Hip Labral and Capsular Repair Are Unable to Restore Distractive Stability in a Biomechanical Model.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the change in hip distractive stability after a capsulotomy, labral tear, and simultaneous repair of both the capsule and the labrum in a biomechanical model. METHODS: Ten fresh-frozen human cadaveric hips were analyzed using a materials testing system to measure the distractive force and distance required to disrupt the hip suction seal under the following conditions: (1) native intact capsule and labrum, (2) 2- or 4-cm interportal capsulotomy (IPC), (3) labral tear, (4) T extension, (5) labral repair, (6) T extension repair, and (7) IPC repair. Each specimen was retested at 0° of flexion, 45° of flexion, and 45° of flexion with 15° of internal rotation. RESULTS: A significantly higher distractive force was required to rupture the suction seal in the intact condition compared with IPC (P = .012; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.9-42.4); IPC and labral tear (P = .002; 95% CI, 11.3-49.4); IPC, labral tear, and T extension (P = .001; 95% CI, 13.9-51.5); IPC, labral repair, and T extension (P < .001; 95% CI, 20.8-49.7); IPC, labral repair, and T extension repair (P = .002; 95% CI, 12.5-52.4); and IPC repair, labral repair, and T extension repair (P = .01; 95% CI, 5.8-46.1). The IPC condition required a higher distractive force in isolation than when combined with a labral tear (P = .14; 95% CI, 1.2-12.0), T extension (P = .005; 95% CI, 2.8-15.3), or labral repair (P = .002; 95% CI, 4.4-18.8). CONCLUSIONS: The distractive resistance of an intact hip capsule and labrum was not restored once the soft tissues were violated, despite labral repair with a loop technique and capsular repair with interrupted figure-of-8 sutures. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Time-zero complete capsular repair with concomitant labral repair may not be adequate to restore distractive hip stability after hip arthroscopy, reinforcing the use of postoperative precautions in the early postoperative period.

The Contribution of Soft Tissue and Bony Stabilizers to the Hip Suction Seal: A Systematic Review of Biomechanical Studies.

BACKGROUND: Previous biomechanical studies have identified capsular closure, labral repair or reconstruction, and osteochondroplasty as important surgical interventions to improve hip stability. PURPOSE: To investigate the outcome metrics used to quantify hip stability and assess and measure the relative contributions of the labrum, capsule, and bone to hip stability through a quantitative analysis. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: PubMed and Embase databases were searched using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Included studies evaluated cadaveric hip biomechanics related to capsular, labral, and bony management during hip arthroscopy. Studies were assessed for distraction force and distance, fluid measures, and contact forces used to quantify the suction seal. Exclusion criteria included open surgery, arthroplasty, reorientation osteotomy, or traumatic dislocation. RESULTS: A total of 33 biomechanical studies comprising 322 hips that evaluated 1 or more of the following were included: distraction force or distance (24 studies), fluid measures (10 studies), and contact forces (6 studies). Compared with a capsulotomy or capsulectomy, capsular repair or reconstruction demonstrated greater resistance to distraction (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.13; 95% CI, 0.46-1.80; P = .0009). Compared with a labral tear, a labral repair or reconstruction demonstrated less resistance to distraction (SMD, -0.67; 95% CI, -1.25 to -0.09; P = .02). Compared with a labral debridement, repair or reconstruction demonstrated greater resistance to distraction (SMD, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.26; P < .00001). No quantitative analysis was feasible from studies evaluating the effect of osseous resection due to the heterogeneity in methodology and outcome metrics assessed. CONCLUSION: Most biomechanical evidence supports capsulotomy repair or reconstruction to improve hip distractive stability at the end of hip arthroscopic surgery. While the repair of a torn labrum does not improve distractive resistance, it is superior to labral debridement in most biomechanical studies.

