The Hip-Spine Connection: How to Differentiate Hip Conditions From Spine Pathology.

Practitioners treating spine pathology commonly encounter patients with hip pain. These patients frequently manifest groin, buttock, trochanteric, or knee pain. Complex biomechanical interaction between the axial and the appendicular skeleton may result in compensatory adaptation. Cross-innervation of the hip and surrounding tissues may make diagnosis of the primary source difficult, leading to delayed diagnosis. This review elucidates the interaction between the hip and the spine and can assist clinicians in recognizing the hip as a potential source of pain. Diagnostic guidelines enabling a streamlined workup of patients presenting with confusing symptoms related to the hip that masquerade as a spine disorder are presented. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(6):e699-e706.].

Editorial Commentary: The Cause of Groin Pain Is Difficult to Determine: The Elusive "Nether-Nether Region".

As one of the many causes of groin pain, iliopsoas tendinitis can be hard to identify and even harder to treat. It occurs in the setting of both the native hip joint and following total hip arthroplasty. Internal snapping, or coxa saltans, can result from the iliopsoas snapping over the anterior hip capsule or iliopectineal eminence and can be a source of labral pathology. The snapping can be painful or painless. Iliopsoas impingement over total hip components either from the cup or collar of a femoral stem are causes of anterior groin pain. However, there are multiple other causes of groin pain, both intra- and extra-articular, that can make finding the source of the pain difficult. Referred pain from the spine, gynecologic, and gastrointestinal systems can all cause pain in the groin. Core muscle injuries and athletic pubalgia can all cause groin pain and frequently mimic intra-articular hip pathology or iliopsoas tendinopathy. Ultrasound-guided diagnostic injection into the iliopsoas bursa or the juxtaposed hip joint (intra-articular injection) can be helpful in differentiating the source of the pain. Combining a clear history, detailed physical, basic and advanced imaging, as well as diagnostic injection is essential in diagnosing this elusive entity and guiding appropriate treatment.

Teamwork in hip preservation: the ISHA 2019 Annual Scientific Meeting.

Hip preservation surgery is now an established part of orthopedic surgery and sports medicine. This report describes the key findings of the 11th Annual Scientific Meeting of International Society for Hip Arthroscopy-the International Hip Preservation Society-in Madrid, Spain from 16 to 19 October 2019. Lectures, seminars and debates explored the most up-to-date and expert views on a wide variety of subjects, including: diagnostic problems in groin pain, buttock pain and low back pain; surgical techniques in acetabular dysplasia, hip instability, femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, labral repair and reconstruction, cartilage defects, adolescent hips and gluteus medius and hamstring tears; and new ideas about femoral torsion, hip-spine syndrome, hip capsule surgery, impact of particular sports on hip injuries, registries, robotics and training for hip preservation specialists. Surgeons, sports physicians, radiologists and physiotherapists looking after young people with hip problems have an increasingly sophisticated armoury of ideas and techniques with which to help their patients. The concept of hip preservation has developed incredibly fast over the last decade; now it is clear that the best results can only be achieved by a multidisciplinary team working together. The 2020s will be the decade of 'Teamwork in Hip Preservation'.

Midterm Outcomes of Iliopsoas Fractional Lengthening for Internal Snapping as a Part of Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement and Labral Tear: A Matched Control Study.

