Editorial Commentary: The Severity of Femoral and Acetabular Articular Cartilage Defects Is Inversely Proportional to Mid- and Long-Term Success of Hip Arthroscopy.

The health of the articular cartilage is an important determinant of success with hip arthroscopy. Recent research has shown that articular cartilage damage on both the acetabular and femoral sides of the hip joint places patients at higher risk of failure after primary hip arthroscopy, leading to the need for revision arthroscopy or total hip arthroplasty. This risk appears to increase with the degree of cartilage damage and manifests at the mid- and long-term follow-up points. Future studies may use this conclusion as a justification to characterize chondral defects in greater detail, reporting on defect size and location, in addition to grade.

Secondary Hip Labral Reconstruction Yields Inferior Minimum 2-Year Functional Outcomes to Primary Reconstruction Despite Comparable Intraoperative Labral Characteristics.

PURPOSE: To compare intraoperative labral characteristics and minimum 2-year functional outcomes of allograft labral reconstruction in primary versus revision hip arthroscopy across multiple orthopaedic centers. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter hip arthroscopy registry was queried for patients with completed labral reconstruction surgeries from January 2014 to March 2023 with completed 2-year international Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) reports. Age, sex, and major intraoperative variables also were collected. Patients were placed in cohorts based on whether their arthroscopic allograft labral reconstruction was a primary procedure or secondary procedure (reconstruction following failed hip arthroscopy). One-way analysis of variance was performed on continuous variables. χ2 test was performed on categorical variables. Achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) also was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 77 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and had complete information. The primary reconstruction group (n = 50) was significantly older than the secondary reconstruction group (n = 27) (47.5 ± 10.5 vs 39.1 ± 8.8 years; P = .001). In both cohorts, most patients had labral bruising, advanced labral degeneration, and/or grade III complexity of labral tearing. There was no difference in any recorded intraoperative findings (P = .160, P = .783, P = .357, respectively). Each cohort experienced significant improvement in iHOT-12 scores (P < .0001). However, patients undergoing secondary labral reconstruction reported inferior iHOT-12 scores (60.1 ± 29.2 vs 74.8 ± 27.0; P = .030). Patients undergoing primary reconstruction were more likely to reach MCID, PASS, and nearly normal SCB (92 vs 66.7%, P = .024; 68.0 vs 40.7%, P = .021; 76.0 vs 48.1%, P = .014, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Primary and secondary allograft labral reconstruction show clinical improvement, but primary reconstruction demonstrates better outcomes and greater percentage of patients reaching MCID, PASS, and nearly normal SCB than reconstruction in the revision setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic case-control study.

The Reliability of the Tönnis Grading System in Patients Undergoing Hip Preservation.

BACKGROUND: The presence of pre-existing osteoarthritis (OA) has been associated with poor results after hip arthroscopic surgery. There is limited evidence validating the currently available grading systems of hip OA in patients undergoing hip preservation. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: Our purpose was to evaluate the interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities of 2 grading systems in a group of patients undergoing hip preservation: the Tönnis grading system and a simple 4-choice Likert scale. The hypothesis was that interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities using the Tönnis grading system would be poor among surgeons experienced in hip preservation and that a 4-choice Likert scale would be more reliable. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 100 hip radiographs were reviewed by 8 experienced hip preservation surgeons. Overall, 2 rounds of reviews were performed, at least 3 weeks apart, assessing for the presence, degree, and/or location of joint space narrowing, joint space asymmetry, subchondral cysts, osteophytes, and sclerosis. The radiographs were assigned a Tönnis grade as well as a Likert grade of OA, reported as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Statistical analysis was conducted to provide Fleiss kappa values with 95% CIs. Agreement was classified as poor for <0.00, slight for 0.00-0.20, fair for 0.21-0.40, moderate for 0.41-0.60, substantial for 0.61-0.80, and almost perfect for >0.80. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients (28 female and 22 male) with a mean age of 42.8 ± 14.2 years (range, 19-70 years) were reviewed. The Tönnis grade demonstrated an interobserver kappa value of 0.30 (95% CI, 0.26-0.34). The Likert grade demonstrated an interobserver kappa value of 0.33 (95% CI, 0.28-0.37). All other measures demonstrated interobserver kappa values classified as slight or fair except for subchondral cysts which was moderate. Intraobserver reliabilities were statistically significantly higher than interobserver reliabilities. Intraobserver reliabilities for both the Tönnis grade (κ = 0.55 [95% CI, 0.51-0.60]) and Likert grade (κ = 0.59 [95% CI, 0.55-0.63]) demonstrated similar kappa values, consistent with moderate agreement. Subchondral cysts demonstrated the strongest interobserver (κ = 0.53) and intraobserver (κ = 0.85) reliabilities. CONCLUSION: Interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities were fair and moderate, respectively, for grading OA. Given the limited interobserver reliability, caution should be used when interpreting and translating studies that utilize the Tönnis grade or other rating to dictate treatment algorithms.