Early Postoperative Activities of Daily Living Do Not Adversely Affect Joint Torques or Translation Regardless of Capsular Condition: A Cadaveric Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of capsular management on joint constraint and femoral head translations during simulated activities of daily living (ADL). METHODS: Using 6 (n = 6) cadaveric hip specimens, the effect of capsulotomies and repair was then evaluated during simulated ADL. Joint forces and rotational kinematics associated with gait and sitting, adopted from telemeterized implant studies, were applied to the hip using a 6-degrees of freedom (DOF) joint motion simulator. Testing occurred after creation of portals, interportal capsulotomy (IPC), IPC repair, T-capsulotomy (T-Cap), partial T-Cap repair, and full T-Cap repair. The anterior-posterior (AP), medial-lateral (ML), and axial compression DOFs were operated in force control, whereas flexion-extension, adduction-abduction, and internal-external rotation were manipulated in displacement control. Resulting femoral head translations and joint reaction torques were recorded and evaluated. Subsequently, the mean-centered range of femoral head displacements and peak signed joint restraint torques were calculated and compared. RESULTS: During simulated gait and sitting, the mean range of AP femoral head displacements with respect to intact exceeded 1% of the femoral head diameter after creating portals, T-Caps, and partial T-Cap repair (Wilcoxon signed rank P < .05); the mean ranges of ML displacements did not. Deviations in femoral head kinematics varied by capsule stage but were never very large. No consistent trends with respect to alterations in peak joint restrain torques were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In this cadaveric biomechanical study, capsulotomy and repair minimally affected resultant femoral head translation and joint torques during simulated ADLs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The tested ADLs appear safe to perform after surgery, regardless of capsular status, because adverse kinematics were not observed. However, further study is required to determine the importance of capsular repair beyond time-zero biomechanics and the resultant effect on patient-reported outcomes.

Arthroscopy Association of Canada Position Statement on Opioid Prescription After Arthroscopic Surgery.

Background: Despite the ongoing opioid epidemic, most patients are still prescribed a significant number of opioid medications for pain management after arthroscopic surgery. There is a need for consensus among orthopaedic surgeons and solutions to aid providers in analgesic strategies that reduce the use of opioid pain medications. Purpose: This position statement was developed with a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of exclusively randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to synthesize the best available evidence for managing acute postoperative pain after arthroscopic surgery. Study Design: Position statement. Methods: The Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception until August 10, 2022. Keywords included arthroscopy, opioids, analgesia, and pain, and associated variations. We included exclusively RCTs on adult patients to gather the best available evidence for managing acute postoperative pain after arthroscopic surgery. Patient characteristics, pain, and opioid data were extracted, data were analyzed, and trial bias was evaluated. Results: A total of 21 RCTs were identified related to the prescription of opioid-sparing pain medication after arthroscopic surgery. The following recommendations regarding noninvasive, postoperative pain management strategies were made: (1) multimodal oral nonopioid analgesic regimens-including at least 1 of acetaminophen-a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-can significantly reduce opioid consumption with no change in pain scores; (2) cryotherapy is likely to help with pain management, although the evidence on the optimal method of application (continuous-flow vs ice pack application) is unclear; (3) and (4) limited RCT evidence supports the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and relaxation exercises in reducing opioid consumption after arthroscopy; and (5) limited RCT evidence exists against the efficacy of transdermal lidocaine patches in reducing opioid consumption. Conclusion: A range of nonopioid strategies exist that can reduce postarthroscopic procedural opioid consumption with equivalent vocal pain outcomes. Optimal strategies include multimodal analgesia with education and restricted/reduced opioid prescription.

Editorial Commentary: The Hip Arthroscopy Volume-to-Competency Learning Curve Debate Is Complicated: Learning When "Enough Is Enough" Is a Lifetime Discipline.

As hip arthroscopy use grows, so does resident and fellow exposure, providing more "hands-on" learning opportunities. Nevertheless, hip arthroscopy is technically challenging, particularly noting that improved patient-reported outcomes and survivorship are reported after labral repair or reconstruction (vs debridement) as well as routine capsular closure. Undoubtedly a requisite number of cases is required to reach the saturation point of the "learning curve." A recent review shows that traction time, complication rates, and reoperation rates decrease with increasing case volumes, but there is a wide range of cases reported after which the learning curve "plateaus," ranging from 30 to 520 cases. A large database study shows that hip arthroscopy readmissions and complications are significantly lower in high-volume centers. However, large database studies may include biases requiring attention. First, the rates are relatively low across the entire cohort. Second, more younger patients were treated in the greater-volume centers, which may contribute to the difference in outcomes observed. Finally, older patients (often >50 years old) with concomitant osteoarthritis are also associated with greater complication, readmission, and reoperation rates. Such patients may not be selected as candidates for hip arthroscopy by greater-volume surgeons. The hip arthroscopy volume to competency learning curve debate is complicated. Learning when "enough is enough" is a lifetime discipline.

