{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.052931596091205214, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02239413680781759, 'mean_word_length': 4.978102189781022, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An Iliopsoas Impingement Lesion in the Absence of Painful Internal Snapping May Not Require Iliopsoas Fractional Lengthening

Background: Iliopsoas impingement (IPI) has been associated with a distinct lesion on the anterior labrum. Iliopsoas fractional lengthening (IFL) can treat IPI in instances of painful internal snapping (PIS) and mechanical groin pain. Purpose: To report minimum 2-year outcomes of patients without PIS who had an IPI lesion diagnosed intraoperatively that did not undergo IFL (+IPI –PIS –IFL) as compared with a matched group of patients with PIS and an IPI lesion that was treated with IFL (+IPI +PIS +IFL). Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data on all patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy between May 2009 and June 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if they underwent hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement–related pathology, an IPI lesion was diagnosed intraoperatively, and they had minimum 2-year postoperative scores for the following: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), iHOT-12 (International Hip Outcome Tool–12), patient satisfaction, and visual analog score (VAS) for pain. Patients were propensity score matched based on the following criteria: age, body mass index, follow-up time, sex, labral treatment, femoroplasty, and acetabuloplasty. Results: A total of 412 hips were eligible for the current study, of which 336 (81.6%) had 2-year follow-up. The matching process established 37 hips in the +IPI –PIS –IFL group and 87 hips in the +IPI +PIS +IFL group. Both groups experienced significant improvements from presurgery to latest follow-up for all recorded patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The +IPI –PIS –IFL group compared favorably with the +IPI +PIS +IFL group for mHHS (86.0 vs 86.1; P = .53), NAHS (83.0 vs 84.7; P = .40), and HOS-SSS (78.1 vs 76.5; P = .87). Additionally, iHOT-12, VAS, patient satisfaction, and rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference for mHHS, NAHS, and HOS-SSS were similar between groups at the latest follow-up. Conclusion: Patients without PIS who were diagnosed with an IPI lesion intraoperatively and did not undergo IFL had similar and favorable improvements in PROs, VAS, and satisfaction to a matched cohort with PIS who had IFL performed. Thus, an IPI lesion in the absence of PIS may not require IFL.