Relationship of Average Outcomes Scores and Change in Status Requires Further Interpretation Between 1 and 2 Years Following Hip Arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated a clinically impactful change in patients between 1 and 2 years after hip arthroscopy. Assessment of differences in patient-specific factors between patients who remain the same and those who change (ie, either improve or decline) could provide valuable outcome information for orthopaedic surgeons treating those patients. PURPOSE: To identify patients who experienced change in functional status between 1 and 2 years after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and assess differences in patient-specific factors between those who improved, remained the same, or declined in functional status. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Prospectively collected data for patients who underwent hip arthroscopy at 1 of 7 centers were analyzed retrospectively at 1 year and 2 years postoperatively. Patients were categorized as "improved,""remained the same," or "declined" between 1- and 2-year follow-up based on the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) minimal clinically important difference (MCID) value. A 1-way analysis of variance was used to assess differences in iHOT-12 scores, age, body mass index (BMI), alpha angle, and center-edge angle (CEA) between groups. Chi-square analyses were used to assess differences in the proportions of male and female patients in the outcome groups. RESULTS: The study included 753 patients (515 women and 238 men), whose mean ± SD age was 34.7 ± 12 years. Average 1-year (±1 month) and 2-year (±2 months) iHOT-12 scores for all patients were 73.7 and 74.9, respectively. Based on the calculated MCID of ±11.5 points, 162 (21.5%) patients improved, 451 (59.9%) remained the same, and 140 (18.6%) declined in status between 1- and 2-year follow-up. Those who improved between 1 and 2 years had lower 1-year iHOT-12 scores (P < .0005). We found no difference in age, BMI, alpha angle, CEA, or sex between groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Between 1- and 2-year follow-up assessments, 21.5% of patients improved and 18.6% declined in self-reported functional status. Those with iHOT-12 scores indicating abnormal function at 1 year improved beyond the MCID at 2 years follow-up. Thus, any decisions about the failure or success of arthroscopic hip procedures should not be made until at least the 2-year follow-up. Failing to thrive at 1-year follow-up may not accurately predict outcomes at year 2 or beyond. This could potentially decrease the perceived need for revision surgery in patients who do not thrive before 2-year follow-up.

Symptom duration predicts inferior mid-term outcomes following hip arthroscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have demonstrated a negative relationship between the length of time with symptoms and patient-reported outcome measures in primary hip arthroscopy. Our aim was to expand the generalizability of this finding with a multi-center cohort. METHODS: A multi-center hip arthroscopy registry was queried for patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy from 2014 to 2017. Patients were stratified according to whether pre-operative symptom duration exceeded two years or did not exceed two years. A Wilcoxon rank sum test was performed for differences in two year post-operative outcome scores. Logistic regression models analyzed the influence of symptom duration on achieving clinically meaningful thresholds (minimum clinically important difference, patient-acceptable symptom state, substantial clinical benefit) when controlling for baseline scores, age, BMI, and sex. RESULTS: Seven hundred forty-four patients met the inclusion criteria, from which 620 had complete outcomes information. The mean ± SD 2-year iHOT-12 scores of patients with symptom duration greater than two years (69 ± 26) were significantly lower than patients with symptom duration less than two years (77 ± 23) (Dunn test, p < 0.001). Chronic duration of pain was a negative predictor of achieving iHOT-12 MCID (0.47 [0.31-0.72]), PASS (0.53 [0.37-0.76]), and SCB (0.67 [0.47-0.94]). CONCLUSION: When controlling for differences in baseline demographic factors and pre-operative iHOT-12 scores, patients with chronic pain report poorer functional outcomes at mid-term follow-up. These results suggest that chronic pain predicts inferior outcomes from primary hip arthroscopy and that surgical intervention at earlier time points may be beneficial in achieving better outcomes.

