Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy in the Setting of Concomitant Symptomatic Lumbosacral Spine Pathology: A Matched Control Study With Minimum 24-Month Follow-up.

BACKGROUND

The overlapping biomechanical relationship between the lumbosacral spine and pelvis poses unique challenges to patients with concomitant pathologies limiting spinopelvic range of motion.

PURPOSE

To assess the influence of concomitant, symptomatic lumbosacral spine pathology on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and symptomatic labral tears.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective query of prospectively collected data identified patients aged ≥18 years with a minimum 24-month follow-up who underwent hip arthroscopy by a single surgeon for the treatment of symptomatic labral tears secondary to FAI. Patients were stratified into cohorts based on the presence (hip-spine [HS]) or absence (matched control [MC]) of symptomatic lumbosacral spine pathology. Inclusion within the HS cohort required confirmation of lower back pain/symptoms on preoperative surveys plus a diagnosis of lumbosacral spine pathology verified by radiology reports and correlating clinical documentation. Patients with previous spine surgery were excluded. PROMs were compared between groups, along with rates of achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds, Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds, revision arthroscopy, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA).

RESULTS

A total of 70 patients with lumbosacral pathology were coarsened exact matched to 87 control patients without spinal pathology. The HS cohort had preoperative baseline scores that were significantly worse for nearly all PROMs. Follow-ups at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months displayed similar trends, with the HS cohort demonstrating significantly worse scores for most collected outcomes. However, at every time point, HS and MC patients exhibited similar magnitudes of improvement across all PROM and pain metrics. Furthermore, while significantly fewer HS patients achieved PASS for nearly all PROMs at 12- and 24-month follow-ups, MCID thresholds were reached at similar or greater rates across all PROMs relative to the MC cohort. Finally, there were no significant differences in rates of revision or THA between cohorts at maximum available follow-up.

CONCLUSION

After hip arthroscopy to address labral tears in the setting of FAI, patients with symptomatic lumbosacral pathologies and no history of spine surgery were found to exhibit inferior pre- and postoperative PROMs but achieved statistically similar clinical benefit and rates of PROM improvement through 24-month follow-up compared with the MC cohort with isolated hip disease. These findings aid in providing a realistic recovery timeline and evidence that coexisting hip and spine disorders are not a contraindication for arthroscopic hip preservation surgery.