectus femoris may theoretically exist and affect patient function as well. Imaging studies, such as MRI, may be necessary to examine the effect of AIIS decompression on the origin of the rectus femoris. Finally, it was difficult to distinguish whether the most important cause of revision was due to AIIS impingement or residual FAI.

Computer-Assisted Hip Arthroscopic Surgery for Femoro-Acetabular Impingement

Kobayashi and colleagues (2018) noted that precise osteochondroplasty is key for success in hip arthroscopic surgery, especially for FAI caused by cam or pincer morphology. In this Technical Note, these researchers presented computer-assisted hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI, including pre-operative planning by virtual osteochondroplasty and intra-operative computer navigation assistance. The important concept of this technique is that navigation assistance for osteochondroplasty is based on planning made by computer simulation analysis. The navigation assistance allows surgeons to perform neither too much nor too little osteochondroplasty. Specifically, computer simulation was used to identify the impingement point. Virtual osteochondroplasty was then performed to determine the maneuvers that would improve ROM. Thereafter, the planning data were transported to a CT-based computer navigation system that directly provided intra-operative assistance. The authors concluded that computer-assisted technology including pre-operative simulation, virtual osteochondroplasty planning, and intra-operative navigation assistance may promote precise hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI.

The authors stated that there are several limitations, risks, and disadvantages in the clinical application of computer-assisted techniques. First, radiation exposure by CT is considerable, although CT evaluation may be needed for a diagnosis of FAI morphology in detail regardless of computer-assisted techniques application. In addition, surgeons need certain time and fluoroscopic guides for the navigation registration process. Furthermore, it should be noted that surgeons need additional skin incision for setting the navigation device in the distal femur. They must take notice of interference between the femur and navigation device, which possibly induces the error of the navigation system. The appropriateness of pre-operative planning should be considered. Furthermore, surgeons need to validate the accuracy of the navigation system itself compared with the pre-operative planned model.

Hip Arthroscopy for Repair of Degenerative Acetabular Labral Tear

Lim et al (2020) stated that recently, a hyper-trophic labrum has been reported in the absence of hip dysplasia, which could possibly contribute to an acetabular labral tear. In a cohort study, these researchers compared the clinical outcomes and complications, including the incidence of iatrogenic acetabular labrum and cartilage injury, in patients with tears of hypertrophic versus morphologically normal acetabular labra over a minimum follow-up period of 2 years and to examine the morphologic changes at follow-up CT arthrography in the 2 groups. Between January 2010 and December 2016, a total of 20 patients (22 hips) with a hypertrophic labrum underwent arthroscopic hip surgery. A total of 22 patients (22 hips) without a hypertrophic labrum were assigned to the control group based on matching criteria, including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), labral tear, and labral repair. Clinical outcomes were assessed with the VAS score, UCLA activity scale score (University of California, Los Angeles), and mHHS. Radiologic outcomes were assessed through serial radiography; patients were followed for at least 2 years. The mean age at surgery was 42 years. The most common cause of arthroscopic surgery in the study group was an isolated acetabular labral tear without any bony structural abnormalities (68.2 %, 15 of 22 hips). All improvements in both groups were statistically significant at the last post-operative follow-up (p < 0.001). Although the radiologic and clinical outcomes were not significantly different between the groups, the complication rates, including iatrogenic labral perforations and cartilage injury, were significantly higher in patients with hypertrophic acetabular labral tears (9 versus 3, p = 0.042). The patient-reported satisfaction scores at the last post-operative follow-up were 8.4 and 7.9 in the study and control groups, respectively (p = 0.351). The authors concluded that the high rates of patient-reported satisfaction and the clinical outcomes following arthroscopic repair in both groups were encouraging. These researchers stated that arthroscopic treatment in patients with hypertrophic acetabular labral tears should be carefully performed to prevent iatrogenic injury during the surgery, and isolated hypertrophic labral tears can have good results after repair. Level of Evidence = III. This was a small (n = 20 for patients with a hypertrophic labrum who underwent arthroscopic hip surgery) with early/mid-term follow-up (2 years). Well-designed studies with larger sample size and long-term follow-up are needed to validate these findings.

In a retrospective, single-surgeon, single-center study, Torres-Perez et al (2020) examined functional outcomes and 8-year survival after hip arthroscopy in patients with degenerative hip disease. This trial included 102 patients who underwent a hip arthroscopy procedure between August 2007 and October 2011. Each subject completed 3 questionnaires at final follow-up: HOS-ADL, HOS-SS and mHHS. A total of 39 patients (40 hips) were included in this analysis. Mean age was 43.1 ± 9.9 years with a 3-year minimum follow-up (75.43 ± 25.2 months). Younger patients and those with a shorter duration of symptoms obtained significantly higher HOS-SS and mHHS scores. Patients who had undergone previous lumbar spinal surgery obtained significantly worse HOS-ADL scores. Patient acceptable symptom state was achieved in 23 patients (57.5 %) for mHHS, 22 patients (55 %) for HOS-ADL and 25 patients for HOS-SS scores; no major complication was observed. Only 4 patients had minor complications. Mean survival time was 97.1 months (95 % CI: 85.1 to 109.1 months), with a survival at 8 years of 69 % (95 % CI: 53 % to 85 %). The authors concluded that these findings suggested that hip arthroscopy was a safe procedure with acceptable functional outcomes after a long follow-up. Moreover, these researchers stated that care should be taken when treating patients with prior lumbar surgery. Level of Evidence = IV.

In a case-series study, Moon et al (2020) examined the minimum 2-year outcomes of hip arthroscopy for FAI and concomitant labral tears in Asian patients. Patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for both FAI and concomitant labral tears between January 2012 and December 2017 were included. Patients with hip OA of Tonnis grade of greater than or equal to 2, previous hip surgery, or followed for less than 2 years were excluded. Clinical assessments were performed using the mHHS, WOMAC, and the rates of achieving threshold values of MCID and PASS at the latest follow-up. Plain radiographs were acquired pre- and post-operatively for radiologic assessments. A total of 73 patients (90 hips, 58 male, 15 female; mean age of 34.4 years) who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAI and concomitant labral tears were enrolled; 43 hips (47.8 %) had cam-type, 7 (7.8 %) had pincer-type, and 40 (44.4 %) had mixed-type FAI. The mean follow-up duration was 5.2 years. In cam- and mixed-type FAI hips, the mean α angle significantly decreased from 66.7 ± 8.28° pre-operatively to 44.9 ± 3.78° post-operatively (95 % CI: 19.6° to 22.8°; p < 0.001). The mean mHHS and WOMAC increased from 74.8 ± 13.2 and 75 ± 12.7 pre-operatively to 93 ± 8.1 (95 % CI: 15.4 to 20.9; p = 0.001) and 89.4 ± 8.4 post-operatively (95 % CI: 11.8 to 17; p = 0.001), respectively; 74 hips (82.2 %) crossed the MCID, and 85 hips (94.4 %) had achieved the PASS. There were 2 cases of pudendal nerve palsy and 1 case of sciatic nerve palsy; no additional surgeries were required. The authors concluded that hip arthroscopy could be an effective treatment for FAI and concomitant labral tears in Asian patients as shown in this study, with improved patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores and re-operation rates. Moreover, these researchers stated that longer-term studies with larger cohorts are needed. Level of Evidence = IV.

