Hip arthroscopy: analysis of a single surgeon's learning experience.

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to objectively quantify a surgeon's learning experience for hip arthroscopy. METHODS We prospectively reviewed the first 100 hip arthroscopic procedures performed between 1999 and 2004 by a single experienced consultant orthopaedic surgeon. In the second part of the study, three groups of patients were sequentially analyzed: Group 1 included the first thirty patients treated by the surgeon; group 2, the sixty-first through ninetieth patients; and group 3, the 121st through 150th patients. The groups were compared with regard to the diagnosis, the duration of the central and peripheral compartment procedure, patient satisfaction, conversion to arthroplasty, and the nonarthritic hip score. RESULTS There was a decrease in complications from the first thirty cases to the remaining seventy operations. There was an overall decrease in operative time over the 100 cases, representing a gradual learning process. A marked decrease in the operative time for central compartment arthroscopy was noted when we compared group 1 (mean, seventy minutes; range, forty-five to ninety-eight minutes), group 2 (mean, forty-eight minutes; range, twenty-six to fifty-nine minutes), and group 3 (mean, thirty-seven minutes; range, eighteen to sixty-one minutes). The operative time for peripheral compartment arthroscopy also decreased from group 2 (mean, ninety-one minutes; range, sixty to 126 minutes) to group 3 (mean, forty-five minutes; range, thirty-six to sixty-two minutes). There was an overall decrease in operative time over the first 100 cases. No difference among groups was noted in the number of cases requiring a reoperation or conversion to arthroplasty. There was a higher complication rate in the first thirty cases. An increase in the nonarthritic hip scores was noted postoperatively in the two groups in which the preoperative score had been measured. The postoperative score improved from group 1 (mean, 69; range, 39 to 84) to group 2 (mean, 79; range, 58 to 92) to group 3 (mean, 86; range, 51 to 98). Patient satisfaction was highest in group 3. CONCLUSIONS Hip arthroscopy is associated with high patient satisfaction and good short-term outcomes, but there is a learning curve that we estimate to be approximately thirty cases.

[1]  R. Villar,et al.  Arthroscopic surgery of the hip: current concepts and recent advances. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[2]  Byrd Jw Hip arthroscopy: the supine position. , 2003, Instructional course lectures.

[3]  J. Mccarthy,et al.  Hip arthroscopy: indications, outcomes, and complications. , 2005, Instructional course lectures.

[4]  J. Lubowitz,et al.  Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: the learning curve. , 2005, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[5]  D. Kohn,et al.  Hip arthroscopy without traction: In vivo anatomy of the peripheral hip joint cavity. , 2001, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[6]  C. Peters,et al.  Early results of the Bernese periacetabular osteotomy: the learning curve at an academic medical center. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[7]  J. Mccarthy,et al.  The Nonarthritic Hip Score: Reliable and Validated , 2003, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[8]  R. Villar,et al.  Hip Arthroscopy: Complications in 1054 Cases , 2003, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[9]  J. Mccarthy,et al.  The Role of Hip Arthroscopy in the Elite Athlete , 2003, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[10]  Bryan T. Kelly,et al.  Hip Arthroscopy: Current Indications, Treatment Options, and Management Issues , 2003, The American journal of sports medicine.

[11]  M S Burman,et al.  Arthroscopy or the direct visualization of joints: an experimental cadaver study. 1931. , 2001, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[12]  Q. Cui,et al.  Current concepts in management of femoroacetabular impingement. , 2012, World journal of orthopedics.

[13]  R. Villar,et al.  Is diagnostic arthroscopy of the hip worthwhile , 1999 .

[14]  Complications of hip arthroscopy. , 2001, Clinics in sports medicine.

[15]  P. Lewis,et al.  Chondral degeneration and therapeutic hip arthroscopy , 2004, International Orthopaedics.

[16]  V. Shetty,et al.  Hip arthroscopy: current concepts and review of literature , 2006, British Journal of Sports Medicine.

[17]  M. Burman ARTHROSCOPY OR THE DIRECT VISUALIZATION OF JOINTS , 1931 .

[18]  L. Frich,et al.  Arthroscopy in diagnosis and treatment of hip disorders. , 1989, Orthopedics.

[19]  R. Villar,et al.  Is diagnostic arthroscopy of the hip worthwhile? A prospective review of 328 adults investigated for hip pain. , 1999, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[20]  J. W. Byrd,et al.  Hip arthroscopy. The supine position. , 2002, Clinics in sports medicine.

[21]  W. R. Holman,et al.  Sensitivity of MR arthrography in the evaluation of acetabular labral tears. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[22]  R. Ganz,et al.  Femoroacetabular impingement: a cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. , 2003, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.