FP2.8 Do patients undergoing arthroscopic correction of FAI with generalised joint laxity demonstrate increased hip mobility?

Abstract ICLA02 - Demystifying the Deformed Hip: Practical Principles of Pelvic and Femoral Osteotomies, Auditorium A (BMCC Level 1), October 8, 2026, 10:30 - 12:30 Background Favourable outcomes have been shown in patients with generalised joint laxity (GJL) undergoing hip arthroscopy (HA) of FAI such that GJL in isolation is not a contraindication to hip preservation surgery. GJL is typically assessed via Beighton score but does not directly assess hip mobility. The association between hip-specific laxity and GJL is unclear. Methods Prospectively collected data from a single-surgeon, institutional hip preservation registry was reviewed. Patients undergoing primary HA for FAI between 2017-2023 were considered (n=1,179). Exclusion: Tonnis>1, concomitant pathologies, excessive rotation/tilt on x-rays, no recorded Beighton score. Patients were assigned to one of 2 groups: GJL (Beighton ≥5) or Control (Beighton 0). 1:1 case-control matching was based on age (±2 years), sex, Tonnis grade. Hip-specific laxity considered intra-operative distraction distance measured on image intensifier, saline distension volume, ROM, bony stabilizer measurements. PROMs included mHHS, UCLA, SF36 and WOMAC assessed pre- and 5-years post-op. Results 63 GJL cases met the inclusion criteria. 53 GJL were matched to 53 Controls; 51% Male, 91% Tonnis 0, mean age 31.1 years (p=0.995). No significant difference between groups for inherent bony morphologic stabilizers (LCEA 34.4°±7.3° vs 34.7°±5.7°, p=0.785; ACEA 31.5° ±7.7° vs 31.8°±7.7°, p=0.830, AIA 38.2°±4.6° vs 37.3°±5.0°, p=0.330), saline distension (28.3±6.5mls vs 27.5±7.0mls, p=0.553) or measures of manual (11.9±3.1mm vs 11.4±3.2mm, p=0.368) or full (14.5±2.9mm vs 14.1±2.9mm, p=0.509) distraction distance for GJL and Controls respectively. Percentage of total traction obtained manually was not significantly different between groups (76.2% vs 72.5%, p=0.309). Flexion (117.0°±10.4° vs 111.8°±10.4°, p=0.012) and Abduction (51.8°±12.0° vs 46.6°±11.0°, p=0.022) were significantly higher for GJL, moderate effect size. Significant improvement in all PROMs for both groups (p<0.017 for all). No significant difference between groups pre-operatively (p>0.213) or post-operatively (p>0.109). Conclusion Measurements utilised to assess potential hip joint laxity (hip ROM, saline distension volume, intra-operative distraction distance) were not significantly different between those with and without GJL, other than the level of hip flexion and abduction. Beighton score may not be particularly useful as an indicator of hip joint laxity. Patients with a high Beighton score therefore may not require any special considerations compared to those with a normal score when considering arthroscopic hip surgery.