Clinical Outcomes After Endoscopic Repair of Gluteus Medius Tendon Tear Using a Knotless Technique With a 2-Year Minimum Follow-Up

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate clinical outcomes in patients who underwent endoscopic gluteus medius repair with at least 2-year follow-up.

Methods: This was a single-center, single-surgeon retrospective study of 19 patients (20 hips) who underwent endoscopic knotless gluteus medius repair between August 2010 and August 2016 with ≥2 years of follow-up. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was reviewed and graded according to the Goutallier/Fuchs classification; preoperative X-rays were reviewed and graded according to the Tonnis classification. Baseline and 2-year postoperative modified Harris hip score (mHHS) and nonarthritic hip score (NAHS) were prospectively collected. The numbers of patients reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic rate (PASS) were determined.

Results: Twenty hips from 19 patients met the inclusion criteria and were separated based on tear type. The study population comprised 15 (79%) females and 4 (21%) males presenting with a mean age of 51.3 ± 11.9 years and an average body mass index of 25.3 ± 3.9 kg/m². Patients with partial tears reported average preoperative mHHS and NAHS of 33.6 ± 11.3 and 40.4 ± 14.9, respectively; at 2-year follow-up, average mHHS and NAHS of 72.9 ± 22.9 and 77.2 ± 19.7 were reported. Patients with full-thickness tears reported average preoperative mHHS and NAHS of 43.8 ± 14.7 and 46.4 ± 8.3, respectively; at 2-year follow-up, average mHHS and NAHS of 80.1 ± 8.5 and 79.5 ± 10.1 were reported. There was significant clinical improvement at 2-year follow-up, relating to both outcome measures in each subject group (P < .001). At 2 years, 90% of hips surpassed MCID, and 63% of hips achieved PASS.

Conclusion: Endoscopic repair for gluteus medius tears results in improved mHHS and NAHS at 2 years of follow-up compared with baseline. Most patients reach critical thresholds of minimal and satisfactory clinical improvement.

Level of evidence: Level IV, case series with subgroup analysis.