Abstract:The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Ahead of Print. Background:Hip arthroscopy is rapidly advancing, with positive published outcomes at short- and midterm follow-up; however, available long-term data remain limited.Purpose:To evaluate outcomes of primary hip arthroscopy at a minimum 10-year follow-up at 2 academic centers by describing patient-reported outcomes and determining reoperation and total hip arthroplasty (THA) rates.Study Design:Case series; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:Patients with primary hip arthroscopy performed between January 1988 and April 2013 at 2 academic centers were evaluated for postoperative patient-reported outcomes—including the visual analog scale, Tegner Activity Scale score, Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living and Sport Specific subscales, modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool, surgery satisfaction, and reoperations.Results:A total of 294 patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy (age, 40 ± 14 years; 66% women; body mass index, 27 ± 6) were followed for 12 ± 3 years (range, 10-24 years) postoperatively. Labral debridement and repair were performed in 41% and 59% of patients, respectively. Of all patients who underwent interportal capsulotomy, 2% were extended to a T-capsulotomy, and 11% underwent capsular repair. At final follow-up, patients reported a mean visual analog scale at rest of 2 ± 2 and with use of 3 ± 3, a 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool of 68 ± 27, a Nonarthritic Hip Score of 81 ± 18, a modified Harris Hip Score of 79 ± 17, and a Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living of 82 ± 19 and Sport Specific subscale of 74 ± 25. The mean surgical satisfaction was 8.4 ± 2.4 on a 10-point scale, with 10 representing the highest level of satisfaction. In total, 96 hips (33%) underwent reoperation—including 65 hips (22%) converting to THA. THA risk factors included older age, higher body mass index, lower lateral center-edge angle, larger alpha angle, higher preoperative Tönnis grade, as well as labral debridement and capsular nonrepair (P≤ .039). Patients undergoing combined labral and capsular repair demonstrated a THA conversion rate of 3% compared with 31% for patients undergoing combined labral debridement and capsular nonrepair (P = .006). Labral repair trended toward increased 10-year THA-free survival (84% vs 77%; P = .085), while capsular repair demonstrated significantly increased 10-year THA-free survival (97% vs 79%; P = .033).Conclusion:At a minimum 10-year follow-up, patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy demonstrated high satisfaction and acceptable outcome scores. In total, 33% of patients underwent reoperation—including 22% who underwent THA. Conversion to THA was associated with patient factors including older age, higher Tönnis grade, and potentially modifiable surgical factors such as labral debridement and capsular nonrepair.

Editorial Commentary: Extreme Hip Labral Size (Both Small and Large) Shows Inferior Outcomes After Arthroscopic Labral Repair With Femoroacetabular Impingement Treatment

Editorial Commentary: Small Labral Size on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is an Indication for Labral Reconstruction in the Setting of Revision Hip Arthroscopy

Editorial Commentary: Primary Treatment of Hip Labral, Osseous, Chondral, Capsular, and Extra-Articular Pathology Is Essential: Outcomes Following Revision Are Less Predictable

Changes in Hip Labral Size Two Years after Arthroscopic Repair Are Correlated with Preoperative Measurements on Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Editorial Commentary: Irreparable, Symptomatic, Hip Labral Tears Should Be Reconstructed in Patients without Osteoarthritis. However, Comparison of the Two, as Well as Allograft versus Autograft Reconstruction, Is Challenging

Two-Year Outcomes of Primary Arthroscopic Surgery in Patients with Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Comparative Study of Labral Repair and Labral Reconstruction

Mid- to Long-Term Outcomes in Patients After Hip Arthroscopy With Labral Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

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

Outcomes After Arthroscopic Hip Labral Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Editorial Commentary: Arthroscopy with Labral Preservation or Reconstruction Plus Capsular Closure Shows Excellent Outcome in Patients with Borderline Hip Dysplasia and is Less Invasive Than Periacetabular Osteotomy

Hip Labral Repair versus Reconstruction: Meta-analysis

Ten-Year Outcomes in Patients Aged 40 Years and Older After Primary Arthroscopic Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement With Labral Repair

Intermediate-Term Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome in Patients With Global Versus Isolated Lateral Acetabular Overcoverage

No Correlation Between Depth of Acetabuloplasty or Postoperative Lateral Center-Edge Angle on Midterm Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy With Acetabuloplasty and Labral Repair

Acetabular labral reconstruction using the indirect head of the rectus femoris tendon significantly improves patient reported outcomes

The Effect of Pelvic Incidence on Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement and Acetabular Labral Tears

Editorial Commentary: Endoscopic Hip Abductor Repair Results in Excellent Outcomes in Challenging Patients: Surgical Indications Require Additional Clarification

The Everted Acetabular Labrum: Outcomes of Surgical Management

Editorial Commentary: Long-Term Follow-up After Endoscopic Gluteal Repair Plus Hip Arthroscopy Shows Durable Results Using Validated Patient-Reported Outcome Scores That Largely Exceed the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State

Long-term Outcomes of Primary Hip Arthroscopy: Multicenter Analysis at Minimum 10-Year Follow-up With Attention to Labral and Capsular Management

Importance of Retaining Sufficient Acetabular Depth: Successful 2-Year Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy for Patients With Pincer Morphology as Compared With Matched Controls