Patient-reported outcome score utilisation in arthroscopic hip preservation: we are all doing it differently, if at all

ObjectivesTo determine which outcome scores physicians are using in hip preservation surgery, as well as when they are administered, who administers them and on what platform.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted to examine which patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores are being used by hip preservation surgeons, including hip joint–specific, lower extremity limb–specific, disease-specific, general health, quality of life, pain, activity, spine and psychiatric wellness scores. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics.ResultsFifty-six surgeons responded (mean 169 arthroscopic, 65 open hip preservation surgeries per year; mean 13 years experience). 13% of surgeons did not collect any patient outcome scores. A total of 25 different PROs were reported. Of 13 possible hip joint–specific outcome scores, the modified Harris Hip Score was most frequently collected (46%), followed by International Hip Outcome Tool−12 (41%) and Hip Outcome Score (38%). There was considerable heterogeneity in hip joint–specific PROs (I2 86%). The Short Form−12 was the most common general health score (30%). Tegner and UCLA Activity scores were collected by 11% of participants. Fifty-nine per cent collected outcomes preoperatively, 45% at 3 months, 54% at 6 months, 61% at 1 year and 32% annually. Paper collection was the most common collection platform (46%), and a dedicated research assistant was most frequently the source of data collection (34%).ConclusionThis international survey demonstrates that although most hip preservation surgeons collect hip outcome scores, there is a large amount of heterogeneity in outcome scores used and method of collection. As hip preservation evidence continues to evolve, these results should emphasise the need for an initiative to standardise outcome score collection.Level of evidenceLevel V.