Is quality of life following hip arthroscopy in patients with chondrolabral pathology associated with impairments in hip strength or range of motion?

Introduction: If physical impairments that are associated with poorer outcomes can be identified in people with chondrolabral hip pathology, then rehabilitation programmes that target such modifiable impairments could potentially be established to improve quality of life. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between quality-of-life PROs and physical impairment measurements in people with chondrolabral pathology post-hip arthroscopic surgery.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study where multiple stepwise linear regression analyses were conducted to determine which physical impairment measurements were most associated with poorer quality-of-life patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Eighty-four patients (42 women; all aged 36 ± 10 years) with hip chondrolabral pathology 12- to 24-month post-hip arthroscopy were included. The Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Quality-of-life (HOOS-Q) subscale and International Hip Outcome Tool (IHOT-33) PROs were collected. Measurements of active hip ROM and strength were assessed.

Results: Modifiable post-surgical physical impairments were associated with PRO in patients with chondrolabral pathology. Greater hip flexion ROM was independently associated with better scores in both HOOS-Q and IHOT-33 (adjusted r ² values ranged from 0.249 to 0.341). Greater hip adduction strength was independently associated with better HOOS-Q and IHOT-33 (adjusted r ² 0.227-0.317). Receiver Operator Curve analyses determined that the limit value for hip flexion ROM was 100° (sensitivity 92 %, specificity 75 %), and hip adduction strength was 0.86 Nm/kg (sensitivity 96 %, specificity 70 %).

Conclusions: Hip flexion ROM and adduction strength were associated with better quality-of-life PRO scores in patients with chondrolabral pathology 12- to 24-month post-hip arthroscopy. These impairments could be targeted by clinicians designing rehabilitation programmes to this patient group.

Level of evidence: Cross-sectional study, Level IV.