FP10.3 Durable Improvement with Revision Hip Arthroscopy at 10-Year Minimum Follow-Up: A Matched Comparison to Primary Hip Arthroscopy Controls

Clicks: 10
ID: 331232
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #306 of 444 articles by views in Journal of hip preservation surgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 444 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract ICLA10 - Unraveling the Failure: Diagnostic Algorithms and Why Hip Preservation Fails, Auditorium A (BMCC Level 1), October 9, 2026, 10:30 - 12:30 Purpose To report 10-year minimum patient-reported outcomes of patients under revision hip arthroscopy and compare their outcomes to a propensity matched cohort of patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy. Methods Prospectively collected data was analyzed for patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy for FAI between 2008 and 2015. Patients were included if they had completed pre- and minimum 10-year post-operative questionnaires for the following patient-reported outcomes (PROs): Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), Hip Outcome Score-Sport Scale (HOS-SSS), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Patients with Tonnis grade >1, LCEA <18, or hip conditions such as avascular necrosis, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome were excluded. Included hips were propensity matched in a 1:2 ratio for sex, age, body mass index and follow-up time. Results This study included 501 procedures in total, with 167 revision arthroscopy hips were propensity matched to 334 primary arthroscopy hips with follow up time being 165.5 ± 22.7 months and 167.9 ± 21.4 months respectively (p = 0.25). The revision group was 70.7% female with the average age being 35.3 ± 11.9 and body mass index being 25.8 ± 4.7. The revision group demonstrated improvement for all PROs (p > 0.01). Preoperatively and postoperatively PROs in the revision group were significantly lower (p < 0.01), but magnitudes of improvement were similar for NAHS, iHOT-12, HOS-SSS, and VAS (p > 0.05) when compared to the control group. In the revision and primary groups, the rates of revision arthroscopy (18.0% vs. 18.9%, p = 0.84) and arthroplasty-free survivorship (79.0% vs. 85.3%, p = 0.10) were similar. Conclusion Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy demonstrated significant improvements in all PROs and high satisfaction at minimum 10-year follow up. Patients undergoing revision arthroscopy reported lower pre- and postoperative PROs when compared to the propensity matched primary hip arthroscopy cohort. Nevertheless, both cohorts demonstrated similar magnitudes of improvement in PROs and arthroplasty free survivorship.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220421853 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Andrew Schab, Keya Patel, Kavya Bomma, Andrew Jimenez, Benjamin D. Kuhns, Benjamin Domb, Etan P. Sugarman
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Journal of hip preservation surgery
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jhps/hnag043.075
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnag043.075
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.