Acetabular Cartilage Lesions Predict Inferior Mid-Term Outcomes for Arthroscopic Labral Repair and Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome.

PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of acetabular chondrosis at a minimum of 2 years following hip arthroscopy in patients undergoing labral repair and treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. METHODS: From 2014 to 2017, patients undergoing arthroscopic labral repair were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter hip arthroscopy registry. The registry was retrospectively queried for primary labral repair patients with complete 2-year outcomes and a Tonnis grade of less than 2. Patients were grouped according to severity of articular cartilage damage noted intraoperatively using the Beck classification system: none, low-grade (Grade 1 or 2), or high-grade (Grade 3 or 4) damage. A Kruskal-Wallis test and post hoc Dunn's test with Holm correction compared 2-year postoperative outcome scores of the iHOT-12 scale between groups. The proportion of patients in each cohort who achieved the clinically significant thresholds of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), patient-acceptable symptom scale, and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression models identified predictors of achieving clinical thresholds while controlling for demographic variation. RESULTS: 422 patients met inclusion criteria, from which 347 completed 2-year outcomes. All groups experienced improvement in iHOT-12 scores from baseline to follow-up (P < .001). iHOT-12 scores at follow-up were inferior for Low-Grade Damage and High-Grade Damage Groups relative to the No Damage Group (P = .04; P = .03). When accounting for age, body mass index, gender, and preoperative iHOT-12 scores in logistic regression models, the presence of high-grade lesions was a negative predictor for achieving SCB (OR [95% CI], 0.54 [0.29-0.96]) and low-grade lesions a negative predictor for achieving MCID (0.50 [0.27-0.92]. Among patients with high-grade lesions, there was no significant difference in 2-year iHOT-12 scores between those undergoing chondroplasty (n = 50) and those undergoing microfracture (n = 14) (P = .14). CONCLUSIONS: Acetabular cartilage damage portends inferior patient-reported outcomes 2 years after primary labral repair and treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. The presence of cartilage lesions was a negative predictor of individual achievement of several clinical thresholds. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Retrospective comparative cohort.

Cannabinoids in the Orthopedic Setting: A Literature Review.

Public interest in the analgesic potential of cannabinoids has grown, but there is no consensus regarding orthopedic applications. Available evidence was identified for cannabinoid use in arthritis, neuropathic pain, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, and postoperative pain. Extracted information included the risks of preoperative use, associations with opioid dependence, and surgical complications. There is limited evidence for therapeutic benefit of cannabinoids in rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia. Cannabinoids are not indicated for postoperative pain. Preoperative unregulated use has been linked with postoperative opioid dependence. Cannabinoids may be considered a second- or third-line treatment for analgesia for some orthopedic pathologies. [Orthopedics. 2022;45(4):e183-e189.].

Labral Degeneration Predicts Inferior Mid-Term Outcomes in Hip Labral Repair: A Multicenter Comparative Analysis.

