{"title":"Endoscopic Hip Abductor Repair: A Comparative Outcomes Study of Two Anchors.","authors":"J W Thomas Byrd, Kay S Jones, Sharon P Duncan","doi":"10.3928/01477447-20251016-01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of endoscopic hip abductor repair with Healicoil<sup>®</sup> Regenesorb (RG) vs Q-FIX<sup>®</sup> anchors at 2-year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The 2-year follow-up modified Harris Hip Score of 51 consecutive hips (49 patients) repaired with Healicoil RG anchors were compared to that of 38 consecutive hips (35 patients) repaired with Q-FIX anchors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, sex, partial vs full thickness tears, one vs two tendon involvement, single vs double row repair, or concomitant correction of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). For Healicoil, the mean improvement was 38.6 points, with 98% achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 6.8 points vs Q-FIX with mean improvement of 29.5 points and 92.1% achieving MCID of 7.5 points. The mean improvement was statistically superior for Healicoil. Within each of the two groups, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes for partial vs full thickness tears, one vs two tendon involvement, single vs double row repairs, or concomitant correction of FAI. There were no complications in either group. One patient in the Healicoil group subsequently underwent total hip arthroplasty at 11 months following repair.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Healicoil RG resulted in statistically significant greater improvement over the Q-FIX for endoscopic tendon repair. These two products demonstrate differing features, offering versatility in decision making for a variety of tear types, and both provide successful outcomes in terms of average improvement in modified Harris Hip Scores and percentage of patients achieving MCID with low likelihood of complications or need for further surgery.</p>","PeriodicalId":19631,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedics","volume":"48 6","pages":"336-340"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20251016-01","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and objective: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of endoscopic hip abductor repair with Healicoil® Regenesorb (RG) vs Q-FIX® anchors at 2-year follow-up.
Materials and methods: The 2-year follow-up modified Harris Hip Score of 51 consecutive hips (49 patients) repaired with Healicoil RG anchors were compared to that of 38 consecutive hips (35 patients) repaired with Q-FIX anchors.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of age, sex, partial vs full thickness tears, one vs two tendon involvement, single vs double row repair, or concomitant correction of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). For Healicoil, the mean improvement was 38.6 points, with 98% achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 6.8 points vs Q-FIX with mean improvement of 29.5 points and 92.1% achieving MCID of 7.5 points. The mean improvement was statistically superior for Healicoil. Within each of the two groups, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes for partial vs full thickness tears, one vs two tendon involvement, single vs double row repairs, or concomitant correction of FAI. There were no complications in either group. One patient in the Healicoil group subsequently underwent total hip arthroplasty at 11 months following repair.
Conclusion: The Healicoil RG resulted in statistically significant greater improvement over the Q-FIX for endoscopic tendon repair. These two products demonstrate differing features, offering versatility in decision making for a variety of tear types, and both provide successful outcomes in terms of average improvement in modified Harris Hip Scores and percentage of patients achieving MCID with low likelihood of complications or need for further surgery.
期刊介绍：
For over 40 years, Orthopedics, a bimonthly peer-reviewed journal, has been the preferred choice of orthopedic surgeons for clinically relevant information on all aspects of adult and pediatric orthopedic surgery and treatment. Edited by Robert D''Ambrosia, MD, Chairman of the Department of Orthopedics at the University of Colorado, Denver, and former President of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, as well as an Editorial Board of over 100 international orthopedists, Orthopedics is the source to turn to for guidance in your practice.
The journal offers access to current articles, as well as several years of archived content. Highlights also include Blue Ribbon articles published full text in print and online, as well as Tips & Techniques posted with every issue.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
