For years, one-year outcomes have served as a convenient benchmark in orthopedic research. They are familiar, widely reported, and often treated as a proxy for long-term success. But for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy, particularly young and active individuals, that timeline does not always reflect the full recovery journey.
The Multicenter Arthroscopy Study of the Hip (MASH) Research Group set out to better understand what happens after that first year. By partnering with PatientIQ, the group uncovered insights that challenge how success is defined and when it should be measured in hip arthroscopy.
Why Long-Term Outcomes Matter in Hip Arthroscopy
Hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI) is commonly performed in athletic and pre-arthritic patients with high expectations for function, sport, and quality of life. While many patients show improvement within the first year, recovery does not always follow a linear path.
To evaluate outcomes in this population, the MASH Research Group used the International Hip Outcome Tool–12 (iHOT-12), a validated patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess hip-related quality of life in young, active patients. The instrument captures symptoms, function, sports participation, and social impact, making it well suited for longer-term follow-up.
The challenge was not choosing the right outcome measure. It was collecting consistent, high-quality data over time.
Traditional PRO collection methods often struggle beyond early postoperative milestones. Manual outreach, inconsistent follow-up, and fragmented systems can result in incomplete datasets, especially at one- and two-year intervals. Without reliable longitudinal PRO data, clinicians risk misinterpreting recovery trajectories or prematurely labeling procedures as unsuccessful.
A Multicenter Research Question Needed a Better Approach
The MASH Research Group wanted to understand whether patient-reported outcomes (PROs) meaningfully change between one and two years following hip arthroscopy, and which patients are most likely to improve over time.
Answering that question required more than periodic surveys. It required infrastructure that could support:
-
Automated PRO collection at predefined milestones
-
Sustained patient engagement over multiple years
-
Centralized data aggregation across institutions
-
Reduced administrative burden for research teams
To support this work, MASH partnered with PatientIQ to modernize how PROs were collected, managed, and analyzed across participating sites
Automating Follow-Up Without Losing the Patient Voice
PatientIQ enabled the MASH Research Group to automate PRO distribution and reminders at key postoperative intervals, including one- and two-year follow-ups. Patient-friendly engagement workflows helped maintain high compliance, even years after surgery.
For research teams, automation reduced the time and effort required to track down responses. For patients, it created a simpler and more consistent way to report how they were feeling over time.
Centralized data aggregation allowed outcomes from multiple sites to be analyzed together within a single platform. This made it possible to study large, multi-center cohorts without the complexity of manual data consolidation
As one MASH investigator noted:
“Using PatientIQ to track and analyze long-term patient-reported outcomes has been a game-changer for our clinical research. The platform’s automation and analytics capabilities have enhanced the quality of our data, leading to meaningful insights that directly inform our practice and improve patient care.” — Dr. Shane Nho, Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, MASH Research Group member
What Long-Term Data Revealed
With consistent longitudinal PRO data in place, the MASH Research Group was able to analyze changes in functional status between one and two years postoperatively.
The results challenged conventional assumptions. More than one in five patients demonstrated improvement in functional status between year one and year two, while the majority of patients maintained their outcomes over time.
Notably, patients who appeared to have abnormal function at the one-year mark were often the most likely to show meaningful improvement by year two. Without long-term PRO data, these patients might have been incorrectly classified as poor responders or considered for additional intervention too early.
These findings suggest that evaluating outcomes at one year may underestimate the true benefit of hip arthroscopy for some patients.
Why Timing Matters in Clinical Decision-Making
The implications of these findings extend beyond research.
When outcomes are assessed too early, clinicians may make decisions based on incomplete information. Long-term PRO data provides a clearer picture of recovery, supporting more informed conversations about expectations, follow-up care, and the need for further intervention.
With PatientIQ-powered analytics, MASH researchers were also able to examine how patient-specific factors such as age, BMI, and hip morphology influenced recovery over time. These insights help refine how success is defined and measured, moving beyond a single time-based benchmark.
Advancing Research Without Adding Burden
One of the most important lessons from the MASH case study is that better research does not require more manual work. It requires better systems.
By automating patient engagement and PRO collection, PatientIQ helped the MASH Research Group focus on analysis rather than administration. The result was a more complete dataset capable of supporting nuanced, clinically meaningful insights.
Explore the Full Case Study
This blog only scratches the surface of the MASH Research Group’s findings. The full case study dives deeper into how long-term PROs changed the interpretation of hip arthroscopy success and revealed recovery patterns that one-year data alone can miss.
Inside, you’ll see how PatientIQ supported multi-center research at scale and enabled more confident, data-driven decisions without adding operational complexity.
.png)