Hip Arthroscopy for Repair of FAI with Borderline / Mild Acetabular Dysplasia

Nawabi et al (2016) noted that the outcomes of hip arthroscopy in the treatment of dysplasia are variable. Historically, arthroscopic treatment of severe dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA] less than 18°) resulted in poor outcomes and iatrogenic instability. However, in milder forms of dysplasia, favorable outcomes have been reported. In a cohort study, these researchers compared outcomes after hip arthroscopy FAI in borderline dysplastic (BD) patients compared with a control group of non-dysplastic patients. Between March 2009 and July 2012, a BD group (LCEA, 18° to 25°) of 46 patients (55 hips) was identified. An age- and sex-matched control group of 131 patients (152 hips) was also identified (LCEA, 25° to 40°); PRO scores, including the mHHS, the HOS-ADL and HOS-SS, and the iHOT-33, were collected pre-operatively and at 1 and 2 years post-operatively. The mean LCEA was 22.4° ± 2.0° (range of 18.4° to 24.9°) in the BD group and 31.0° ± 3.1° (range of 25.4° to 38.7°) in the control group (p < 0.001). The mean pre-operative alpha angle was 66.3° ± 9.9° in the BD group and 61.7° ± 13.0° in the control group (p = 0.151). Cam decompression was performed in 98.2 % and 99.3 % of cases in the BD and control groups, respectively; labral repair was performed in 69.1 % and 75.3 % of the BD and control groups, respectively, with 100 % of patients having a complete capsular closure performed in both groups. At a mean follow-up of 31.3 ± 7.6 months (range of 23.1 to 67.3 months) in unrevised patients and 21.6 ± 13.3 months (range of 4.7 to 40.6 months) in revised patients, there was significant improvement (p < 0.001) in all PRO scores in both groups. Multiple regression analysis did not identify any significant differences between groups. Importantly, female sex did not appear to be a predictor for inferior outcomes; 2 patients (4.3 %) in the BD group and 6 patients (4.6 %) in the control group required revision arthroscopy during the study period. The authors concluded that favorable outcomes could be expected after the treatment of impingement in patients with BD when labral refixation and capsular closure were performed, with comparable outcomes to non-dysplastic patients. These researchers stated that further follow-up in larger cohorts is needed to prove the durability and safety of hip arthroscopy in this challenging group and to further examine potential sex-related differences in outcome. Level of Evidence = III. Moreover, the authors stated that the drawbacks of this study included its relatively small sample size (n = 46 ). In addition, follow-up was limited to a mean of 33 months, and this may limit the ability to assess whether the treatment effect is maintained going forward.

In a cohort study, Zimmerer et al (2020) analyzed the clinical outcomes of patients with different subtypes of BD hips who underwent arthroscopic surgery. These investigators examined patients with an LCEA between 18° and 25° who underwent arthroscopic treatment for FAI syndrome between January 2015 and December 2016. A hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to identify hip morphologic subtypes according to radiographic parameters, including the LCEA, femoro-epiphyseal acetabular roof (FEAR) index, anterior and posterior wall indices (AWI and PWI), Tonnis angle, alpha angle, and femoral neck-shaft angle. In addition, the iHOT-12 and a VAS for pain were applied pre-operatively and at follow-up, and the results were compared among the different clusters. Previously reported MCID and PASS values were used to determine clinically significant improvements. A total of 40 patients were identified. Of these, 36 patients were available for evaluation at a mean follow-up of 43.8 months. In total, 4 sex-independent clusters with different morphologic patterns of the hip were identified: cluster 1, unstable anterolateral deficiency (FEAR index greater than 2°, AWI less than 0.35); cluster 2, stable antero-lateral deficiency (FEAR index less than 2°, AWI less than 0.35); cluster 3, stable lateral deficiency (FEAR index greater than 2°, normal AWI and PWI); and cluster 4, stable postero-lateral deficiency (FEAR index less than 2°, PWI less than 0.85). At follow-up, clusters 1, 2, and 3 showed significantly improved iHOT-12 (p < 0.0001) and VAS pain (p < 0.0001) scores, and cluster 4 showed no significant improvements. The MCID of 15.2 points was achieved by all patients in clusters 2 and 3, by 63 % of patients in cluster 1, and by 23 % of patients in cluster 4. Clusters 2 and 3 differed significantly from clusters 1 and 4 (p = 0.02). A post-operative PASS score of 60 was achieved by all patients in cluster 3, by 86 % of patients in cluster 2, by 63 % of patients in cluster 1, and by 20 % of patients in cluster 4. The differences between the groups were statistically significant (p = 0.01). The authors concluded that arthroscopic surgery yielded good results in the treatment of stable BD of the hip with antero-lateral and lateral deficiency. In contrast, BD of the hip with acetabular retroversion showed no improvements after arthroscopic therapy. These investigators stated that this study underlined the need for an accurate analysis of all possible radiological signs to adequately classify borderline dysplastic hips. Level of Evidence = III.

The authors stated that this study has several drawbacks. First, the number of patients per cluster was small; thus, the results must be confirmed with larger group sizes. A post-hoc power analysis using GPower with power (1-β) set at 0.80 and α at 0.05 revealed that on the basis of the mean, a sample size of approximately 85 would be needed to obtain statistical power. Another drawback was the lack of a control group of patients who underwent peri-acetabular osteotomy (PAO) to treat borderline hip dysplasia. Controlled trials would help determine whether PAO is superior to arthroscopy for unstable borderline hip dysplasia. This study examined radiographic parameters without the use of advanced imaging modalities (MRI or CT). However, the different radiological signs were often sufficient for recognizing the different morphologic conditions and can be used to stratify groups. The clustering analysis considered only acetabular version. These researchers did not consider the influence of either cam morphology or femoral version. Furthermore, in this study population, no capsular repair was performed because little evidence was available for capsular closure during the investigated period of time. Presently, capsular closure or plication is routinely performed, and the effect on the outcome in this special patient group should be further analyzed. Finally, this study entailed a minimum follow-up period of 2 years, and whether these results would persist over time is unknown, especially since dysplasia can result in an early onset of arthrosis.

In a systematic review, Tang and Dienst (2020) examined the current approaches and clinical outcomes in the surgical management of concomitant mild acetabular dysplasia and FAI. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) method, the PubMed and Medline databases were searched in March 2019 for studies that reported on surgical outcomes in hips with concomitant mid acetabular dysplasia and FAI. Studies published in English that focused on the surgical outcomes after hip arthroscopy, open surgery, or PAO of concomitant acetabular dysplasia and FAI, in which the LCEA of all subjects was between 15° and 25°, were included. Articles that included subjects with LCEA of less than 15°, with a minimum follow-up duration of less than 1 year, had less than 5 subjects, or were not original articles were excluded. The initial search yielded 748 studies, and 5 studies met the inclusion criteria. All these 5 studies focused on hip arthroscopic treatment for patients with concomitant mild acetabular dysplasia and FAI; 3 studies had Level-III evidence, whereas 2 studies had Level-IV evidence. The mean patient age range across the studies was 29.8 to 49.6 years, and the female-to-male ratio was 1.14. Improved PROs (HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, mHHS, SF-12 Physical Component Summary, WOMAC) at a minimum 2-year follow-up were obtained in 4 of the 5 studies; 2 of these 4 studies had a comparative cohort of patients with FAI with normal acetabular coverage, and there was no significant difference in the post-operative outcomes and secondary procedure rate between patients with mild acetabular dysplasia and those with normal acetabular coverage. The authors concluded that the findings of this systematic review showed that improved PROs can be obtained with hip arthroscopy in the treatment of concomitant mild acetabular dysplasia and FAI at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Level of Evidence = IV.

Endoscopic Tenotomy (or Lengthening) for Iliopsoas Tendinopathy Following Total Hip Arthroplasty

Gedouin and Huten (2012) noted that there have been numerous recommendations for management of iliopsoas tendinopathy secondary to hip replacement: medical treatment, cup replacement, and open or arthroscopic tenotomy. In a retrospective, case-series study, these investigators reported on a series of 10 endoscopic iliopsoas tenotomies. Arthroplasty comprised 5 primary conventional total prostheses, 2 large head diameter metal-metal models, 1 resurfacing and 1 revision arthroplasty. All patients underwent clinical (Postel-Merle d'Aubigne (PMA), WOMAC), imaging (X-ray, CT, scintigraphy) and biological assessment. A total of 7 cases showed mechanical impingement (6 involving the anterior edge of the cup, and 1 a cement fragment); the other 3 involved large femoral components (2 large head diameter models, 1 resurfacing). Infiltration test was positive in 8 cases out of 9. Endoscopic iliopsoas tenotomy for recurrence was performed in dorsal decubitus on an ordinary table, under fluoroscopy, using 2 approaches (inferior for the endoscope, superior for the instruments) converging on the lesser trochanter. There were no complications. At a mean 20 months' follow-up (range of 12 to 60 months), mean pain grade was 5.5 (4 to 6); 8 patients showed complete relief, and 2 partial relief (2 atypical cases). Mean PMA score was 16.9 (15 to 18) and mean WOMAC score 84 (60 to 95). Muscle force was recovered at a mean 3.25 months (0.5 to 6); 8 patients were very satisfied, 1 satisfied and 1 moderately satisfied. The authors concluded that this technique was much less heavy than implant replacement; post-operative course was shorter than for open tenotomy and the technique was simpler than arthroscopic tenotomy, with lower risk. Subsequent cup change, where necessary, was not compromised. Level of Evidence = IV.