PURPOSE: To analyze and compare the mid-term outcomes of hip arthroscopy for patients with and without labral degeneration from multiple orthopaedic centers. The purpose of this research is to develop an understanding of the impacts of labral degeneration on patient outcomes following arthroscopic treatment of labral tears. METHODS: A prospective multicenter hip arthroscopy registry was queried for primary surgeries from January 2014 to October 2017 with completed 2-year International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) reports. Patients were placed into cohorts based on the presence or absence of labral degeneration noted intraoperatively during hip arthroscopy. Degeneration was defined as yellowing, ossification, or calcification present in at least 50% of the labrum. Differences in baseline variation between groups were assessed with a Wilcoxon rank-sum test or χ2 test. Two-year outcomes were assessed with iHOT-12. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted while controlling for age, body mass index, sex, and preoperative iHOT-12 scores to identify significant predictors of achieving the clinically significant thresholds of minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient-acceptable symptom scale. RESULTS: In total, 735 patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 613 had complete outcomes information. Relative to the control group, the labral degeneration group was significantly older (mean age 44 ± 11 years vs 33 ± 12 years; P < .01). Both groups experienced statistically significant improvement in iHOT-12 scores from baseline to final follow-up (P < .001); however, patients with labral degeneration reported inferior 2-year iHOT-12 scores when compared with patients without degeneration (P < .001). In the logistic regression models, labral degeneration was a significant negative predictor of achieving iHOT-12 minimal clinically important difference (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.28-0.79), patient acceptable symptom state (OR 0.50; 95 CI 0.32-0.77), and substantial clinical benefit (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.37-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study conclude that patients with nondegenerative labral tissue at the time of repair have superior patient-reported outcomes at mid-term follow-up. The presence of labral degeneration was a negative predictor of achieving clinically significant thresholds after controlling for patient age, body mass index, sex, and baseline iHOT-12 scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.

Multicenter Outcomes After Primary Hip Arthroscopy: A Comparative Analysis of Two-Year Outcomes After Labral Repair, Segmental Labral Reconstruction, or Circumferential Labral Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: (1) To report minimum 2-year follow-up patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing labral repair (LR), segmental labral reconstruction (SLR), or circumferential labral reconstruction (CLR) in the primary setting; and (2) to compare minimum 2-year follow-up patient-reported outcome measures among these groups. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multicenter database of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy was performed. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for treatment of labral tear and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome between January 2014 and October 2017, and completion of minimum 2-year postoperative outcome scores. Exclusion criteria were patients undergoing revision hip surgery, labral treatment limited to debridement, lateral center-edge angle <20°, osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade > 1), slipped capital femoral epiphysis, workers compensation status, and patients undergoing concomitant gluteus medius and/or minimus repair. Labral reconstruction patients were matched (1:3) with labral repair patients on age, sex, and body mass index. The labral reconstruction group was further stratified into SLR, and CLR groups. Patient demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes including Hip Outcome Score - Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score - Sport Subscale, modified Harris Hip Score, international Hip Outcome Tool, and visual analog scale for pain were analyzed, as well as achievement of the minimal clinical improvement difference (MCID). A P-value less than .05 indicated statistical significance. RESULTS: A total of 416 patients were included (LR, n = 312; SLR, n = 53; CLR, n = 51). The age, body mass index, and sex of the matched cohort were 42.3 ± 11.2 years, 24.7 ± 3.7, and 55.0% female. At a minimum of 2-year after hip arthroscopic surgery, no differences were found in preoperative, postoperative, or the delta visual analog scale for pain, modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score - Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score - Sport Subscale, or international Hip Outcome Tool. Subsequently, the proportion of patients achieving the MCID and the PASS at latest follow-up were analyzed. This analysis revealed that no significant differences in the rate of MCID or PASS achievement for any outcome measure existed based on labral treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study on labral treatment in the primary setting, patients undergoing LR, SLR, and CLR demonstrated no difference in preoperative or postoperative scores, nor the proportion of patients achieving clinically significant outcome improvement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; therapeutic outcome study with controls.

Addressing Smoking in Musculoskeletal Specialty Care.

➤: Physicians who advise patients to quit smoking substantially improve cessation rates, but cessation counseling is currently underperformed. ➤: Counseling, pharmacotherapy, and additional interventions can improve the chance of successful smoking cessation. Most patients require multiple attempts at quitting to be successful. ➤: A list of referral contacts and resources should be developed and routinely offered to these patients. The national Quitline (1-800-QUIT-NOW) provides free access to trained counselors and "quit coaches" for each state program in the United States. ➤: Government and private insurance plans in the United States are required (in most cases) to cover the cost of 2 quitting attempts per year including counseling referrals and medications. ➤: Several biopsychosocial factors that affect orthopaedic outcomes (weight, anxiety, depression, etc.) are also relevant to smoking cessation; management of these factors is thus potentially aggregately advantageous.