A comprehensive comparison and evaluation of surgical techniques for anterior shoulder instability: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anterior shoulder instability is a common clinical problem; however, conflicting evidence exists regarding optimal treatment algorithms. We perform a comparative analysis of stabilization techniques used for recurrent anterior shoulder instability to identify the one associated with the lowest rate of recurrent instability. We additionally explore how glenoid bone loss and osseus lesions affect recurrence rates. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for clinical studies comparing surgical techniques for anterior shoulder instability. Two team members independently assessed all potential studies for eligibility and extracted data. Each included study underwent a risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane risk of bias summary tool. The primary outcome of interest was the rate of recurrent instability, which underwent a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Additional analyses were performed relating to the degree of glenoid bone loss and the presence of osseous lesions. RESULTS: Of 2699 studies screened, 52 studies with 4209 patients were included. Patients who underwent open Latarjet demonstrated the overall lowest rate of recurrent instability [log odds ratio (LOR) 1.93], whereas patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair demonstrated the highest (LOR 2.87). When glenoid bone loss was 10% to 20%, open Latarjet had significantly lower recurrent instability (P = .0016) compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair. When glenoid bone loss increased from 0%-10% to 10%-20%, arthroscopic Bankart repair had a significantly increased rate of recurrence (P = .021). In the presence of an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion, both open Latarjet (P = .01) and arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage (P = .029) had significantly reduced recurrence rates compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair. Finally, regardless of procedure, the presence of a Hill-Sachs or bony Bankart lesion was associated with an increased risk of recurrent instability (r = 0.44, P = .0003, and r = 0.40, P = .006, respectively). CONCLUSION: The open Latarjet has the overall lowest recurrent instability and significantly lower compared to arthroscopic Bankart repair in the setting of increasing glenoid bone loss. Bone loss between 0% and 10% results in similar outcomes across all procedures.

Multimodal analgesia did not improve post-operative pain scores, reduce opioid consumption or reduce length of stay following hip arthroscopy.

PURPOSE: To determine whether different regimens of multimodal analgesia will reduce postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, costs and hospital length-of-stay following hip arthroscopy. METHODS: From 2018 to 2021, 132 patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) were included in this prospective, single-center randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomized into four treatment groups: (1) Group 1-Control: opioid medication (oxycodone-acetaminophen 5 mg/325 mg, 1-2 tabs q6H as needed), Heterotopic ossification prophylaxis-Naprosyn 500 mg twice daily × 3 weeks); (2) Group 2-Control + postoperative sleeping aid (Zopiclone 7.5 mg nightly × 7 days); (3) Group 3-Control + preoperative and postoperative Gabapentin (600 mg orally, 1 h preoperatively; 600 mg postoperatively, 8 h following pre-op dose); (4) Group 4-Control + pre-medicate with Celecoxib (400 mg orally, 1 h preoperatively) The primary outcome was pain measured with a visual analog scale, monitored daily for the first week and every other day for 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included opioid consumption, healthcare resource use, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar between groups. There were no statistically significant differences in pain scores between groups at any timepoint after adjusting for intra-operative traction time, intra-operative opioid administration and preoperative pain scores (p > 0.05). There were also no significant differences in the number of days that opioids were taken (n.s.) and the average daily morphine milligram equivalents consumed (n.s.). Similarly, there were no statistically significant differences in length of stay in the experimental groups, compared with the control group (n.s.). Finally, there were no differences in cost between groups (n.s.). CONCLUSION: The routine use of Zopiclone, Celecoxib and Gabapentin did not improve postoperative pain control or reduce length-of-stay following hip arthroscopy. Therefore, these medications are not recommended for routine postoperative pain control following hip arthroscopy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: l.

Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients Aged 40 to 60 Years Old: A Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has resolved many implant longevity concerns in younger patients. Patients in their fourth and fifth decades of life are projected to be the fastest-growing demographic of THA patients. We aimed to assess this demographic to: 1) evaluate the rate of THA over time; 2) evaluate the cumulative incidence of revision; and 3) identify risk factors for revision. METHODS: A retrospective population-based study of patients between 40 and 60 years old undergoing primary THA was conducted using administrative data from a large clinical data repository. A total of 28,414 patients were included for analysis with a mean age of 53 years (range, 40-60 years) and median follow-up of 9 years (range, 0-17 years). Linear regressions were used to assess annual rates of THA in this cohort over time. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine cumulative incidence of revision. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine association of variables with revision risk. RESULTS: The annual rate of THA in our population increased by 60.7% over the study period (P < .0001). Cumulative incidence of revision was 2.9% at 5 years and 4.8% at 10 years. Younger age, women, non-osteoarthritis diagnosis, medical complications, and annual surgeon volume ≤ 60 THA were associated with increased revision risk. CONCLUSION: Demand for THA continues to dramatically increase in this cohort. Risk of revision was low but multiple risk factors were identified. Future studies will help delineate the effect of these variables on revision risk and assess implant survivorship beyond 10 years.

A scoping review of postoperative return to sport criteria and protocols for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.

PURPOSE: To identify the objective criteria and guidelines utilized to determine if patients diagnosed with FAIS can safely return to sport following hip arthroscopy. METHODS: The electronic databases MEDLINE Ovid, EMBASE Ovid, and CINAHL were searched to identify eligible studies. Details of study design, sample size, primary diagnosis, and return to sport protocol, duration, and rate were collected by two reviewers, independently. RESULTS: Sixty-two studies were selected for full text review of which 14 were included in the final analysis. Of these, nine were clinical commentaries and five were retrospective cohort studies. Three types of rehabilitation guidelines are currently utilized postoperatively: 4-phase, 5-phase, and 6-phase protocols. Although all 14 studies recommend using various types of outcome measures to evaluate a patient's ability to return to sport, only eleven outlined the specific outcome criteria they must achieve to do so. The most utilized outcome measures are the hip outcome score, active and passive range of motion tests, gait analysis, single- and double-leg squat tests, and the Vail hip sports test. Criteria across all three types of protocols was variable, but they all evaluated the same international classification of disability and function constructs described by the World Health Organization: body function, body structure limitations, and activity capacity limitations. CONCLUSIONS: There is no consensus on the optimal methods of evaluating a patient's readiness to return to sport after undergoing hip arthroscopy, with most criteria focused on expert opinion. Performance-based return to sport outcome criteria is not clearly defined, and validated outcome measures are not being used for FAIS patients post hip arthroscopy. Lastly, well-conducted prospective cohort studies using validated outcome measures and objective definitions of return to sport are needed to consistently identify signs that are prognostic of safe return to sport.

Cadaveric Biomechanical Evaluation of Capsular Constraint and Microinstability After Hip Capsulotomy and Repair.

Background: It remains unclear if capsular management contributes to iatrogenic instability (microinstability) after hip arthroscopy. Purpose: To evaluate changes in torque, stiffness, and femoral head displacement after capsulotomy and repair in a cadaveric model. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A biomechanical analysis was performed using 10 cadaveric hip specimens. Each specimen was tested under the following conditions: (1) intact, (2) portals, (3) interportal capsulotomy (IPC), (4) IPC repair, (5) T-capsulotomy (T-cap), (6) partial T-cap repair, and (7) T-cap repair. Each capsular state was tested in neutral (0°) and then 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion, with forces applied to achieve the displacement-controlled baseline limit of external rotation (ER), internal rotation (IR), abduction, and adduction. The resultant end-range torques and displacement were recorded. Results: For ER, capsulotomies significantly reduced torque and stiffness at 0°, 30°, and 60° and reduced stiffness at 90°; capsular repairs failed to restore torque and stiffness at 0°; and IPC repair failed to restore stiffness at 30° (P < .05 for all). For IR, capsulotomies significantly reduced torque and stiffness at 0°, 30°, and 60° and reduced stiffness at 90°; and capsular repairs failed to restore torque or stiffness at 0°, 30°, and 60° and failed to restore stiffness at 90° (P < .05 for all). For abduction, IPC significantly decreased torque at 60° and 90° and decreased stiffness at all positions; T-cap reduced torque and stiffness at all positions; IPC repair failed to restore stiffness at 0° and 90°; and T-cap repair failed at 0°, 60°, and 90° (P < .05 for all). For adduction, IPC significantly reduced torque at 0° and reduced stiffness at 0° and 30°; T-cap reduced torque at 0° and 90° and reduced stiffness at all positions; IPC repair failed to restore stiffness at 0° and 90°; and T-cap repair failed at 0°, 60°, and 90° (P < .05 for all). There were no statistically significant femoral head translations observed in any testing configurations. Conclusion: Complete capsular repair did not always restore intact kinematics, most notably at 0° and 30°. Despite this, there were no significant joint translations to corroborate concerns of microinstability. Clinical Relevance: Caution should be employed when applying rotational torques in lower levels of flexion (0° and 30°).