PURPOSE: To report minimum 5-year outcomes and rate of painful snapping resolution for patients who underwent iliopsoas fractional lengthening (IFL) as a part of hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and labral tear. In addition, to match this group to a group of patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAI and labral tear without internal snapping. METHODS: Patients were eligible for inclusion if they underwent hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAI and labral tear with concomitant IFL for painful snapping and had preoperative baseline scores for modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale, and visual analog scale for pain. The exclusion criteria for this study were preoperative Tönnis grade >0, active workers' compensation claims, or previous ipsilateral hip conditions. These patients were matched to a control group of patients who did not have snapping or undergo IFL but who otherwise satisfied the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: There were 57 eligible cases (80.3% follow-up). Mean follow-up time was 69.3 months (from 60.0 to 91.9). All patient-reported outcomes measures demonstrated statistically significant improvements between preoperative and latest follow-up scores for the following measures (P < .001): modified Harris Hip Score (from 64.3 to 84.9), Nonarthritic Hip Score (from 61.7 to 85.2), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (from 47.0 to 75.0), and visual analog scale (from 6.5 to 2.2). Mean satisfaction was 8.1 out of 10. Painful snapping was resolved in 80.7% of cases. Ten hips (17.5%) required secondary arthroscopy at a mean of 30.5 months. Three hips (5.3%) required total hip arthroplasty at a mean of 57.5 months. One case (1.8%) had minor postoperative complications. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in outcomes, complications, and secondary surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: IFL as part of hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAI and labral tears demonstrated similar favorable improvement, complication rates, and secondary surgeries, when compared with a control group that did not undergo IFL. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Do Femoral Head Osteochondral Lesions Predict a Poor Outcome in Hip Arthroscopy Patients? A Matched Control Study With Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the presence of femoral head (FH) lesions affects patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for labral tears. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for labral tears at our institution from April 2008 to March 2011. Patients with FH lesions were matched to those without (control) for age, body mass index, sex, and lateral center-edge angle. The inclusion criteria were FH lesions, labral tears, and minimum 5-year follow-up. The exclusion criteria were previous hip surgery, prior hip conditions, inflammatory arthritis, Workers' Compensation claims, and Tönnis grade greater than 1. PRO scores, including the modified Harris Hip Score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, and Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain and patient satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: We matched 96 hips with FH lesions to 96 control hips. The FH group had slightly longer follow-up (71.4 months vs 67 months, P = .004). Patients with FH lesions tended to have higher-grade acetabular lesions (grade 4 acetabular labrum articular disruption and Outerbridge grade 4 acetabular lesions). All PRO scores, VAS scores, and patient satisfaction ratings were statistically improved at latest follow-up in both groups. No statistical difference in improvement (ΔPRO and ΔVAS scores) was noted between groups. However, patients with FH lesions had a higher rate of conversion to arthroplasty (32% vs 16%, P = .0027). Patients in the control group underwent more secondary arthroscopies (14% vs 5%, P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: Finding an FH chondral lesion at arthroscopy does not necessarily portend a worse clinical outcome or conversion to total hip arthroplasty, when controlling for other variables. Patients with FH lesions were, however, found to have worse intra-articular hip pathology. When combined with these factors, patients with FH lesions had lower outcome scores and double the rate of conversion to arthroplasty than patients without them. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control study.

Clinical Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy for Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Matched-Pair Control Study With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: This study analyzed minimum 2-year hip arthroscopy outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and non-RA control patients. It also examined whether disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) affected RA patient outcomes. We hypothesized that patients with RA undergoing hip arthroscopy would have lower reported outcome scores. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on all hip arthroscopies performed from 2009-2013. The indications for surgery were patients with hip pain and with physical examination and imaging studies confirming intra-articular pathology in whom conservative management had failed. The exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip conditions and Tönnis grade greater than 1. Patients with at least 2 years of follow-up and preoperative RA diagnoses were matched (1:2 ratio) to controls without RA (based on age ± 5 years, body mass index ± 5, and lateral center-edge angle [18°-25°, 26°-39°, or >39°]). RA cases were further analyzed based on DMARD use. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores were collected preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 months, as well as annually thereafter. The outcomes collected included the modified Harris Hip Score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, satisfaction rating, future procedures, and complications. RESULTS: We matched 26 hips in 20 RA patients to a control group of 52 hips in 52 patients. At a minimum of 2 years of follow-up, RA patients reported no significant improvements except in the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, whereas the control group significantly improved in all PRO and VAS scores. Preoperative PRO and VAS scores between the RA and control groups were not significantly different, but postoperatively, all scores were lower in RA patients at a minimum of 2 years, whether they were taking DMARDs or not. Patients taking DMARDs showed slightly more improvement in PRO and VAS scores. There was a greater trend toward more secondary arthroscopy procedures for RA patients (19.2% vs 7.7%, P = .47), but total hip arthroplasty rates were similar. Complication rates were low in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing hip arthroscopy who have a diagnosis of RA had less improvement in PRO and VAS scores and were less satisfied than a matched control group of patients without RA at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients who were taking DMARDs had slightly better improvement in their PRO and VAS scores than nonmedicated patients. With this early follow-up, we could not show a difference in the rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty, although RA patients required more revision arthroscopies than controls. Patients with a diagnosis of RA who undergo hip arthroscopy should be counseled about the potential for lesser degrees of postoperative improvement and should have their expectations managed accordingly. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative trial.

Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement and Labral Tears in Patients Younger than 50 Years: Minimum Five-year Outcomes, Survivorship, and Risk Factors for Reoperations.

INTRODUCTION: There is a paucity of literature on mid-term outcomes for hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement and labral tears. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were age at surgery <50 years and documented preoperative patient-reported outcomes. Patients with a Tönnis grade >0 or previous ipsilateral hip conditions were excluded. RESULTS: Of 407 eligible cases, 327 hips (295 patients) had minimum 5-year follow-up. Mean age was 32.4 years. All mean patient-reported outcomes and visual analog scale improved at follow-up (P < 0.001). Mean satisfaction was 7.9. Thirty-eight hips (11.6%) required secondary arthroscopy at a mean of 25.1 months. Survivorship at minimum 5 years was 92.4%. The complication rate was 7.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Hip arthroscopy for management of femoroacetabular impingement and labral tears in patients aged <50 demonstrates favorable and safe mid-term outcomes. Several risk factors for conversion to total hip arthroplasty in this age group warrant cautious patient selection for arthroscopy.

