Abstract：
There is a paucity of information available to clinicians on outcomes of patients undergoing endoscopic surgery for labral repairs and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome with simultaneous repair of the gluteus medius and/or minimus muscles.
To determine whether patients with labral tears and concomitant gluteal pathology who undergo simultaneous endoscopic labral and gluteus medius and/or minimus repair experience similar outcomes to patients with isolated labral tears who undergo endoscopic labral repair alone.
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
A matched retrospective comparative cohort study was performed. Patients who underwent gluteus medius and/or minimus repair with concomitant labral repair between January 2012 and November 2019 were identified. These patients were matched in a 1:3 ratio by sex, age, and body mass index (BMI) to patients who underwent labral repair alone. Preoperative radiographs were assessed. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. PRO measures included the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living and Sports subscales, modified Harris Hip Score, 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool, and visual analog scales for pain and satisfaction. Published labral repair minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds were utilized for these measures.
A total of 31 patients who underwent gluteus medius and/or minimus repair with concomitant labral repair (27 female, 4 male; age, 50.8 ± 7.3 years; BMI, 27.9 ± 5.2) were matched with 93 patients who underwent labral repair alone (81 female, 12 male; age, 50.9 ± 8.1 years; BMI, 28.5 ± 6.2). There were no significant differences in sex (P > .99), age (P = .869), or BMI (P = .592); preoperative radiographic measurements; or preoperative or 2-year postoperative PRO scores (P≥ .081). Changes between preoperative and 2-year postoperative PRO scores were significantly different for both groups for all PROs assessed (P < .001 for all). There were no significant differences in MCID or PASS achievement rates (P≥ .123), with low PASS achievement rates of 40% to 60% found in both groups.
Patients who were treated with endoscopic gluteus medius and/or minimus repair with concomitant labral repair demonstrated comparable outcomes with those who were treated with endoscopic labral repair alone.
To determine whether patients with labral tears and concomitant gluteal pathology who undergo simultaneous endoscopic labral and gluteus medius and/or minimus repair experience similar outcomes to patients with isolated labral tears who undergo endoscopic labral repair alone.
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
A matched retrospective comparative cohort study was performed. Patients who underwent gluteus medius and/or minimus repair with concomitant labral repair between January 2012 and November 2019 were identified. These patients were matched in a 1:3 ratio by sex, age, and body mass index (BMI) to patients who underwent labral repair alone. Preoperative radiographs were assessed. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. PRO measures included the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living and Sports subscales, modified Harris Hip Score, 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool, and visual analog scales for pain and satisfaction. Published labral repair minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds were utilized for these measures.
A total of 31 patients who underwent gluteus medius and/or minimus repair with concomitant labral repair (27 female, 4 male; age, 50.8 ± 7.3 years; BMI, 27.9 ± 5.2) were matched with 93 patients who underwent labral repair alone (81 female, 12 male; age, 50.9 ± 8.1 years; BMI, 28.5 ± 6.2). There were no significant differences in sex (P > .99), age (P = .869), or BMI (P = .592); preoperative radiographic measurements; or preoperative or 2-year postoperative PRO scores (P≥ .081). Changes between preoperative and 2-year postoperative PRO scores were significantly different for both groups for all PROs assessed (P < .001 for all). There were no significant differences in MCID or PASS achievement rates (P≥ .123), with low PASS achievement rates of 40% to 60% found in both groups.
Patients who were treated with endoscopic gluteus medius and/or minimus repair with concomitant labral repair demonstrated comparable outcomes with those who were treated with endoscopic labral repair alone.
摘要：
■临床医生可获得的关于接受内窥镜手术的患者的结果的信息很少，以进行唇修复和股髋臼撞击综合征，同时修复臀中肌和/或小肌。
为了确定同时接受内窥镜检查的唇上撕裂和臀中肌和/或小脑修复的合并臀上撕裂的患者是否与单独接受内窥镜检查的唇上撕裂的患者相似。
■队列研究；证据水平，3.
■进行了匹配的回顾性比较队列研究。确定了在2012年1月至2019年11月期间接受臀中肌和/或最小修复并伴随唇修复的患者。这些患者的性别比例为1:3，年龄,和体重指数（BMI）仅接受唇修复的患者。评估术前X光片。术前和术后2年评估患者报告结果（PRO）。PRO措施包括日常生活和运动分量表的髋关节结果评分活动，改良Harris髋关节评分,12项国际髋关节结果工具，疼痛和满意度的视觉模拟量表。已发布的唇修复最小临床重要差异（MCID）和患者可接受症状状态（PASS）阈值用于这些措施。
■共有31例患者接受了臀中肌和/或小肌修复并伴有唇二尖瓣修复（27名女性，4名男性；年龄，50.8±7.3岁；BMI，27.9±5.2）与93例仅接受唇修复的患者（81例女性，12名男性；年龄，50.9±8.1岁；BMI，28.5±6.2)。性别差异无统计学意义(P>.99),年龄（P=.869），或BMI（P=.592）；术前影像学测量；或术前或术后2年PRO评分（P≥.081）。两组术前和术后2年PRO评分的变化在所有评估的PRO中都有显著差异(P<.001)。MCID或PASS成就率无显著差异(P≥.123)，两组的PASS成就率均较低，为40％至60％。
■接受内镜臀中肌修复和/或最小修复术并伴随唇二尖瓣修复治疗的患者与仅接受内镜唇二尖瓣修复治疗的患者具有可比性。
为了确定同时接受内窥镜检查的唇上撕裂和臀中肌和/或小脑修复的合并臀上撕裂的患者是否与单独接受内窥镜检查的唇上撕裂的患者相似。
■队列研究；证据水平，3.
■进行了匹配的回顾性比较队列研究。确定了在2012年1月至2019年11月期间接受臀中肌和/或最小修复并伴随唇修复的患者。这些患者的性别比例为1:3，年龄,和体重指数（BMI）仅接受唇修复的患者。评估术前X光片。术前和术后2年评估患者报告结果（PRO）。PRO措施包括日常生活和运动分量表的髋关节结果评分活动，改良Harris髋关节评分,12项国际髋关节结果工具，疼痛和满意度的视觉模拟量表。已发布的唇修复最小临床重要差异（MCID）和患者可接受症状状态（PASS）阈值用于这些措施。
■共有31例患者接受了臀中肌和/或小肌修复并伴有唇二尖瓣修复（27名女性，4名男性；年龄，50.8±7.3岁；BMI，27.9±5.2）与93例仅接受唇修复的患者（81例女性，12名男性；年龄，50.9±8.1岁；BMI，28.5±6.2)。性别差异无统计学意义(P>.99),年龄（P=.869），或BMI（P=.592）；术前影像学测量；或术前或术后2年PRO评分（P≥.081）。两组术前和术后2年PRO评分的变化在所有评估的PRO中都有显著差异(P<.001)。MCID或PASS成就率无显著差异(P≥.123)，两组的PASS成就率均较低，为40％至60％。
■接受内镜臀中肌修复和/或最小修复术并伴随唇二尖瓣修复治疗的患者与仅接受内镜唇二尖瓣修复治疗的患者具有可比性。
