Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery
EP8.51 Clinically Meaningful Outcomes One Year After Hip Arthroscopy: iHOT-33 and HOS Analysis
By Ms Beatriz Martín-Vélez, Mr Miguel Cañones- Martín, Ms Laura Plaza-Martínez and 6 others.
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential for the objective assessment of clinical outcomes in hip arthroscopy (HA). High-demand questionnaires designed to avoid the "ceiling effect" are particularly recommended for active young patients. Our objective was to evaluate 1-year clinical outcomes following HA using the iHOT-33 and HOS questionnaires compared to preoperative baseline values. Materials and Methods We conducted an observational study of 64 patients who underwent HA at our center between 2010 and 2022. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon using standardized protocols. Clinical scores (iHOT-33 and HOS) were collected preoperatively and at 1-year postoperatively. Continuous follow-up was maintained to monitor for complications. Clinical significance was evaluated using the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB). Statistical analysis was performed using JASP (v0.19.1). Results The cohort included 33 male patients (51.56%), with a mean age at surgery of 35.06 years. While the mean follow-up for complications was 6.11 years, functional outcomes were assessed at the 1-year mark. The MCID was achieved by 67.18% of patients for iHOT-33, 65.63% for HOS-Function, and 46.88% for HOS-Sports. Furthermore, 56.25% of patients reached the SCB for iHOT-33, 53.13% for HOS-Function, and 39.06% for HOS-Sports, representing a significant improvement in quality of life. Conclusions Over 50% of patients achieved the Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) on the iHOT-33 and HOS-Function scales at one year, while the HOS-Sports subscale showed a lower success rate (39.06%). Compared to traditional PROMs, the iHOT-33 and HOS are more effective at capturing the multidimensional impact of hip arthroscopy in active populations. We recommend the routine use of these specific tools to analyze outcomes through clinical significance rather than mere statistical change.










