Abstract
The risk that hip preserving surgery may negatively influence the performance and outcome of subsequent total hip replacement (THR) remains a concern. The aim of this study was to identify any negative impact of previous hip arthroscopy on THR.
Out of 1271 consecutive patients who underwent primary THR between 2005 and 2009, eighteen had previously undergone ipsilateral hip arthroscopy. This study group (STG) was compared with two control groups (CG: same approach, identical implants; MCG: paired group matched for age, BMI and Charnley categories). Operative time, blood loss, evidence of heterotopic bone and implant loosening at follow-up were compared between the SG and the MCG. Follow-up WOMAC were compared between the three groups.
Blood loss was not found to be significantly different between the SG and MCG. The operative time was significantly less (p>0.001) in the SG. There was no significant difference in follow-up WOMAC between the groups. No implant related complications were noted on follow-up radiographs. Two minor complications were documented for the SG and three for the MCG.
We have found no evidence that previous hip arthroscopy negatively influences the performance or short-term outcome of THR.
