Abstract：
It is currently unknown whether the addition of arthroscopic labral repair in the setting of periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) provides any clinical benefit.
The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent arthroscopic labral repair concomitantly with PAO versus patients who underwent PAO alone. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between the cohorts.
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Patients undergoing PAO from a single-center prospective hip preservation registry were eligible for this study if they completed pre- and postoperative PROMs (minimum, 1 year). PROMs were collected at 1 year, 2 years, and latest follow-up at 6.05 years for PAO group and 4.2 years for scope/PAO group. The study group consisted of 53 patients who underwent arthroscopic labral repair at the time of their PAO, and the comparison group consisted of 170 patients who underwent PAO alone. A subset of the PAO group who had radiologic evidence of a detached labral tear (n = 33) was also compared with the rest of the PAO-alone group. PROMs were compared at every time point for both groups as well as the subset of patients who underwent PAO alone despite a labral tear.
The mean follow-up of all patients was 2 years (range, 1-6 years). Overall, 85.2% of the PAO group and 85.7% of the scope/PAO group met the minimal clinically important difference for either the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) or the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) at the most recent follow-up. There was no difference in improvement between groups (mHHS, P = .670; iHOT-33, P = .944). Patients who had a radiologically diagnosed detached labral tear and underwent PAO alone had no difference in outcomes when compared with the rest of the PAO cohort (mHHS, P = .981; iHOT-33, P = .909).
There was no significant benefit measured by PROMs at follow-up for concomitant arthroscopic labral repair in the setting of PAO.
The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent arthroscopic labral repair concomitantly with PAO versus patients who underwent PAO alone. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between the cohorts.
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Patients undergoing PAO from a single-center prospective hip preservation registry were eligible for this study if they completed pre- and postoperative PROMs (minimum, 1 year). PROMs were collected at 1 year, 2 years, and latest follow-up at 6.05 years for PAO group and 4.2 years for scope/PAO group. The study group consisted of 53 patients who underwent arthroscopic labral repair at the time of their PAO, and the comparison group consisted of 170 patients who underwent PAO alone. A subset of the PAO group who had radiologic evidence of a detached labral tear (n = 33) was also compared with the rest of the PAO-alone group. PROMs were compared at every time point for both groups as well as the subset of patients who underwent PAO alone despite a labral tear.
The mean follow-up of all patients was 2 years (range, 1-6 years). Overall, 85.2% of the PAO group and 85.7% of the scope/PAO group met the minimal clinically important difference for either the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) or the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) at the most recent follow-up. There was no difference in improvement between groups (mHHS, P = .670; iHOT-33, P = .944). Patients who had a radiologically diagnosed detached labral tear and underwent PAO alone had no difference in outcomes when compared with the rest of the PAO cohort (mHHS, P = .981; iHOT-33, P = .909).
There was no significant benefit measured by PROMs at follow-up for concomitant arthroscopic labral repair in the setting of PAO.
摘要：
UASSIGNED：目前尚不清楚在髋臼周围截骨术（PAO）中增加关节镜唇修复是否提供任何临床益处。
UNASSIGNED：本研究的目的是比较同时接受关节镜二尖瓣修复术的患者与单独接受PAO的患者的预后。我们假设队列之间的患者报告结局指标（PROM）没有差异。
未经批准：队列研究；证据水平，3.
UNASSIGNED：从单中心前瞻性髋关节保留登记接受PAO的患者如果完成术前和术后PROM，则符合本研究的条件（最低，1年）。PROM在1年收集，2年,PAO组的最新随访时间为6.05年，范围/PAO组的随访时间为4.2年。研究组由53名患者组成，这些患者在PAO时接受了关节镜唇修复术，对照组为170例仅接受PAO的患者。还将具有放射学证据的分离唇撕裂的PAO组的子集（n=33）与单独的PAO组的其余部分进行了比较。比较了两组的每个时间点的PROM以及尽管有唇撕裂但仅接受PAO的患者的子集。
未经评估：所有患者的平均随访时间为2年（范围，1-6年）。总的来说,在最近的随访中，PAO组的85.2％和范围/PAO组的85.7％在改良的Harris髋关节评分（mHHS）或国际髋关节结果工具（iHOT-33）方面达到了最小的临床重要差异。组间改善无差异(mHHS，P=.670；iHOT-33，P=.944）。与其余的PAO队列相比，放射学诊断为分离唇撕裂并单独接受PAO的患者在结局上没有差异（mHHS，P=.981；iHOT-33，P=.909）。
UNASSIGNED：在PAO的设置中，在伴随关节镜唇修复的随访中，PROM没有明显的益处。
UNASSIGNED：本研究的目的是比较同时接受关节镜二尖瓣修复术的患者与单独接受PAO的患者的预后。我们假设队列之间的患者报告结局指标（PROM）没有差异。
未经批准：队列研究；证据水平，3.
UNASSIGNED：从单中心前瞻性髋关节保留登记接受PAO的患者如果完成术前和术后PROM，则符合本研究的条件（最低，1年）。PROM在1年收集，2年,PAO组的最新随访时间为6.05年，范围/PAO组的随访时间为4.2年。研究组由53名患者组成，这些患者在PAO时接受了关节镜唇修复术，对照组为170例仅接受PAO的患者。还将具有放射学证据的分离唇撕裂的PAO组的子集（n=33）与单独的PAO组的其余部分进行了比较。比较了两组的每个时间点的PROM以及尽管有唇撕裂但仅接受PAO的患者的子集。
未经评估：所有患者的平均随访时间为2年（范围，1-6年）。总的来说,在最近的随访中，PAO组的85.2％和范围/PAO组的85.7％在改良的Harris髋关节评分（mHHS）或国际髋关节结果工具（iHOT-33）方面达到了最小的临床重要差异。组间改善无差异(mHHS，P=.670；iHOT-33，P=.944）。与其余的PAO队列相比，放射学诊断为分离唇撕裂并单独接受PAO的患者在结局上没有差异（mHHS，P=.981；iHOT-33，P=.909）。
UNASSIGNED：在PAO的设置中，在伴随关节镜唇修复的随访中，PROM没有明显的益处。