Guicherd et al (2017) stated that impingement between the acetabular component and the iliopsoas tendon is a cause of anterior pain following total hip replacement (THR). Treatment can be non-operative, endoscopic or arthroscopic, or by open revision of the acetabular component. Few studies have assessed these options. In a prospective, multi-center study, these researchers hypothesized that endoscopic/arthroscopic treatment would provide rapid pain relief with a low rate of complications. This trial included 64 endoscopic or arthroscopic tenotomies for impingement between the acetabular component and the iliopsoas tendon, performed in 8 centers. Mean follow-up was 8 months, with a minimum of 6 months and no loss to follow-up. Oxford score, patient satisfaction, anterior pain and iliopsoas strength were assessed at last follow-up. Complications and revision procedures were collated; 44 % of patients underwent rehabilitation. At last follow-up, 92 % of patients reported pain alleviation. Oxford score, muscle strength and pain in hip-flexion showed significant improvement. The complications rate was 3.2 %, with complete resolution. Mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was 0.8 nights. In 2 cases, arthroscopy revealed metallosis, indicating revision of the acetabular component. The only predictive factor was acetabular projection on oblique view. Rehabilitation significantly improved muscle strength. The authors concluded that endoscopic or arthroscopic tenotomy for impingement between the acetabular component and the iliopsoas tendon following THR significantly alleviated anterior pain in more than 92 % of cases. The low complications rate made this the treatment of choice in case of failure of non-operative management. Arthroscopy also re-oriented diagnosis in case of associated joint pathology. Projection of the acetabular component on pre-operative oblique view was the most predictive criterion, guiding treatment.

The authors stated that the main drawback of the present study was its multi-center design, introducing treatment bias (e.g., injection tests were not systematic). It also led to inter-observer variation, which might undermine correlation with such-and-such a pre-operative parameter. There was also a significant difference between radiologists and surgeons in interpreting CT images in terms of anterior cup projection; reliable anatomic landmarks need to be defined. Surgeons may have been alerted by prior clinical findings, and radiologists may have lacked information as to what anatomic abnormality to look for.

Bell et al (2019) noted that iliopsoas impingement following total hip arthroplasty (THA) occurs in up to 4.3 % of patients resulting in functional groin pain. Operative treatment historically has included open iliopsoas tenotomy or acetabulum revision. These researchers described a large, retrospective, single-surgeon series of patients treated with endoscopic iliopsoas tenotomy for iliopsoas impingement following THA to examine the effectiveness and risks. This trial included a consecutive series of 60 patients with iliopsoas impingement following THA treated with endoscopic iliopsoas tenotomy. Outcomes assessed were resolution of pain, change in Hip Outcome Score (HOS), and complications. Radiographs were reviewed by a musculoskeletal radiologist to evaluate component positioning and to compare with a control cohort. At last follow-up (mean of 5.5 months), 93.3 % of patients had resolution of pain. The HOS ADL subscale mean was 57.5 (range of 10.9 to 89.3, SD of 18.8) pre-operatively and 71.6 (range of 14.1 to 100, SD of 26.1) post-operatively (p = 0.005). The HOS sports subscale mean was 37.3 (range of 0 to 83.3, SD of 24.0) pre-operatively and 58.1 (range of 0 to 100, SD of 33.2) post-operatively (p = 0.002). One complication was reported, a post-operative hematoma managed conservatively. BMI and increased offset were associated with iliopsoas symptoms following THA in this series. The authors concluded that endoscopic iliopsoas tenotomy following THA had a 93.3 % resolution of pain, clinically important improvements in HOS, and low rate of complications.

The authors stated that the limitations of this retrospective study included a small sample size (n = 60) and the lack of cross table lateral to evaluate acetabular prominence. Objective hip-flexion strength data were not recorded before or after tenotomy in a systematic manner, so this could not be evaluated. These researchers stated that further research regarding change in hip-flexion strength after tenotomy would be beneficial as this was some concern patients had prior to surgery. Selection bias was also a limitation of this study, which these researchers attempted to limit by including all patients who underwent psoas tenotomy. These investigators stated that a larger control group sample size, would likely have increased the study power. There were 5 patients who did not have a pre-operative iliopsoas injection to confirm diagnosis; however, similar results were observed when those 5 patients were excluded from analysis.

Shapira et al (2019) stated that non-operative and operative management of iliopsoas impingement (IPI) is commonly performed following THA. In a systematic review, these investigators compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following conservative treatment, IP tenotomy, and revision arthroplasty in patients presenting with IPI following THA. PubMed and Embase databases were searched for studies regarding IPI following THA. Studies were included if IPI following THA was treated with conservative management, an IP tenotomy, or acetabular component revision and included PROs. A total of 11 studies were selected for review and there were 280 hips treated for IPI following THA. HHS reported for the conservative group, the IP tenotomy group, and the cup revision group were 59.0 pre-operatively to 77.8, 58.0 pre-operatively to 85.4, and 58.1 pre-operatively to 82.4 at latest follow-up, respectively. The IP tenotomy cohort also demonstrated superior post-operative functional outcomes using the WOMAC, MRC score, Oxford Hip Score, and PMA pain score. Patients who had a revision exhibited higher Oxford Hip Scores, higher MRC scores, and lower VAS pain scores post-operatively. The authors concluded that management of IPI following THA included non-operative measures, IP tenotomy, or acetabular component revision. Patients have been shown to experience favorable PROs at latest follow-up, with an apparent advantage for surgical treatment. Compared to revision arthroplasty, IP tenotomy resulted in a lower overall rate of complications with less severe complication types; thus, IP tenotomy should be considered as a 2nd line of treatment for patients who failed conservative measures. Revision arthroplasty should be reserved for recalcitrant cases. Level of Evidence = IV.

The authors stated that this systematic review had several drawbacks. First, there was heterogeneity in the selected studies with respect to the dispersion of the reported PROs. Second, none of the articles reported on a control group who did not experience IPI following THA, limiting the level of evidence of the selected studies. Third, these researchers acknowledged there was a selection bias inherent in some of the reviewed studies, as the surgeon’s decision-making process in performing a tenotomy versus revision was only elucidated in 3 studies. Fourth, although these investigators included 3 studies regarding outcomes on patients who underwent conservative management, it was likely that outcomes following conservative management were under-reported in the literature.

Moreta et al (2021) noted that one of the causes of groin pain following THA is impingement of the iliopsoas tendon. In a retrospective study, these researchers presented their findings with outside-in arthroscopic tenotomy for iliopsoas impingement following THA. They reviewed the findings of 12 patients who were treated between 2009 and 2016 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Anterior acetabular component prominence was measured on a true lateral hip radiograph. A transcapsular tenotomy was carried out near the edge of the acetabular component via an outside-in arthroscopic approach. The primary clinical outcomes evaluated were groin pain, assessed with a VAS, and the HHS. Secondary outcomes included strength of hip-flexion, measured with the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale. All patients had groin pain improvement, although 1 patient continued to have moderate pain. The mean VAS score was significantly lower post-operatively (1.08) than pre-operatively (6.2) (p < 0.001). The mean HHS improved from 58.8 (range of 37 to 76) to 86.1 (range of 59 to 98) (p = 0.001). The average post-operative MRC scale was 4.58. The mean anterior prominence was 7.25 mm (range of 3 to 12 mm). In patients with less than 10 mm of component prominence, tenotomy provided groin pain resolution in all cases (n = 8). In patients with 10 mm or larger of prominence, symptoms resolved in 3 out of 4 cases. The authors concluded that outside-in arthroscopic iliopsoas release provided a high rate of success with no complications in this study, even in patients with moderate acetabular component prominence. Moreover, these investigators stated that further studies are needed to examine the use of MRI in iliopsoas impingement following THA.

