FP12.8 Short-Term Patient Reported Outcomes and Complication Rates of Hip Resurfacing After Previous Hip Arthroscopy: A Propensity-Matched Comparative Study

Abstract

Abstract ICLA12 - The Chondral Masterclass: Advanced Scaffolds, Orthobiologic Realities, and Young THA, Auditorium B (BMCC Level 1), October 9, 2026, 10:30 - 12:30 Introduction The impact of hip arthroscopy, specifically femoroplasty, on the osseous integrity of the proximal femur prior to hip resurfacing (HR), as well as patient outcomes of hip resurfacing with prior hip arthroscopy are not known. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate short-term patient reported outcomes (PROs) and complication rates of patients undergoing hip resurfacing (HR) with a previous ipsilateral arthroscopy and compare them to a propensity-matched control group of patients who underwent HR without prior arthroscopy. Methods Data from a prospectively maintained database was reviewed for all patients who underwent HR with a history of PA (HR-PA). Patients were eligible for inclusion in the study if they had minimum 2-year follow-up, defined as having completed postoperative questionnaires for at least one of the following PROs: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Harris Hip Score (HHS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), or Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score – Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR); or a documented endpoint. Clinically relevant thresholds were defined as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS). HR patients were then propensity-matched 1:1 to a control group of HR patients with no history of PA (HR) based on age at time of surgery, body mass index, follow-up time, and surgical approach. Results A total of 74 hips were included, 37 in each group. In the HR-PA group, average time between hip arthroscopy and hip resurfacing was 52.9 ± 49.4 months. Both groups were comparable in regards to patient demographics (P > 0.05). Both groups saw significant improvement in PROs from the preoperative timepoint to minimum 2-year follow-up timepoint. However, the HR-PA had significantly lower postoperative scores for mHHS and VAS (P < 0.05). The two groups achieved minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for mHHS, HHS, VAS for pain, and HOOS-JR, as well as patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for HOOS-JR and FJS at similar rates (P > 0.05). Significantly less patients in the HR-PA group achieved PASS for HHS compared to the HR control group (55.9% vs 82.9%; P = 0.015).There were no differences in revision rates for femoral neck fracture (1 patient, 2.7% for both) or component loosening (2 patients 5.4% for both), and there were no infections reported for either group. Conclusion Patients with a history of HA who underwent HR demonstrated significant improvement with comparable revision rates to a propensity-matched control group. However, HR-PA patients tended to achieve significantly lower postoperative PROs at short-term follow-up, as well as achieve PASS for mHHS at a significantly lower rate.