Use of Opioids and Nonopioid Analgesics to Treat Pediatric Postoperative Pain in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: The incidence, demographic characteristics, and treatment approaches for pediatric patients who present to the ED with a primary complaint of postoperative pain have not been well described. The purpose of this study was to describe opioid and nonopioid prescribing patterns for pediatric patients evaluated for postoperative pain in the Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: Pediatric Health Information System is an administrative database of encounter-level data from 48 children's hospitals. Emergency department visits for postoperative pain from January 2014 to September 2017 were analyzed. Visits were matched by the Pediatric Health Information System identifier to associate corresponding same site surgery encounters directly preceding ED visits. RESULTS: There were 7365 ED visits for acute postoperative pain, for which 4044 could be linked to corresponding surgical procedure. Eight-one percent of ED visits were within 7 days of surgery. Opioids were given at 1979 (49%) of visits, and nonopioids at 678 (17%) of visits. The most common surgeries preceding a postoperative pain ED visit were for tonsils and adenoids (48.5%). Age, sex, length of stay for both procedure and ED visits, procedure specialty, and the number of days between procedure discharge and admission to ED were associated with opioid administration during ED visits (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric patients treated in the ED for postoperative pain were often treated with opioid and nonopioid analgesics, with wide prescriber variability. Further research is warranted to help balance optimal pain management and safe prescribing practices.

Outcomes of Revision Hip Arthroscopy: 2-Year Clinical Follow-up.

PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical outcomes, pain, and patient satisfaction following revision hip arthroscopy with a minimum 2-year follow-up. METHODS: From April 2008 to October 2011, data were prospectively collected on all patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively with 4 patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: the modified Harris hip score (mHHS), nonarthritic hip score (NAHS), hip outcome score-activities of daily living (HOS-ADL), and hip outcome score-sport-specific subscales (HOS-SSS). Pain was estimated on the visual analog scale (VAS). Patient satisfaction was measured on a scale from 0 to 10. The number of patients who underwent subsequent revision arthroscopy or total hip arthroplasty during the study period is also reported. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy during the study period. Seventy (80.5%) patients were included in our study. Average follow-up time was 28 months (range, 20 to 47.4 months). In terms of residual femoroacetabular impingement morphology, 45.7% of patients had preoperative alpha angles ≥ 55°, and 7.14% of patients had a lateral center-edge angle ≥ 40°. The score improvement from preoperative to 2-year follow-up was 57.84 to 73.65 for mHHS, 62.79 to 83.04 for HOS-ADL, 37.33 to 54.93 for HOS-SSS, and 55.65 to 70.79 for NAHS. VAS decreased from 6.72 to 4.08. All scores demonstrated statistically significant improvement (P < .001). Overall patient satisfaction was 7.67. Our success rate was 74.58%. Ten (14.29%) patients underwent total hip arthroplasty during the study period. Our hip survivorship was 85.7%. Five (7.14%) patients underwent secondary revision hip arthroscopy during the study period. We found an overall minor complication rate of 10%. CONCLUSIONS: Revision hip arthroscopy for all procedures performed on aggregate has improved clinical outcomes for all PROs, high survivorship, and high patient satisfaction scores at short-term follow-up. Patients should be counseled regarding the potential progression of degenerative change leading to arthroplasty and the potential for revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV retrospective case series.

Clinical results of hip arthroscopy for labral tears: a comparison between intraoperative platelet-rich plasma and bupivacaine injection.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective comparative study was to evaluate the effect of intraoperative platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection on the outcomes of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for labral treatment. METHODS: During the period from November 2010 through March 2012, all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for labral tears were considered for this study. The study group received intra-articular PRP at the end of the operation, and the control group received an intra-articular injection of 0.25% bupivacaine. Selection for the study group was based on the day of the week on which the patient underwent surgery. The protocol included administration of 4 hip-specific patient-reported outcome tools. Patients also reported their pain score on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10. Scores were recorded at the preoperative visit and at 3 months and 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: A minimum of 2 years' follow-up was available for 306 patients. Thirteen patients (4.2%) underwent conversion to total hip arthroplasty and 24 patients (7.8%) underwent revision hip arthroscopy, which left 91 patients in the study group and 180 patients in the control group. The study group had slightly higher pain scores than the control group (3.4 v 2.5) 2 years after surgery (P = .005). No difference in pain scores was identified at 3 months postoperatively. The 2-year modified Harris Hip Score was slightly lower in the study group (78.6) than in the control group (82.6) (P = .049). No significant difference was observed for the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale, or Non-Arthritic Hip Score at any time point. There was no significant difference between groups for conversion to total hip arthroplasty or revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the results of this study, intraoperative PRP injection does not appear to improve the clinical results of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for labral treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.