The authors stated that although to their knowledge this was the largest series of patients with a transcapsular tenotomy, they recognized that this study had several drawbacks. In particular, the small sample size (n = 12) and the mixed population (hemispherical cups or threaded cups) were likely responsible for some differences not reaching statistical significance. Another drawback was that the mean follow-up was relatively short.

Tassinari et al (2021) described the clinical outcomes of 16 patients with iliopsoas impingement following primary THA, treated with an arthroscopic tendon release. A total of 16 patients (11 females, 5 males), with a mean age of 57.8 ± 11.1 years (age at THA: 54.4 ± 11 years) and a diagnosis of iliopsoas impingement following primary THA, were treated with the Wettstein tenotomy. Pre-operatively, every patient underwent a diagnostic ultrasonography (US)-guided peritendinous injection and a CT scan. Every patient was clinically evaluated using WOMAC score. Subjective pain relief and active hip-flexion strength were measured. No complications related to arthroscopy were detected. Every cup was prominent with a mean axial overhang of 13 ± 4.8 mm (range of 5 to 20 mm). At a mean follow-up of 27 ± 20.1 months (range of 6 to 48 months), the WOMAC score was 83.7 ± 10.1 points. A total of 13 patients out of 16 (81.3 %) had a complete pain relief; 14 patients out of 16 (88 %) regained full active hip-flexion strength at the final follow-up; 1 patient was scheduled for cup revision after 6 months, due to persistent symptomatology. No demographic data or CT measurements regarding cup position statistically influenced the outcome. The authors concluded that when preceded by an appropriate diagnosis, arthroscopic tenotomy proved safe and effective for iliopsoas impingement, regardless the magnitude of cup protrusion. Moreover, these researchers stated that this retrospective, limited case series did not allow definitive conclusions. They stated that prospective, matched studies are needed to point out the advantages and indications of this procedure, in particular in comparison with the endoscopic technique.

The authors stated that the present cohort study shared the same limits as the previously published literature: retrospective design, small numbers and the lack of direct comparison between different techniques. Furthermore, quantitative evaluation of the hip strength was also not performed.

In a retrospective, cohort study, Viamont-Guerra et al (2021) reported outcomes of endoscopic iliopsoas tenotomy (EIT) in patients with iliopsoas tendinopathy following THA and examined if improvements in clinical scores were associated with acetabular cup anteversion measured on plain radiographs or overhang measured using established and alternative CT-based methods. These investigators examined patients who underwent EIT for iliopsoas tendinopathy following THA (2014 to 2017), performed between the lesser trochanter and psoas valley. Indications were groin pain during active hip-flexion, exclusion of other complications, and no pain relief after 6 months of conservative treatment. Pre-tenotomy inclination and anteversion were measured on radiographs; sagittal and axial overhang were measured on CT scans on slices passing through: (Method 1) prosthetic head center and (Method 2) anterior margin of acetabular cup. Modified HHS (mHHS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and level of groin pain were recorded at 12 or more months. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used to compare pre- and post-tenotomy scores, and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) to evaluate inter-method agreement. Participants comprised 16 men (17 hips) and 32 women (33 hips), aged 60.8 ± 10.5 years at EIT. For the 30 (60 %) hips that had pre-tenotomy CT scans, axial and sagittal overhang were, respectively, 3.4 ± 3.7 mm and 4.6 ± 4.6 mm, using Method 1, compared with 3.9 ± 3.9 mm and 6.9 ± 5.0 mm using Method 2. Inter-method agreement was good for axial (ICC, 0.67; p < 0.001) and sagittal (ICC, 0.68; p < 0.001) overhang. At a minimum 1 year after EIT, 3 hips had cup and stem revision and 1 hip had isolated cup revision, leaving 46 hips for clinical assessment. No complications were noted. mHHS improved by 26 ± 19 (p < 0.001) and OHS improved by 20 ± 11 (p < 0.001). A total of 26 hips (57 %) achieved the patient acceptable symptom state for mHHS, whereas 42 hips (91 %) achieved the patient acceptable symptom state for OHS. Post-tenotomy groin pain was slight in 15 %, mild in 17 %, and moderate in 11 %. Regression analyses revealed no associations between clinical scores and overhang/anteversion. The authors concluded that for patients with iliopsoas tendinopathy following THA, endoscopic iliopsoas tenotomy granted clinically important improvements of mHHS in 76 % and OHS in 89 %, despite moderate residual groin pain in 11 %. Improvements in clinical scores did not appear to be associated with the extent of cup overhang or anteversion in the cases for which adequate pre-operative imaging was available. Level of Evidence = IV.

Valenzuela and O'Donnell (2021) noted that iliopsoas impingement is an under-diagnosed cause of groin pain following THA, being responsible for 4.4 % of cases. Non-surgical treatment may be effective in approximately 50 % of cases. Endoscopic surgery has gained popularity as an option for non-responsive patients because of its non-invasive characteristics, faster recovery and encouraging results. In a retrospective review, these researchers compared 2 different sites of endoscopic psoas tenotomy performed following THA: at the edge of the acetabulum (AR) versus at the lesser trochanter (LT). They examined prospectively collected data from a single-surgeon case series. A total of 35 iliopsoas tenotomy cases that had 24-month or longer follow-up were identified. There were 21 tenotomies at the lesser trochanter. Demographic data, pre-operative as well as post-operative pain, mHHS and NAHS scores, strength and patient satisfaction data were collected and analyzed. Average age at the time of surgery was 62 years. Mean follow-up for the LT group was 49.11 months and 42.42 months for the AR group. Pain decreased significantly for both groups (p < 0.001). Both mHHS and NAHS showed superiority in the LT group; however, this difference did not reach significance (p = 0.06). LT patients showed better strength with 71.42 % of them having normal strength at latest follow-up, compared with 41.6 % in the AR group. There were no complications in either group. The authors concluded that the findings of this study supported arthroscopic/endoscopic surgical management for patients with iliopsoas impingement following THA, which was not responsive to non-surgical treatment. Both tenotomy techniques led to improved symptoms in a high percentage of patients and had no early, or late, complications. However, tenotomy at the LT consistently showed less post-operative pain, better strength and higher functional scores in comparison with the AR group, although these results did not reach statistical significance. Moreover, these researchers stated that although these results suggested that both approaches were reliable surgical options, with a trend for better outcomes for the LT group, a larger, prospective study is needed to definitively determine which technique is superior.

The authors stated that this study had several drawbacks. First, data were collected retrospectively; thus, some data points were missing. Second, many mHHS and NAHS pre-operative values were not collected; however, patients consistently had scores above the PASS, with better results reported for the LT group. Third, specific radiographical assessment of the degree of acetabular prominence was not carried out.

In a systematic review, Coulomb et al (2022) examined the technique, results and complications of arthroscopic iliopsoas tenotomies either on native hips or THA. This systematic review was carried out using 3 databases: PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library from January 2000 to December 2018 in accordance with the PRISMA procedure. The literature search, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by 2 independent reviewers. Surgical technique, clinical outcomes, recurrences and complication rates were evaluated. Out of 115 studies reviewed, 20 concerned native hips and 8 articles THA; and 3 levels of release were described. For native hips, the recurrence rate was higher for central compartment than peripheral or lesser trochanter releases. Complication rates were similar for hip arthroscopy but remained low in all series. Loss of strength was examined mainly using the MRC muscle scale. Most studies noted strength recovery. MRI analysis of muscle atrophy was greater for lesser trochanter than for central compartment release but unrelated to loss of strength. The complication rate was low for tenotomy following THA, heterotopic ossification being the most common complication. The authors concluded that central compartment releases resulted in the highest rate of recurrence due to incomplete release. Peripheral releases had a potential risk of vascular injury. The lesser trochanteric approach had the disadvantage of not having direct access to the joint. The main difficulty with THA lied in the diagnosis of cup/iliopsoas impingement. Diagnostic tests with infiltration should be made before iliopsoas release to prevent its failure. Cup protrusion of over 8 mm was a potential indication for acetabular revision. This review identified 8 studies of iliopsoas tenotomy following THA. These researchers noted that the studies analyzed had low statistical power as most of them were grade-4 and a few of them were grade-3. This was explained by the low frequency of pathologies related to the iliopsoas tendon that did not allow for larger series. Given the low level of scientific proof (grade-3 or grade-4), the validity of the conclusions was questionable.

