Cargando…

Clinical Outcomes after Arthroscopic Repair of Gluteus Medius with a Two-year Minimum Follow-up

OBJECTIVES: Hip arthroscopy has replaced the need for many open surgeries including repairs of gluteus medius tendon tear. There are only a few studies that have analyzed patient reported outcomes at 2 years for arthroscopic gluteus medius tendon repair. The purpose of the current study is to evalua...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bloom, David, Kirby, David, Youm, Thomas, Fried, Jordan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7401065/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120S00440
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: Hip arthroscopy has replaced the need for many open surgeries including repairs of gluteus medius tendon tear. There are only a few studies that have analyzed patient reported outcomes at 2 years for arthroscopic gluteus medius tendon repair. The purpose of the current study is to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients who underwent arthroscopic gluteus medius repair with at least 2 year follow-up. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective IRB approved study. Between August 2010 and August 2016, patients who underwent hip arthroscopy with gluteus medius repair by a single surgeon were evaluated at baseline and two year follow-up via Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS) and Non-arthritic Hip Score (NAHS). Inclusion criteria included all patients who received arthroscopic repair of the full or partial thickness tears of the gluteus medius tendon and had a minimum follow up of at least two years. Paired t-test was used for statistical comparison between baseline and follow-up for each respective outcome score and group. RESULTS: 20 hips were evaluated, met the inclusion criteria and separated based on partial (group one) or full thickness tear (group two). The study population comprised of 15 (79%) females and 4 (21%) males. Group one presented with a mean age of 54.8 ± 11.3 years and an average BMI of 25.1 ± 4.0. Group two presented with a mean age of 46 ± 11.4 and an average BMI of 25.5 ± 4.0. Patients in group one reported an average preoperative MHHS and NAHS of 33.6 ± 11.3 and 40.4 ± 14.9, respectively. At 2 year follow-up, an average MHHS and NAHS of 72.9 ± 22.9 and 77.2 ± 19.7 was reported, respectively. Patients in group two reported an average preoperative MHHS and NAHS of 43.8 ± 14.7 and 46.4 ± 8.3, respectively. At 2 year follow-up, an average MHHS and NAHS of 80.1 ± 8.5 and 79.5 ± 10.1, respectively. There was significant clinical improvement at the 2 year follow-up, relating to both outcome measures in each subject group (p<0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: After a minimum of two years for follow-up, arthroscopic repair of gluteus medius tears proves to be an effective approach and treatment. In the future, studies looking at longer follow-up time would help determine if the current approach maintains long-term clinical improvement.