Editorial Commentary: Failure to Return to Sport, or Rather a Failure to Attempt a Return After Hip Arthroscopy Is Not Correlated With Poor Clinical Outcome: The Devil Is in the Details.

While hip arthroscopy has been shown to be highly effective at improving pain and restoring function, postoperative outcome reporting remains heterogeneous, particularly as it relates to return to sport (RTS). Previous studies have identified significant variability in RTS rates, and often studies fail to accurately report on the population of patients who do not attempt RTS for reasons other than their hip. Despite failing to attempt an RTS, patients can still experience statistically significant, and clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcome measures. Clinical results of those who do not RTS may be otherwise similar to results experienced by a group of high-level athletes who have successful RTS. Failure to attempt to RTS does not equate to a poor clinical outcome. To improve the clinical utility of future published RTS rates, better consensus on the means of evaluating and reporting on a patients' readiness for RTS are required. Additionally, comprehensive reporting should include identifying patients who do not RTS for reasons other than their hip.

Biomechanical Comparison of Three Suspensory Techniques for all Soft Tissue Central Quadriceps Tendon Graft Fixation.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate three different methods of attachment of continuous loop suspensory cortical preparation of all soft tissue central quad tendon grafts compared to a bone block control for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on construct displacement and load to failure. Methods: Thirty-two cadaveric central quadriceps tendon (CQT) specimens were harvested, using three clinical techniques for graft fixation: cortical button alone (BTB EB), BTB cortical button with rip-stop suture (BTB RS), and continuous loop cortical button (BTB CL). A control group was also included that consisted of a bone block secured within testing clamps (BTB CON). Specimens were preloaded to 150 N. Tendons were then cyclically loaded between 50 N and 250 N for 1,000 cycles at .5 Hz. Displacement was measured at the point of fixation of the CQT after the 150 N preload, 250 N initial load and every 100th cycle. The specimens were loaded to failure after 1,000 cycles. Results: There was a significant increase in displacement from .32 ± .56 mm for the BTB CON to 1.91 ± 1.13 mm for the BTB RS (P = .014) and 3.85 ± 2.32 mm for the BTB CL condition (P = .023). There was no significant increase in displacement for BTB EB (P = .182). Failure occurred for all of the BTB CL and 62.5% of the BTB EB specimens within the first 50 cycles. Twenty-five percent of the BTB CON specimens and 12.5% BTB RS failed at ∼400 and 500 cycles, respectively. Similar failure loads were observed for the BTB CON and the BTB RS (446.4 ± 151.46 N vs 505.74 ± 131.41 N; P = .99) Failure testing was not feasible for the BTB CL and BTB EB preparation methods. Conclusion: In response to cyclic loading, the three all-soft tissue suspensory conditions experienced significantly greater displacement compared to the bone block controls. None of the soft-tissue conditions appeared superior when compared to each other. Clinical Relevance: It remains unknown which method of soft-tissue suspensory provides optimal fixation. As these autografts become more common, it is essential to evaluate which fixation methods provide superior outcomes.

Improvement in pain and patient-related outcome measures following hip arthroscopy in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and concomitant generalized ligamentous laxity: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Within orthopaedic sports medicine, concomitant ligamentous laxity is often found to be a negative prognostic factor for post-operative outcomes following various procedures. The effect of ligamentous laxity on outcomes following hip arthroscopy remains infrequently reported. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to report on the outcomes of hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) with concomitant generalized ligamentous laxity (GLL). METHODS: A systematic search was performed in Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and SPORTDiscus (from inception to April 2021) for studies reporting outcomes following hip arthroscopy for symptomatic FAIS in patients with concomitant GLL. RESULTS: Six studies representing 213 patients and 231 hips were included. Outcomes of pain and functional scores as measured by VAS, Harris Hip Score, and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score were tabulated. A mean improvement of 4.8 on VAS was observed. Improvements of 30.0 on HHS, 33.1 for ssHOS, and 23.9 for ADL-HOS were observed. CONCLUSION: Hip arthroscopy is an effective method of alleviating pain and improving function with statistically significant improvements in all PROM in patients with concomitant FAIS with GLL. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021248864.