The authors stated that this analysis had several drawbacks. First, the heterogeneity of the evaluation scales in the articles (HHS, OHS, WOMAC) raised the problem of measurement bias. Second, the populations in the series under study were not comparable (e.g., different countries, age, gender, athletic), which may have led to a selection bias. Third, due to its methodology, a literature review may be the cause of non-communication of certain results. This “file drawer” effect may be responsible for a publication bias.

In a retrospective study, Nikou et al (2023) examined the outcome of arthroscopic treatment for iliopsoas impingement following THA 2 years after surgery using PROs. A total of 12 patients (13 hips) were included from a local hip arthroscopy registry. Patients completed web-based PROs pre-operatively and at a minimum of 2 years post-operatively. The PROs included the International Hip Outcome Tool short version (iHOT-12), the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS), the European QOL-5 Dimensions Questionnaire (EQ-5D), the Hip Sports Activity Scale (HSAS) for physical activity level, the VAS for overall hip function and a single question regarding overall satisfaction with the surgery. The mean age was 64.4 years (± 15.1 SD), mean BMI was 26.6 (± 4.3 SD), mean follow-up time was 49.8 months (± 25 SD). Comparing PROs pre-operatively with 2-year follow up showed an improvement for many of the PROs used. The PROs scores were iHOT-12 (24.9 versus 34.5, p = 0.13), HAGOS subscales (symptoms 38.2 versus 54.5, p = 0.05; pain 36 versus 53, p = 0.04; sport 14.1 versus 35.1, p = 0.03; daily activity 31 versus 47.5, p = 0.04; physical activity 21.8 versus 24, p = 0.76; QOL 24 versus 35, p = 0.03), EQ-VAS (57.9 versus 58, p = 0.08), EQ-5D (0.34 versus 0.13, p = 0.07) and VAS for overall hip function (43.1 versus 46.2, p = 0.14). A total of 10 out of the 12 patients (83 %) were satisfied with the intervention. The authors concluded that patients undergoing surgery for iliopsoas impingement following previous THA showed improved self-reported hip function where most patients were satisfied with treatment.

The authors stated that this study had several drawbacks. It was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. The small patient sample (n = 12) imposed certain limitations regarding the conclusions that could be drawn from this study. A power analysis was not conducted before analysis as this was a retrospective study, which meant that there was a significant possibility of type-II error. However, to the knowledge of the authors, this was one of the few current studies examining results after arthroscopic psoas tenotomy following THA using recommended PROs for hip arthroscopy patients. Although a thorough search was executed with both the local registry data as well as a search in the hospital registers, there was still a risk that not all patients were found. However, the risk was deemed to be small. Another drawback of this study was the short follow-up of 2 years. A longer follow-up could be warranted to strengthen conclusions regarding the long-term effects of this method. Another aspect was that the radiological analysis was performed by only 1 surgeon without any inter- or intra-observer agreement analysis of the radiological findings, potentially limiting the accuracy of the radiological values registered. Furthermore, the hip-flexion muscle strength pre- and post-operatively was not measured; thus, not being able to examine the effect of iliopsoas tenotomy on the hip-flexion muscle strength.

Appendix

Arthroscopic hip surgery may be medically necessary for the following additional indications:

Acute fractures of the femoral head or acetabulum; or
Malunion of a previous intraarticular fracture; or
Persons with chronic (3 or more months duration), persistent hip pain or dysfunction due to avascular necrosis or loose bodies; or
Limited synovectomy for chronic inflammatory arthritides (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, Lyme arthritis), benign neoplastic disorders (e.g., osteochondromatosis and pigmented villonodular synovitis), recurrent hemarthrosis (e.g., hemophilia), or septic arthritis; or
Ligamentum teres injuries; or
Synovial biopsy.

Note: Aetna considers psoas tendon release an integral part of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome surgery.

Tönnis Classification of Osteoarthritis by Radiographic Changes

Grade 0: No signs of OA
Grade 1: Increased sclerosis, slight joint space narrowing, no or slight loss of head sphericity
Grade 2: Small cysts, moderate joint space narrowing, moderate loss of head sphericity
Grade 3: Large cysts, severe joint space narrowing, severe deformity of the head

Outerbridge Classification

Grade 0: normal cartilage
Grade I: cartilage with softening and swelling
Grade II: a partial-thickness defect with fissures on the surface that do not reach subchondral bone or exceed 1.5 cm in diameter
Grade III: fissuring to the level of subchondral bone in an area with a diameter more than 1.5 cm
Grade IV: exposed subchondral bone

References

The above policy is based on the following references:

Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility (ARIF). Arthroscopic surgery for hip impingement and/or hip pain. Birmingham, UK: Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Birmingham; February 2010.
Al Mana L, Coughlin RP, Desai V, et al. The hip labrum reconstruction: Indications and outcomes -- an updated systematic review. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019;12(2):156-165.
Ayeni OR, Alradwan H, de Sa D, Philippon MJ. The hip labrum reconstruction: Indications and outcomes -- a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(4):737-743.
Ayeni OR, Wong I, Chien T, et al. Surgical indications for arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(8):1170-1179.
Bardakos NV, Villar RN. Predictors of progression of osteoarthritis in femoroacetabular impingement: A radiological study with a minimum of ten years follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(2):162-169.
Bastos RM, de Carvalho Junior JG, da Silva SAM, et al. Surgery is no more effective than conservative treatment for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Rehabil. 2021;35(3):332-341.
Beall DP, Sweet CF, Martin HD, et al. Imaging findings of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Skeletal Radiol. 2005;34(11):691-701.
Beaule PE, Allen DJ, Clohisy JC, et al. The young adult with hip impingement: Deciding on the optimal intervention. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(1):210-221.
Bedi A, Chen N, Robertson W, Kelly B. The management of labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement of the hip in the young, active patient. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(10):1135-1145.
Bedi A, Galano G, Walsh C, Kelly BT. Capsular management during hip arthroscopy: From femoroacetabular impingement to instability. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(12):1720-1731.
Bell CD, Wagner MB, Wang L, et al. Evaluation of endoscopic iliopsoas tenotomy for treatment of iliopsoas impingement after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(7):1498-1501.
Ben Tov T, Amar E, Shapira A, et al. Clinical and functional outcome after acetabular labral repair in patients aged older than 50 years. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(3):305-310.
Bessa FS, Williams BT, Polce EM, et al. Indications and outcomes for arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction with autografts: A systematic review. Front Surg. 2020;7:61.
Bodendorfer BM, Alter TD, Carreira DS, et al. Multicenter outcomes after primary hip arthroscopy: A comparative analysis of two-year outcomes after labral repair, segmental labral reconstruction, or circumferential labral reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2022;38(2):352-361.
Bohnsack M. Arthroscopic decompression of extra-articular subspinal hip impingement. Oper Orthop Traumatol. 2018;30(2):87-97.
Botser IB, Ozoude GC, Martin DE, et al. Femoral anteversion in the hip: Comparison of measurement by computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and physical examination. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(5):619-627.
Boykin RE, McFeely ED, Ackerman KE, et al. Labral injuries of the hip in rowers. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471(8):2517-2522.
Boykin RE, Patterson D, Briggs KK, et al. Results of arthroscopic labral reconstruction of the hip in elite athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(10):2296-2301.
Bredella MA, Stoller DW. MR imaging of femoroacetabular impingement. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2005;13(4):653-664.
Byrd JW, Jones KS. Arthroscopic femoroplasty in the management of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(3):739-746.
Byrd JW, Jones KS. Arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement in athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39 Suppl:7S-13S.
Byrd JW, Jones KS. Prospective analysis of hip arthroscopy with 10-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(3):741-746.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). Comparative systematic review of the open dislocation, mini-open, and arthroscopic surgeries for femoroacetabular impingement. Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE). Accession Number 12011001444. York, UK: University of York; October 26, 2011.
Centre for Reviews and Dissemintation (CRD). The management of labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement of the hip in the young, active patient. Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). Accession No. 12009101120. York, UK: University of York; September 16, 2009.
Chandrasekaran S, Vemula SP, Martin TJ, et al. Arthroscopic technique of capsular plication for the treatment of hip instability. Arthrosc Tech. 2015;4(2):e163-e167.
Cheatham SW, Kolber MJ. Rehabilitation after hip arthroscopy and labral repair in a high school football athlete. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012;7(2):173-184.
Chladek P, Trc T. Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome--pre-arthritis of the hip. Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2007;74(5):354-358.
Clohisy JC, Kim YJ, Lurie J, et al. Clinical trials in orthopaedics and the future direction of clinical investigations for femoroacetabular impingement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013;21 Suppl 1:S47-S52.
Clohisy JC, St John LC, Schutz AL. Surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: A systematic review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(2):555-564.
Coulomb R, Nougarede B, Maury E, et al. Arthroscopic iliopsoas tenotomies: A systematic review of surgical technique and outcomes. HIP Int. 2022;32(1):4-11.
Cross MB, Shindle MK, Kelly BT. Arthroscopic anterior and posterior labral repair after traumatic hip dislocation: Case report and review of the literature. HSS J. 2010;6(2):223-227.
Curley AJ, Padmanabhan S, Prabhavalkar ON, et al. Durable outcomes after hip labral reconstruction at minimum 5-year follow-up: A systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2023;39(7):1702-1713.
Dettori JR, Hashimoto R, Ecker E. Hip surgery procedures for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Health technology assessment. Prepared by Spectrum Research, Inc. for the Washington State Health Care Authority, Health Technology Assessment Program. Olympia, WA: Washington State Health Care Authority; August 27, 2011.
Domb BG, Battaglia MR, Perets I, et al. Minimum 5-year outcomes of arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction with nested matched-pair benchmarking against a labral repair control group. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(9):2045-2055.
Domb BG, El Bitar YF, Stake CE, et al. Arthroscopic labral reconstruction is superior to segmental resection for irreparable labral tears in the hip: A matched-pair controlled study with minimum 2-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(1):122-130.
Domb BG, Philippon MJ, Giordano BD. Arthroscopic capsulotomy, capsular repair, and capsular plication of the hip: Relation to atraumatic instability. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(1):162-173.
Domb BG, Stake CE, Lindner D, et al. Arthroscopic capsular plication and labral preservation in borderline hip dysplasia: Two-year clinical outcomes of a surgical approach to a challenging problem. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(11):2591-2598.
Espinosa N, Beck M, Rothenfluh DA, et al. Treatment of femoro-acetabular impingement: Preliminary results of labral refixation. Surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89 Suppl 2 Pt.1:36-53.
Espinosa N, Rothenfluh DA, Beck M, et al. Treatment of femoro-acetabular impingement: Preliminary results of labral refixation. J Bone Joint Surg. 2006;88(5):925-935.
Fabricant PD, Heyworth BE, Kelly BT. Hip arthroscopy improves symptoms associated with FAI in selected adolescent athletes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(1):261-269.
Ferreira GE, O'Keeffe M, Maher CG, et al. The effectiveness of hip arthroscopic surgery for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sci Med Sport. 2021;24(1):21-29.
Frank RM, Lee S, Bush-Joseph CA, et al. Improved outcomes after hip arthroscopic surgery in patients undergoing T-capsulotomy with complete repair versus partial repair for femoroacetabular impingement: A comparative matched-pair analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(11):2634-2642.
Ganz R, Gill TJ, Gautier E, et al. Surgical dislocation of the adult hip: A technique with full access to the femoral head and acetabulum without the risk of avascular necrosis. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2001;83(8):1119-1124.
Gedouin JE, Huten D. Technique and results of endoscopic tenotomy in iliopsoas muscle tendinopathy secondary to total hip replacement: A series of 10 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98(4 Suppl):S19-S25.
Gedouin JE, May O, Bonin N, et al.; French Arthroscopy Society. Assessment of arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement. A prospective multicenter study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2010;96(8 Suppl):S59-S67.
Gosvig KK, Jacobsen S, Sonne-Holm S, et al. Prevalence of malformations of the hip joint and their relationship to sex, groin pain, and risk of osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:1162-1169.
Guanche CA, Bare AA. Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(1):95-106.
Guicherd W, Bonin N, Gicquel T, et al. Endoscopic or arthroscopic iliopsoas tenotomy for iliopsoas impingement following total hip replacement. A prospective multicenter 64-case series. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2017;103(8S):S207-S214.
Gungor HR, Kıter E, Ok N, Çatak A. Osteochondral mosaicplasty along with osteochondroplasty of the femoral head in femoroacetabular impingement: A case report. Eklem Hastalik Cerrahisi. 2015;26(3):181-184.
Haddad B, Konan S, Haddad FS. Debridement versus re-attachment of acetabular labral tears: A review of the literature and quantitative analysis. Bone Joint J. 2014;96-B(1):24-30.
Harris JD, Erickson BJ, Bush-Joseph CA, Nho SJ. Treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: A systematic review. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2013;6(3):207-218.
Hartigan DE, Perets I, Walsh JP, et al. Clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopic surgery in patients with femoral retroversion: A matched study to patients with normal femoral anteversion. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(10):2325967117732726.
Haviv B, Burg A, Velkes S, et al. Trends in femoroacetabular impingement research over 11 years. Orthopedics. 2011;34(5):353.
Haviv B, O'Donnell J. Arthroscopic treatment for acetabular labral tears of the hip without bony dysmorphism. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39 Suppl:79S-84S.
Haviv B, O'Donnell J. Arthroscopic treatment for symptomatic bilateral cam-type femoroacetabular impingement. Orthopedics. 2010;33(12):874.
Health Care Insurance Board / College voor zorgverzekeringen (CVZ). Femoro-acetabulaire chirurgie ter behandeling van FAI voldoet niet aan het criterium van de stand van de wetenschap en praktijk [Femoroacetabular surgery for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement does not meet the scientific criteria for practice]. Diemen, The Netherlands: CVZ; February 25, 2010.
Horisberger M, Brunner A, Herzog RF. Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement of the hip: A new technique to access the joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:182-190.
Huang R, Diaz C, Parvizi J. Acetabular labral tears: Focused review of anatomy, diagnosis, and current management. Phys Sportsmed. 2012;40(2):87-93.
Ibrahim MM, Poitras S, Bunting AC, et al. Does acetabular coverage influence the clinical outcome of arthroscopically treated cam-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI)? Bone Joint J. 2018;100-B(7):831-838.
Javed A, O'Donnell JM. Arthroscopic femoral osteochondroplasty for cam femoroacetabular impingement in patients over 60 years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93(3):326-331.
Jimenez AE, Monahan PF, Owens JS, et al. Return to sports and minimum 2-year outcomes of primary arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction for irreparable tears in high-level athletes with a propensity-matched benchmarking against a labral repair control group. Am J Sports Med. 2021;49(12):3261-3269.
Kalore NV, Jiranek WA. Save the torn labrum in hips with borderline acetabular coverage. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(12):3406-3413.
Kaplan DJ. Editorial commentary: Diminished hip labral width may predict inferior outcome after hip femoroacetabular impingement surgery: Diminutive labral width is a relative indication for labral reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2023;39(6):1451-1453.
Kassarjian A, Brisson M, Palmer WE. Femoroacetabular impingement. Eur J Radiol. 2007;63(1):29-35.
Katz JN, Gomoll AH. Advances in arthroscopic surgery: Indications and outcomes. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2007;19(2):106-110.
Ketola S, Lehtinen J, Arnala I, et al. Does arthroscopic acromioplasty provide any additional value in the treatment of shoulder impingement syndrome?: A two-year randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(10):1326-1334.
Khalil LS, Lynch TS. Editorial commentary: Surgeons planning hip labral arthroscopic repair should have a backup plan of labral reconstruction or augmentation based on intraoperative labral degeneration, hypoplasia, or ossification. Arthroscopy. 2022;38(9):2669-2671.
Khan M, Habib A, de Sa D, et al. Arthroscopy up to date: Hip femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(1):177-189.
Kobayashi N, Inaba Y, Kubota S, et al. Computer-assisted hip arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthrosc Tech. 2018;7(4):e397-e403.
Kutty S, Schneider P, Faris P, et al. Reliability and predictability of the centre-edge angle in the assessment of pincer femoroacetabular impingement. Int Orthop. 2012;36(3):505-510.
Larson CM, Giveans MR, Samuelson KM, et al. Arthroscopic hip revision surgery for residual femoroacetabular impingement (FAI): Surgical outcomes compared with a matched cohort after primary arthroscopic FAI correction. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(8):1785-1790.
Larson CM, Giveans MR, Taylor M. Does arthroscopic FAI correction improve function with radiographic arthritis? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(6):1667-1676.