Multicenter Outcomes After Revision Hip Arthroscopy: Comparative Analysis of 2-Year Outcomes After Labral Repair Versus Labral Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of literature evaluating patient outcomes in patients undergoing revision labral repair and labral reconstruction. PURPOSE: To compare outcomes in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for treatment of labral tears by labral repair or labral reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multicenter database of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy was performed. An a priori power analysis determined that a total of 62 patients were required. Patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for labral tears with completed 2-year outcome scores were included. Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy, labral debridement, concomitant gluteal repair, and patients with hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <20°) were excluded. Patients were grouped into revision labral repair and labral reconstruction groups. Patient demographics and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including Hip Outcome Score - Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score - Sport Subscale, modified Harris Hip Score, international Hip Outcome Tool-12, visual analog scale for pain and satisfaction, and achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients underwent revision labral repair and 55 patients underwent labral reconstruction. Patients undergoing revision labral repair were younger (mean age, 30.0 ± 10.7 years vs 34.4 ± 9.7 years; P = .048), had lower rates of labral degeneration (25.0% vs 62.7%; P = .004), and had lower rates of severe complexity of tears (21.1% vs 66.0%; P = .003). However, the labral repair group had higher rates of articular cartilage damage (62.5% vs 33.3%; P = .009). There were no differences in any preoperative or 2-year postoperative PROs. Furthermore, no differences were seen in achievement of MCID or PASS in any PRO. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter study on revision hip arthroscopy, patients undergoing revision labral repair were younger and had better labral characteristics but greater cartilage damage compared with patients undergoing labral reconstructions. Despite these differences, patients who underwent labral repair reported similar outcomes to those undergoing labral reconstruction.

Arthroscopic Treatment and Outcomes of Borderline Dysplasia With Acetabular Retroversion: A Matched-Control Study From the MASH Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Although acetabular retroversion (AR) occurs in dysplasia, management of the crossover sign (COS) or outcomes in borderline dysplasia (BD) with AR have not been reported. PURPOSE: To report any differences in the management of the COS in BD and nondysplastic hips and to report comparative outcomes of BD with AR with matched controls with BD or AR (ie, focal pincer femoroacetabular impingement [FAI]). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A multicenter matched-pair study was performed with data from a large prospectively collected database. Inclusion criteria were patients who had undergone primary unilateral hip arthroscopy including labral repair for FAI and/or chondral pathology without significant osteoarthritis (ie, Tönnis grade 0 or 1). The study group (BD+AR) was defined radiographically by lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) on standing anteroposterior pelvis of 18° to 25° and positive COS. A 1:1:1 matching on age, sex, and body mass index was performed with a control group with BD and another control group with AR (LCEA, >25°+COS). Acetabuloplasty rates were determined for each group. Mean 2-year outcomes including the 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), minimally clinical important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) scores were compared. Subanalysis of the study group both with and without acetabuloplasty was performed. RESULTS: There were 69 patients, with 23 in the study group and 23 in each control group. The effect of dysplasia with or without the presence of the COS resulted in changes in acetabuloplasty rates, with 0% performed in the BD group, 35% in the BD+AR study group, and 91% in the AR group (P = .001). Arthroscopic outcomes demonstrated similar and significant mean 2-year improvement of iHOT-12 patient-reported outcomes, MCID, SCB, and PASS scores in the study and both control groups. There was a trend within the study group toward greater postoperative iHOT-12 scores in patients who received anterior-based acetabuloplasty than those who did not receive acetabuloplasty (81.7 and 70.4, respectively; P = .11). CONCLUSION: Acetabular coverage influences the management of the COS, with significantly lower acetabuloplasty rates in BD with AR compared with AR without BD (focal pincer impingement). Symptomatic patients with combined BD and AR had similar significant successful outcomes to those of patients with BD and those with AR (focal pincer impingement), whether treated without acetabuloplasty or, less frequently, with limited anterior-based acetabuloplasty.