Bone Volumes and Trajectory Angles for Acetabular Anchor Placement Can Be Optimized.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal anchor placement and trajectory when repairing acetabular labral tears during hip arthroscopy with the primary focus on the 12 to 3 o'clock positions on the acetabular rim. Methods: Three-dimensional computational models of the pelvis were generated from 13 cadaveric specimens using 3D slicer medical imaging software. A set of cones, consistent with the dimensions of a commonly used sutured anchor, were virtually embedded into the models at the 12, 1, 2, and 3 o'clock positions around the acetabulum. Mirror images of the cone were extended toward the superficial aspect of the hip. The volume of bone occupied by the virtual anchor, the trajectory angle, and the volume of overlap between adjacent anchor locations were calculated. Results: Bone volume was significantly greater at the 1 o'clock position (4196.2 [1190.2] mm3) compared with all other positions (P < .001). The 3 o'clock position had the smallest volume (629.2 [180.0] mm3) and was also significantly less than the 12 (P < .001) and 2 o'clock (P = .014) positions). The trajectory angle of 32.04 [5.05]°) at the 1 o'clock position was significantly greater compared with all other positions (P < .001). The least amount of adjacent position overlap occurred between the 2 and 3 o'clock positions (.12 [.42] mm3), and this was statistically smaller than the overlap between cones at the 12 and 1 o'clock positions (214.28 [251.88] mm3; P = .029) and the 1 and 2 o'clock positions (139.51 [177.14] mm3; P = .044). Conclusions: Trajectory angles and the thickness of bone around the acetabulum were the greatest at the 12 to 1 o'clock positions, with the 1 o'clock position identified as that with the largest trajectory angle for safe anchor insertion. Clinical Relevance: The use of a single, workhorse portal, for anchor insertion may not be recommended and careful selection of a portal allowing a direct approach should be used for anterior anchor insertion.

Cost and safety of inpatient versus outpatient open reduction internal fixation of isolated ankle fractures.

BACKGROUND: As health care shifts to value-based models, one strategy within orthopedics has been to transition appropriate cases to outpatient or ambulatory settings to reduce costs; however, there are limited data on the efficacy and safety of this practice for isolated ankle fractures. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost and safety associated with inpatient versus outpatient ankle open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). METHODS: All patients who underwent ORIF of isolated closed ankle fractures at 2 affiliated hospitals between April 2016 and March 2017 were identified retrospectively. Demographic characteristics, including age, gender, comorbidities and injuryspecific variables, were collected. We grouped patients based on whether they underwent ankle ORIF as an inpatient or outpatient. We determined case costing for all patients and analyzed it using multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 196 patients (125 inpatient, 71 outpatient) were included for analysis. Inpatients had a significantly longer mean length of stay than outpatients (54.3 h [standard deviation (SD) 36.3 h] v. 7.5 h [SD 1.7 h], p < 0.001). The average cost was significantly higher for the inpatient cohort than the outpatient cohort ($4137 [SD $2285] v. $1834 [SD $421], p < 0.001). There were more unimalleolar ankle fractures in the outpatient group than in the inpatient group (42 [59.2%] v. 41 [32.8%], p < 0.001). Outpatients waited longer for surgery than inpatients (9.6 d [SD 5.6 d] v. 2.0 d [SD 3.3 d], p < 0.001). Fourteen patients (11.2%) in the inpatient group presented to the emergency department or were readmitted to hospital within 30 days of discharge, compared to 5 (7.0%) in the outpatient group (p = 0.3). CONCLUSION: In the treatment of isolated closed ankle fractures, outpatient surgery was associated with a significant reduction in length of hospital stay and overall case cost compared to inpatient surgery, with no significant difference in readmission or reoperation rates. In medically appropriate patients, isolated ankle ORIF can be performed safely in an ambulatory setting and is associated with significant cost savings.