Larson CM, Giveans MR. Arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement: Early outcomes measures. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(5):540-546.
Larson CM, Guanche CA, Kelly BT, et al. Advanced techniques in hip arthroscopy. Instr Course Lect. 2009;58:423-436.
Larson CM, Stone RM, Grossi EF, et al. Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: Arthroscopic management for extreme soft-tissue hip instability. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(12):2287-2294.
Levy DM, Grzybowski J, Salata MJ, et al. Capsular plication for treatment of iatrogenic hip instability. Arthrosc Tech. 2015;4(6):e625-e630.
Lim J-Y, Jang Y-H, Yoo J-I, et al. Outcomes after arthroscopic repair in patients with tears of hypertrophic versus morphologically normal acetabular labra. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(5):1168-1174.
Longo UG, Franceschetti E, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Hip arthroscopy: State of the art. Br Med Bull. 2010;96:131-157.
Lubowitz JH. Editorial commentary: Microfracture for focal cartilage defects: Is the hip like the knee? Arthroscopy. 2016;32(1):201-201.
MacDonald AE, Bedi A, Horner NS, et al. Indications and outcomes for microfracture as an adjunct to hip arthroscopy for treatment of chondral defects in patients with femoroacetabular impingement: A systematic review. Arthroscopy 2016;32:190-200.
Macfarlane RJ, Haddad FS. The diagnosis and management of femoro-acetabular impingement. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2010;92(5):363-367.
Maldonado DR, Chen SL, Yelton MJ, et al. Return to sport and athletic function in an active population after primary arthroscopic labral reconstruction of the hip. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020;8(2):2325967119900767.
Maldonado DR, Ouyang V, Lee MS, et al. After revision hip arthroscopy, patients having either circumferential or segmental labral reconstructions for the management of irreparable labra show clinical improvement based on proper ndications. Arthroscopy. 2022;38(8):2459-2469.
Matsuda DK, Carlisle JC, Arthurs SC, et al. Comparative systematic review of the open dislocation, mini-open, and arthroscopic surgeries for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(2):252-269.
Meftah M, Rodriguez JA, Panagopoulos G, Alexiades MM. Long-term results of arthroscopic labral debridement: predictors of outcomes. Orthopedics. 2011;34(10):e588-e592.
Mei-Dan O, Garabekyan T, McConkey M, Pascual-Garrido C. Arthroscopic anterior capsular reconstruction of the hip for recurrent instability. Arthrosc Tech. 2015;4(6):e711-e715.
Michal F, Amar E, Atzmon R, et al. Subspinal impingement: Clinical outcomes of arthroscopic decompression with one year minimum follow up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(9):2756-2762.
Moon J-K, Yoon JY, Kim C-H, et al. Hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement and concomitant labral tears: A minimum 2-year follow-up study. Arthroscopy. 2020; 36(8):2186-2194.
Moreta J, Cuellar A, Aguirre U, et al. Outside-in arthroscopic psoas release for anterior iliopsoas impingement after primary total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int. 2021;31(5):649-655.
Murphy S, Tannast M, Kim YJ, et al. Debridement of the adult hip for femoroacetabular impingement: Indications and preliminary clinical results. Clin Orthopaed Relat Res. 2004;429:178-181.
National Health Service (NHS), East Midlands Specialised Commissioning Group (EMSCG). Hip arthroscopy for hip impingement syndrome. Draft Policy Document. Leicester, UK: NHS; August 2010.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Arthroscopic femoro-acetabular surgery for hip impingement. Guidance. London, UK: NICE; September 28, 2011.
Nawabi DH, Degen RM, Fields KG, et al. Outcomes after arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement for patients with borderline hip dysplasia. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(4):1017-1023.
Ng VY, Arora N, Best TM, et al. Efficacy of surgery for femoroacetabular impingement: A systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(11):2337-2345.
Nho SJ, Magennis EM, Singh CK, Kelly BT. Outcomes after the arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement in a mixed group of high-level athletes. Am J Sports Med. 2011;39 Suppl:14S-19S.
Nikou S, Lindman I, Sigurdsson A, et al. Arthroscopic iliopsoas tenotomy after total hip arthroplasty: Safe method for the right patient. J Exp Orthop. 2023;10(1):3.
Odenbring S, Wagner P, Atroshi I. Long-term outcomes of arthroscopic acromioplasty for chronic shoulder impingement syndrome: A prospective cohort study with a minimum of 12 years' follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2008;24:1092-1098.
Oregon Health Authority, Health Evidence Review Commission (HERC). Coverage Guidance: Hip surgery procedures for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Salem, OR: HERC; August 9, 2012.
Peterlein CD, Schiel M, Timmesfeld N, et al. Characteristics in treatment of the hip in patients with Down syndrome. Z Orthop Unfall. 2013;151(6):585-595.
Peters CL, Erickson JA. Treatment of femoro-acetabular impingement with surgical dislocation and debridement in young adults. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88(8):1735-1741.
Peters S, Laing A, Emerson C, et al. Surgical criteria for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: A scoping review. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(22):1605-1610.
Pfirrmann CW, Mengiardi B, Dora C, et al. Cam and pincer femoroacetabular impingement: Characteristic MR arthrographic findings in 50 patients. Radiology. 2006;240(3):778-785.
Philippon MJ, Briggs KK, Hay CJ, et al. Arthroscopic labral reconstruction in the hip using iliotibial band autograft: technique and early outcomes. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(6):750-756.
Philippon MJ, Briggs KK, Yen YM, Kuppersmith DA. Outcomes following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement with associated chondrolabral dysfunction: Minimum two-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91(1):16-23.
Philippon MJ, Ejnisman L, Ellis HB, Briggs KK. Outcomes 2 to 5 years following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement in the patient aged 11 to 16 years. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(9):1255-1261.
Philippon MJ, Schenker ML. Arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement in the athlete. Clin Sports Med. 2006;25(2):299-308, ix.
Philippon MJ, Schroder E Souza BG, Briggs KK. Hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement in patients aged 50 years or older. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(1):59-65.
Philippon MJ, Yen YM, Briggs KK, et al. Early outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement in the athletic adolescent patient: A preliminary report. J Pediatr Orthop. 2008;28(7):705-710.
Rahl MD, LaPorte C, Steinl GK, et al. Outcomes after arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(7):1748-1755.
Rego PA, Mascarenhas V, Oliveira FS, et al. Arthroscopic versus open treatment of cam-type femoro-acetabular impingement: Retrospective cohort clinical study. Int Orthop. 2018;42(4):791-797.
Reiman MP, Peters S, Sylvain J, et al. Femoroacetabular impingement surgery allows 74% of athletes to return to the same competitive level of sports participation but their level of performance remains unreported: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(15):972-981.
Rosenbaum A, Roberts T, Flaherty M, et al. Posterior dislocation of the hip following arthroscopy - a case report and discussion. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2014;72(2):181-184.
Ruder JA, Magennis E, Ranawat AS, Kelly BT. Clinical and morphologic factors associated with suture anchor refixation of labral tears in the hip. HSS J. 2014;10(1):18-24.
Samora JB, Ng VY, Ellis TJ. Femoroacetabular impingement: A common cause of hip pain in young adults. Clin J Sport Med. 2011;21(1):51-56.
Sampson TG. Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: A proposed technique with clinical experience. Instr Course Lect. 2006;55:337-346.
Sariali E, Vandenbulcke F. Clinical outcomes following arthroscopic treatment of femoro-acetabular impingement using a minimal traction approach and an initial capsulotomy. Minimum two year follow-up. Int Orthop. 2018;42(11):2549-2554.
Scanaliato JP, Chasteen J, Polmear MM, et al. Primary and revision circumferential labral reconstruction for femoroacetabular impingement in athletes: Return to sport and technique. Arthroscopy. 2020;36(10):2598-2610.
Schilders E, Dimitrakopoulou A, Bismil Q, et al. 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. 2011;93(8):1027-1032.
Shapira J, Chen SL, Wojnowski NM, et al. Outcomes of nonoperative management, iliopsoas tenotomy, and revision arthroplasty for iliopsoas impingement after total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(9):2184-2191.
Sharfman ZT, Grundshtein A, Paret M, et al. Surgical technique: Arthroscopic osteoplasty of anterior inferior iliac spine for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthrosc Tech. 2016; 5(3): e601-e606.
Siebenrock KA, Schoeniger R, Ganz R. Anterior femoro-acetabular impingement due to acetabular retroversion. Treatment with periacetabular osteotomy. J Bone Joint Surg (Am). 2003;85-A2:278-286.
Skendzel JG, Philippon MJ, Briggs KK, Goljan P. The effect of joint space on midterm outcomes after arthroscopic hip surgery for femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(5):1127-1133.
Soares RW, Ruzbarsky JJ, Arner JW, et al. Midterm outcomes after hip labral augmentation in revision hip arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med. 2022;50(5):1299-1305.
Standaert CJ, Manner PA, Herring SA. Expert opinion and controversies in musculoskeletal and sports medicine: Femoroacetabular impingement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;89(5):890-893.
Stevens MS, Legay DA, Glazebrook MA, Amirault D. The evidence for hip arthroscopy: Grading the current indications. Arthroscopy. 2010;26(10):1370-1383.
Tang H-C, Dienst M. Surgical outcomes in the treatment of concomitant mild acetabular dysplasia and femoroacetabular impingement: A systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2020;36(4):1176-1184.
Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE. Femoroacetabular impingement: Radiographic diagnosis--what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(6):154015-52.
Tassinari E, Castagnini F, Mariotti F, et al. Arthroscopic tendon release for iliopsoas impingement after primary total hip arthroplasty: A retrospective, consecutive series. Hip Int. 2021;31(1):125-132.
Tateishi S, Onishi Y, Suzuki H, et al. Arthroscopic anterior inferior iliac spine decompression does not alter postoperative muscle strength. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020;28(9):2763-2771.
Torres-Perez D, Escribano-Rueda L, Lara-Rubio A, et al. Functional outcomes and 8-year survival after hip arthroscopy in patients with degenerative hip disease. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol. 2020;64(5):291-300.
Trivedi NN, Sivasundaram L, Su CA, et al. Indications and outcomes of arthroscopic labral reconstruction of the hip: A systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(7):2175-2186.
Tzaveas A, Villar R. Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2009;70(2):84-88.
Uchida S, Wada T, Sakoda S, et al. Endoscopic shelf acetabuloplasty combined with labral repair, cam osteochondroplasty, and capsular plication for treating developmental hip dysplasia. Arthrosc Tech. 2014;3(1):e185-e191.
Valenzuela J, O'Donnell JM. Endoscopic treatment of iliopsoas impingement after total hip arthroplasty: a minimum 2-year follow-up and comparison of tenotomy performed at the acetabular rim versus lesser trochanter. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2021;8(1):83-89.
Vap AR. Editorial commentary: Hip labral reconstruction: A necessary skill for hip arthroscopy surgeons. Arthroscopy. 2020;36(9):2443-2445.
Viamont-Guerra M-R, Ramos-Pascual S, Saffarini M, Bonin N. Endoscopic tenotomy for iliopsoas tendinopathy following total hip arthroplasty can relieve pain regardless of acetabular cup overhang or anteversion. Arthroscopy. 2021;37(9):2820-2829.
Wada A, Nakamura T, Yamaguchi T, et al. Surgical treatment of hip dislocation in Kabuki syndrome: use of incomplete periacetabular osteotomy for posterior acetabular wall deficiency. J Child Orthop. 2012;6(4):261-267.
Wang C, Sun Y, Ding Z, et al. Influence of femoral version on the outcomes of hip arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement or labral tears: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(6):23259671211009192.
Washington State Health Care Authority, Health Technology Assessment Program. Hip Surgery procedures for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Draft Key Questions. Olympia, WA: Washington State Health Care Authority; April 19, 2011.
Washington State Health Care Authority, Health Technology Clinical Committee. Hip surgery for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI). Findings and Coverage Decision. 20110916B. Olympia, WA: Washington State Health Care Authority; November 18, 2011.
Webb M. Effective treatment of femoro-acetabular impingement – summary of evidence. NHS Wales, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board – Public Health Directorate; June 28, 2010.
Wettstein M, Dienst M. Hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement. Orthopade. 2006;35(1):85-93.
White BJ, Herzog MM. Labral reconstruction: When to perform and how. Front Surg. 2015;2:27.
White BJ, Patterson J, Scoles AM, et al. Hip arthroscopy in patients over 40: Greater success with labral reconstruction compared to labral repair. Arthroscopy. 2020;36(8):2137-2144.
White BJ, Stapleford AB, Hawkes TK, et al. Allograft use in arthroscopic labral reconstruction of the hip with front-to-back Fixation technique: Minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(1):26-32.
Wu Z-X, Ren W-X, Ren Y-M, Tian M-Q. Arthroscopic labral debridement versus labral repair for patients with femoroacetabular impingement: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020;99(19):e20141.
Zimmerer A, Schneider MM, Nietschke R, et al. Is hip arthroscopy an adequate therapy for the borderline dysplastic hip? Correlation between radiologic findings and clinical outcomes. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020;8(5):2325967120920851.