Allocation of Anchors During Labral Repair: A Multicenter Cohort Analysis of Labral Treatment in Hip Arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND: While previous studies have established several techniques for suture anchor repair of the acetabular labrum to bone during arthroscopic surgery, the current literature lacks evidence defining the appropriate number of suture anchors required to effectively restore the function of the labral tissue. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To define the location and size of labral tears identified during hip arthroscopy for acetabular labral treatment in a large multicenter cohort. The secondary purpose was to differentiate the number of anchors used during arthroscopic labral repair. The hypothesis was that the location and size of the labral tear as well as the number of anchors identified would provide a range of fixation density per acetabular region and fixation method to be used as a guide in performing arthroscopic repair. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We used a multicenter registry of prospectively collected hip arthroscopy cases to find patients who underwent arthroscopic labral repair by 1 of 7 orthopaedic surgeons between January 2015 and January 2017. The tear location and number of anchors used during repair were described using the clockface method, where 3 o'clock denoted the anterior extent of the tear and 9 o'clock the posterior extent, regardless of sidedness (left or right). Tear size was denoted as the number of "hours" spanned per clockface arc. Chi-square and univariate analyses of variance were performed to evaluate the data for both the entire group and among surgical centers. RESULTS: A total of 1978 hips underwent arthroscopic treatment of the acetabular labrum; the most common tear size had a 3-hour span (n = 820; 41.5%). Of these hips, 1645 received labral repair, with most common repair location at the 12- to 3-o'clock position (n = 537; 32.6%). The surgeons varied in number of anchors per repair according to labral size (P < .001 for all), using 1 to 1.6 anchors for 1-hour tears, 1.7 to 2.4 anchors for 2-hour tears, 2.1 to 3.2 anchors for 3-hour tears, and 2.2 to 4.1 for 4-hour tears. CONCLUSION: Variation existed in the number of anchor implants per tear size. When labral repair involved a mean clockface arc >2 hours, at least 2 anchor points were fixated.

Tenotomy for Iliopsoas Pathology is Infrequently Performed and Associated with Poorer Outcomes in Hips Undergoing Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to report prevalence of iliopsoas pathology in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), incidence of rendered tenotomy, and outcomes of hips with iliopsoas involvement compared with those with primary FAI. METHODS: A cohort study from a hip arthroscopy study group using a prospectively-collected multicenter database was performed. Patients who underwent isolated hip arthroscopy for FAI from January 2016 to March 2017 were assigned to the Iliopsoas group (defined as preoperative diagnosis of coxa saltans internus, intraoperative anteroinferior labral bruising or tear, and preoperative positive psoas injection) or control group. The prevalence of iliopsoas pathology, radiographic and intraoperative findings, and rendered procedures between groups were compared. Mean 2-year (minimum 1.8 year) outcomes of iliopsoas groups with and without rendered tenotomy and a control group were compared. RESULTS: There were 1393 subjects, of which 92 (7%) comprised the iliopsoas study group with 1301 subjects control subjects. Sixteen subjects in the iliopsoas group received tenotomy (17% of iliopsoas group, 1% of all subjects), whereas 76 subjects (83% of iliopsoas group) with iliopsoas involvement did not. There was significant effect on postoperative International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) scores based on iliopsoas involvement and treatment, F(2,1390) = 3.74, P = .02. Compared with the control group (M = 73, standard deviation [SD] = 24), the non-tenotomized iliopsoas group (M = 69, SD = 32) had similar postoperative scores (P = .46), whereas the tenotomized iliopsoas group (M = 57, SD = 28) averaged lower postoperative scores (P = .03). In the tenotomy group, 25% achieved the iHOT-12 substantial clinical benefit and patient acceptable symptomatic state value for normal function and 100% satisfaction, compared to 49% and 41% for the without tenotomy and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tenotomy in patients with iliopsoas pathology undergoing arthroscopic surgery for FAI is infrequently performed and is associated with poorer outcomes. Co-afflicted patients treated without tenotomy have similar successful outcomes to patients with primary FAI. Indiscriminate tenotomy for iliopsoas pathology in this setting should be cautiously considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, cohort study.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Clinically Important Outcome Values in Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Defining success in hip arthroscopy through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is complicated by the wide range of available questionnaires and overwhelming amount of information on how to interpret scores. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) are collectively known as clinically important outcome values (CIOVs). These CIOVs provide benchmarks for meaningful improvement. The aims of this review were to update the evidence regarding joint-specific PROMs used for hip arthroscopy and to collate available CIOVs in this population. METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed to identify studies reporting measurement properties of PROMs utilized for hip arthroscopy. Metrics of reliability, validity, and responsiveness were extracted and graded according to an international Delphi study. Questionnaire interpretability was evaluated through CIOVs. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were reviewed. One study validated a novel questionnaire, 3 studies validated existing questionnaires, and 22 studies reported CIOVs. The most evidence supporting interpretability was found for the Hip Outcome Score (HOS, 11 studies), modified Harris hip score (mHHS, 10 studies), and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12, 9 studies). Scores indicative of the smallest perceptible versus substantial clinically relevant changes were reported for the iHOT-12 (12 to 15 versus 22 to 28), iHOT-33 (10 to 12 versus 25 to 26), HOS-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL, 9 to 10 versus 10 to 16), HOS-Sports (14 to 15 versus 25 to 30), and mHHS (7 to 13 versus 20 to 23). Absolute postoperative scores indicative of an unsatisfactory versus a desirable outcome were reported for the iHOT-12 (below 56 to 63 versus above 86 to 88), iHOT-33 (below 58 versus above 64 to 82), HOS-ADL (below 87 to 92 versus above 94), HOS-Sports (below 72 to 80 versus above 78 to 86), and mHHS (below 74 to 85 versus above 83 to 95). CONCLUSIONS: Six questionnaires had reported clinically important outcome thresholds, with the HOS, mHHS, and iHOT-12 having the most information to support score interpretation. Thresholds for the HOS, mHHS, iHOT-12, and iHOT-33 describe desirable absolute PROM scores and minimum and substantial change scores within 5 years following hip arthroscopy. Despite substantial heterogeneity in calculation methodology, included cohorts, and follow-up time, available interpretability values could be meaningfully summarized. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In light of increasing use of PROMs in orthopaedics, a summary of the available CIOVs provides guidance for clinicians in mapping numerical scores from PROMs onto clinical benchmarks.