Hip arthroscopy utilization and reoperation rates in Ontario: a population-based analysis comparing different age cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Older age (> 40 yr) and osteoarthritis are negative prognostic variables for hip arthroscopy, but their impact has not been quantified from a population standpoint. The purpose of this study was to perform a population-based analysis of hip arthroscopy utilization and associated 2- and 5-year reoperation rates and complications in different age cohorts. METHODS: Administrative databases from Ontario, Canada, were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients aged 18-60 years who underwent hip arthroscopy between 2006 and 2016. Patients were stratified into 2 cohorts: 18-39 and 40-60 years of age. Patients were followed for 2 and 5 years to capture the occurrence of subsequent surgery (repeat arthroscopy or total hip arthroplasty) and postoperative complications. RESULTS: A total of 1906 patients underwent hip arthroscopy, 818 (42.9%) of whom were aged 40-60 years. In the entire cohort, revision surgery occurred in 6.5% and 15.1% of cases at 2 and 5 years, respectively. Revision surgery rates were significantly higher among patients aged 40-60 years at 2 (10.8% v. 3.2%, p < 0.001) and 5 years (22.7% v. 8.2%, p < 0.001) than among those aged 18-39 years. Revision rates were higher among patients aged 50-60 years than among those aged 40-49 years at 2 years (14.3% v. 9.1%, p = 0.027). Complication rates did not differ between cohorts. Regression analysis revealed higher 2- and 5-year odds of secondary surgery in patients aged 40-49 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.70-4.22; OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.87-4.25; p < 0.001), patients aged 50-60 years (OR 4.39, 95% CI 2.67-7.22; OR 3.44, 95% CI 2.11-5.62; p < 0.001) and those with osteoarthritis (OR 2.41, 95% CI 1.39-4.20; p = 0.002; OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.00-3.09; p = 0.049). CONCLUSION: Revision surgery rates following hip arthroscopy are significantly higher among older patients and those with concomitant osteoarthritis. Although the data have limitations, they provide useful information to guide surgical decision-making.

The rate of unnecessary interventions for the management of knee osteoarthritis: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Several commonly used procedures for knee osteoarthritis (OA) are not supported by evidence-based guidelines. The objective of this study was to identify the proportion of patients who underwent knee arthroscopy or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the timing of these procedures before total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative data sets from Ontario, Canada. We identified the proportion of patients who underwent knee arthroscopy in the previous 10 years or an MRI in the 3 years before their primary TKA. We also evaluated the rate of arthroscopies by diagnosis. We report the timing of each outcome in relation to the TKA, rates by geographical area, and differences in rates over time. RESULTS: We included 142 275 patients, of whom 36 379 (25.57%) underwent knee arthroscopy (median time 2.8 [interquartile range (IQR) 1.1-6.0] years); 22% of those were within 1 year of TKA and 52% were within 3 years. The rates of arthroscopies for a diagnosis of osteoarthritis (OA) steadily decreased, while those for meniscal-related diagnoses increased over the study period (p < 0.0001). There was significant variation by region. Of the cohort, 23.2% (n = 32 989) had an MRI before their TKA, with rates significantly increasing over time (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of patients with knee OA received diagnostic and therapeutic interventions before TKA that are contrary to clinical practice guidelines.

A pilot multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing Bankart repair and remplissage with the Latarjet procedure in patients with subcritical bone loss (STABLE): study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Anterior dislocations, the most common type of shoulder dislocation, are often complicated by subsequent instability. With recurrent dislocations there often is attrition of the labrum and progressive loss of the anterior bony contour of the glenoid. Treatment options for this pathology involve either soft tissue repair or bony augmentation procedure. The optimal management remains unknown and current clinical practice is highly varied. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Shoulder instability Trial comparing Arthroscopic stabilization Benefits compared with Latarjet procedure Evaluation (STABLE) is an ongoing multi-centre, pilot randomized controlled trial of 82 patients who have been diagnosed with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and subcritical glenoid bone loss. Patients are randomized to either soft tissue repair (Bankart + Remplissage) or bony augmentation (Latarjet procedure). The primary outcome for this pilot is to assess trial feasibility and secondary outcomes include recurrent instability as well as functional outcomes up to two years post-operatively. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will help to identify the optimal treatment for patients with recurrent shoulder instability with a focus on determining which treatment option results in reduced risk of recurrent dislocation and improved patient outcomes. Findings from this trial will guide clinical practice and improve care for patients with shoulder instability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been registered on http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov with the following identifier: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03585491, registered 13 July 2018, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03585491?term=NCT03585491&draw=2&rank=1 . ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has ethics approval from the McMaster University/Hamilton Health Sciences Research Ethics Board (REB) (approval #4942). Successful completion will significantly impact the global management of patients with recurrent instability. This trial will develop a network of collaboration for future high-quality trials in shoulder instability.