Last Review 11/20/2023

Effective: 09/21/2007

Next Review: 08/08/2024
Review History
Definitions

Femoro-Acetabular Surgery for Hip Impingement Syndrome

Table Of Contents

Policy

Scope of Policy

Medical Necessity

Medically Necessary Procedures

Experimental and Investigational

Related CMS Coverage Guidance

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR):

Internet-Only Manual (IOM) Citations:

Medicare Coverage Determinations:

Applicable CPT / HCPCS / ICD-10 Codes

CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:

CPT codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB:

Other CPT codes related to the CPB:

ICD-10 codes covered if selection criteria are met:

ICD-10 codes not covered for indications listed in the CPB (not all-inclusive):

Hip arthroscopy for removal of foreign bodies and loose bodies:

CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:

ICD-10 codes covered if selection criteria are met:

Hip arthroscopy for synovectomy:

CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:

ICD-10 codes covered if selection criteria are met:

Background

Labral Reconstruction for the Treatment of Femoro-Acetabular Impingement Syndrome

Autologous Osteochondral Mosaicplasty in Combination with Femoral Neck Osteochondroplasty

Capsular Plication

Anterior-Inferior Iliac Spine Decompression during Femoro-Acetabular Impingement Surgery

Computer-Assisted Hip Arthroscopic Surgery for Femoro-Acetabular Impingement

Hip Arthroscopy for Repair of Degenerative Acetabular Labral Tear

Hip Arthroscopy for Repair of FAI with Borderline / Mild Acetabular Dysplasia

Endoscopic Tenotomy (or Lengthening) for Iliopsoas Tendinopathy Following Total Hip Arthroplasty

Appendix

Tönnis Classification of Osteoarthritis by Radiographic Changes

Outerbridge Classification

References

Policy History

Additional Information

You are now leaving the Aetna website