Substantial Loss to Follow-Up and Missing Data in National Arthroscopy Registries: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To report follow-up methodologies, compliance, and existing strategies for handling missing data in national arthroscopy registries collecting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: Annual reports, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were queried following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify national arthroscopy registries reporting follow-up with a validated PROM and sample size greater than 500. Extracted data included weighted compliance in peer-reviewed publications, cumulative compliance throughout the time span of data collection, and missing-data methodologies. RESULTS: Nine national arthroscopy registries currently collect PROMs, with cumulative rates of follow-up ranging from less than 10% to more than 70%. We identified 36 publications from 5 national registries reporting hip and knee arthroscopies. The weighted mean compliance with PROMs in national registry publications was 56% at 0.5 years, 44% to 59% at 1 year, 40% to 61% at 2 years, 35% to 54% at 5 years, and 40% at 10 years. A missing-data analysis was reported or referenced in 58% of publications. CONCLUSIONS: In national arthroscopy registries, compliance with 2-year PROMs does not meet traditional follow-up thresholds of 60% or 80% and reporting of missing-data methodologies is inconsistent. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II through IV studies.

Multicenter Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy: Comparative Analysis of Patients Undergoing Concomitant Labral Repair and Ligamentum Teres Debridement Versus Isolated Labral Repair.