Hip Arthroscopy in Patients Ages 50 Years or Older: Minimum 5-Year Outcomes, Survivorship, and Risk Factors for Conversion to Total Hip Replacement.

PURPOSE: To report minimum 5-year outcomes and risk factors for conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients ≥50 years old undergoing hip arthroscopy to treat labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on patients who underwent hip arthroscopy to treat labral tears and FAI between February 2008 and January 2012. The inclusion criteria were ≥50 years old at surgery, arthroscopic treatment for both labral tears and FAI, and preoperative patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores for modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade > 1 and previous hip conditions or surgeries. RESULTS: Of 103 eligible cases, 94 hips (91.3%) had minimum 5-year follow-up at a mean of 70.1 months (range, 60.0-95.1 months). All PROs and VASs demonstrated significant improvement at latest follow-up (P = .0001). Mean patient satisfaction was 8.4. All mean scores demonstrated durability from 2 years to latest follow-up, and NAHS (P = .009), HOS-SSS (P = .02), and VAS (P = .04) continued to significantly improve. Fifty-one (54.3%) of cases reached patient acceptable symptomatic state for mHHS, and 49 cases (52.1%) achieved minimal clinically important difference for this outcome measure. Four cases (4.3%) required secondary arthroscopy, and survivorship was 72.3%. Compared with survivors, the subgroup requiring THA demonstrated higher body mass indexes (P = .01), had larger alpha angles (P = .0200) and smaller lateral center-edge angles (P = .0200), and had higher proportions of Tönnis grade 1 (P = .0012), acetabular Outerbridge grade ≥ 2 (P = .0500), and femoral head Outerbridge grade ≥2 (P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Hip arthroscopy for the treatment of labral tears and FAI in patients ≥50 years old demonstrates statistically significant PRO improvements at minimum 5-year follow-up. However, due to potential for subsequent need for THA in a subset of this population, surgeons should use rigorous selection criteria and counsel patients appropriately. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Capsular Repair Versus Capsulotomy in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy: Minimum 5-Year Follow-up-A Matched Comparison Study.

PURPOSE: To elucidate whether capsular closure during hip arthroscopy affected patient outcomes over midterm follow-up. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2011, data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed on patients who underwent hip arthroscopy. Patients were then matched for age, gender, worker's compensation, body mass index, and acetabular coverage. The inclusion criteria were capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy, lateral-center edge angle ≥18°, and minimum 5-year follow-up. The exclusion criteria were previous hip surgery or conditions and Tönnis grade >1. Patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) included modified Harris hip score (mHHS), nonarthritic hip score, hip outcome score sport-specific subscale, and visual analog score for pain, which were collected preoperatively, at 3 months, and annually thereafter. Minimal clinical important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for both groups were analyzed. Patient satisfaction was noted as well as any complications, secondary surgery, and conversion to arthroplasty. RESULTS: Minimum 5-year follow-up was available for 82.5% (287 of 348) hips that met the inclusion criteria and were eligible for matching. Ultimately, 65 patients who underwent capsular repair could be matched in a 1:1 ratio to 65 patients with release. Both groups had significant improvements in all mean PROs. The repair group had significant improvement of mean PROs, visual analog score, and patient satisfaction at both 2-year and minimum 5-year follow-up. The unrepaired group had a significant decrease in mHHS (P = .001) and patient satisfaction (P = .01) between 2- and 5-year follow-up. Despite decreasing mHHS in the repair group between 2- and 5-year follow-up, both groups met the MCID and PASS criteria with no significant difference between them. More patients in the release group required conversion to hip arthroplasty (18.5% vs 10.8%). Subgroup analysis considering various perioperative factors confirmed this trend. Rate of revision arthroscopy was the same in both groups (15.4%). Complication rate was low (4.6% vs 6.4%) in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing hip arthroscopy and who have minimal or no arthritis have significant short-term improvement, whether the capsule is closed or left unrepaired. However, at midterm follow-up, patients who had unrepaired capsules had deterioration in mHHS as well as a higher rate of conversion to arthroplasty, even when controlling for various perioperative variables. Despite this, patients in both groups met the MCID and PASS criteria. This study suggests that routine capsular closure may lead to more consistently durable outcome in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy, but also that individual patient pathology may dictate capsular management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.