BACKGROUND: Increased attention has been directed toward the ligamentum teres (LT) and its association with acetabular coverage, labral pathology, and hip microinstability; however, few studies have evaluated whether LT pathology influences the rate of clinically significant outcome improvement after hip arthroscopy. PURPOSE: To determine if patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) undergoing labral repair and concomitant LT debridement achieve outcomes similar to patients without LT pathology undergoing labral repair. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multicenter database for hip arthroscopy. Included were patients with FAIS who underwent primary labral repair and who had preoperative and minimum 2-year postoperative outcome scores. Patients diagnosed with concomitant partial LT tear were identified and matched 1:3 according to age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) to patients without LT pathology. The following clinical outcomes were compared between groups: modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sport Subscale, International Hip Outcome Tool, and visual analog scale for pain and satisfaction. Achievement of the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state was also compared between groups. RESULTS: This study included 124 patients with FAIS with labral tear and concomitant partial LT tear and 372 patients with labral tear and no LT pathology. The age, BMI, and sex of the matched cohort were 38.0 ± 12.0 years (mean ± SD), 24.3 ± 3.6 kg/m2, and 62.0% female, respectively. No significant difference in age, BMI, sex, workers' compensation status, or duration of pain was observed at baseline. Analysis of radiographic parameters indicated that patients who underwent isolated labral repair had a lower preoperative Tönnis angle (4.8° ± 4.4° vs 6.3° ± 5.4°; P = .006). There were no significant differences between groups on any pre- or postoperative outcome measure, and there were no significant differences in the proportion of patients who achieved the minimal clinically important difference or patient acceptable symptomatic state on any outcome measure. CONCLUSION: Patients with labral tear and concomitant partial LT tear experienced similar preoperative scores and achieved similar outcomes as patients with isolated labral tears after hip arthroscopy.

Arthroscopic classification of intra-articular hip pathology demonstrates at best moderate interrater reliability.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to report several novel classification systems for intra-articular lesions observed during hip arthroscopy, and to quantify the interrater reliability of both these novel systems and existing classifications of intra-articular lesions when tested by a group of high-volume hip arthroscopists. METHODS: Five hip arthroscopists deliberated over shortcomings in current classification systems and developed several novel grading systems with particular effort made to capture factors important to the treatment and outcomes of hip arthroscopy for labral injury. A video learning module describing the classifications was then developed from the video archive of surgeries performed by the senior author and reviewed by study participants. Following review of the module, a pilot study was completed using five randomly selected videos, after which participating surgeons met once more to discuss points of disagreement and to seek clarification. The final video collection for testing reliability was composed of 29 videos selected with the intent of capturing all sublevels of each classification scheme. Study participants recorded their assessments using each classification scheme, and interrater reliability was calculated by a study participant not involved in grading. RESULTS: The average kappa coefficients for the classification schemes ranged from 0.38 to 0.54, with the interrater reliability of all classification schemes except labral degeneration qualifying as moderate. The percent of cases with absolute agreement ranged from 17.2% to 51.7% across the classification systems. CONCLUSIONS: Even among a group of high-volume hip arthroscopists who engaged in several discussions about the proposed classification schemes, grades were found to have at best moderate interrater reliability. Moderate interrater reliability is demonstrated for novel grading systems for describing labral tear complexity, labral bruising, labral size, and extent of synovitis, and fair reliability is demonstrated for labral degeneration. Further development and refinement of multifactorial grading systems for describing labral injury are indicated. Evaluating the multifactorial nature of intra-articular lesions in the hip is an important part of intraoperative decision-making and defining reliable classifications for intra-articular lesions is a critical first step towards developing generalizable criteria for guiding treatment type. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Risk of intra-articular hip injury in adolescent athletes: a five-year multicentre cohort study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the current study was to establish a risk stratification for hip injury by presenting the classification of sports among adolescent athletes undergoing hip arthroscopy. METHODS: A multicentre registry was queried to examine the incidence of adolescent athletes undergoing hip arthroscopy. Patients were identified and grouped according to their sport-specific risk classification (level I-III). Chi-square analysis was performed to determine the relationship of classification of sport and gender in adolescent athletes to hip arthroscopy. A second chi-square analysis was performed to determine the relationship of classification of sport and number of sports the adolescent athlete was participating in prior to arthroscopic hip surgery. RESULTS: A total of 297 adolescent athletes were included in the study with 129 (43.4%) participating in level I sports compared with 84 (28.3%) in level II and 84(28.3%) in level III sports. Chi-square testing demonstrated a significant effect on gender and sport classification, X2 (2, N = 297) = 31.18, p < 0.01. There was a greater percentage of athletes participating in a single sport (65.3%) compared with multiple sports (34.6%), but was not statistically significant, X2 (1, N = 297) = 1.88, p = 0.17. CONCLUSION: The current study was successful in stratifying a large, multicentre cohort of adolescent athletes requiring hip arthroscopy based on classification levels of sport. There were more male athletes participating in level I sports, while more female athletes participated in level II and level III sports.