Labral injury: radiographic predictors at the time of hip arthroscopy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of multiple demographic and radiographic findings on the size of labral tears identified at the time of hip arthroscopy. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected for patients treated with arthroscopic labral repair or debridement from February 2008 to August 2011. Preoperative radiographic and demographic data were collected for 392 patients during the study period. Exclusion criteria included revision surgery and previous hip conditions. An anteroposterior pelvic view, 45° Dunn view, and false-profile view were used to measure Tönnis grade, neck-shaft angle, alpha angle, lateral center edge angle (LCEA), anterior center edge angle (ACEA), acetabular inclination, and the extent of crossover sign when present. At the time of surgery, labral tear size and location were documented for all patients, using traditional acetabular clock face nomenclature for sizing. A multiple linear regression analysis was then performed to assess the correlation of radiographic and demographic findings with the size of the labral tear. RESULTS: Regression analysis displayed statistical significance for sex (P < .0001), age (P < .0001), and alpha angle (P = .005) with labral tear size. For female patients, Tönnis grade (P = .0004) and neck-shaft angle (P = .004) correlated with labral tear size. This model accounted for only 26% of variation in labral tear size. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative risk factors for the extent of labral tear size are male sex, increasing age, and increasing alpha angle. Labral tears were larger in female patients with higher Tönnis grades and lower neck-shaft angles. Measurements of acetabular coverage and version showed no correlation with labral tear size. The majority of labral tear size variation was not accounted for in this model. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Concomitant Hip Arthroscopy and Periacetabular Osteotomy.

PURPOSE: To detail our early experience using concomitant hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for the treatment of acetabular dysplasia. METHODS: We prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed the surgical and outcome data of 17 patients who underwent concomitant hip arthroscopy and PAO between October 2010 and July 2013. Preoperative and postoperative range of motion, outcome and pain scores, and radiographic data were collected. Intraoperative arthroscopic findings and postoperative complications were recorded. RESULTS: The group consisted of 3 male and 14 female patients with a mean follow-up period of 2.4 years. Three patients had undergone previous surgery on the affected hip. Chondrolabral pathology was identified in all 17 patients. Twelve patients underwent labral repair, and five patients underwent partial labral debridement. No patient was converted to total hip arthroplasty or required revision surgery at short-term follow-up. All 4 patient-reported outcome scores showed statistically significant changes from baseline to latest follow-up (P < .001). An excellent outcome was obtained in 82% of patients (13 of 16). The lateral center-edge angle averaged 11° preoperatively and 29° postoperatively. The acetabular inclination averaged 18° preoperatively and 3° postoperatively. The anterior center-edge angle averaged 7° preoperatively and 27° postoperatively. At most recent radiographic follow-up, 1 patient had progression of arthritic changes but remained asymptomatic. No other patient showed any radiographic evidence of progression of arthritis. Complications included 3 superficial wound infections, 1 pulmonary embolism, and 1 temporary sciatic neurapraxia. CONCLUSIONS: Our initial experience with concomitant hip arthroscopy and PAO has been favorable. We noted that all our patients have evidence of chondrolabral damage at the time of PAO when the joint is distracted and evaluated. All patients in this series had intra-articular pathology treated arthroscopically and showed satisfactory mean clinical improvement. Hip arthroscopy with PAO did not appear to introduce complications beyond the PAO alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Influence of capsular repair versus unrepaired capsulotomy on 2-year clinical outcomes after arthroscopic hip preservation surgery.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether capsular management technique influences clinical outcomes at a minimum of 2 years after arthroscopic hip preservation surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted to determine the relative influence of 2 capsular management strategies on clinical outcomes: unrepaired capsulotomy (group A) and capsular repair (group B). Four hundred three patients who had undergone arthroscopic hip preservation surgery met the inclusion criteria and had 2-year outcome data available. All patients completed 4 patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. These included the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) subsets, Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). RESULTS: Group A included 235 patients and group B, 168. The mean age of all patients at final follow-up was 36.9 years. Patients in group A were significantly older (42.3 years v 29.4 years, P < .0001) and had a significantly higher body mass index (26.8 kg/m(2)v 22.9 kg/m(2), P < .0001) compared with group B. In addition, female patients were more likely than male patients to undergo capsular repair (136 female patients v 32 male patients, P < .0001). Patients in group A also showed greater chondral damage by acetabular labrum articular disruption classification (P = .0081) and reduced preoperative PROs (HOS-ADL of 60.5 v 66.0, P = .087; HOS-SSS of 37.0 v 46.4, P = .0002; NAHS of 54.6 v 62.2, P < .0001; mHHS of 58.7 v 64.4, P = .0009; and visual analog scale score of 6.3 v 5.84, P = .028). All PROs showed statistically significant improvements for both groups at a minimum follow-up of 2 years (HOS-ADL, 60.5 to 82.2 in group A and 66 to 86.1 in group B; HOS-SSS, 36.9 to 67.3 and 46.4 to 71.2, respectively; NAHS, 54.6 to 79 and 62.2 to 82.8, respectively; visual analog scale score, 6.3 to 3.1 and 5.8 to 2.9, respectively; and mHHS, 58.7 to 81 and 64.4 to 83.8, respectively; P < .0001 for all differences). Furthermore, group B showed greater overall improvements than group A for the HOS-ADL (P = .03) and NAHS (P = .03) on uncorrected univariate analysis, but significance was lost once we controlled for confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic capsular repair, used in conjunction with arthroscopic hip preservation surgery, appears to be safe and did not negatively influence clinical outcomes in this study. When confounding variables were controlled for, the use of capsular repair did not show clinically relevant superiority over the use of unrepaired capsulotomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

A matched-pair controlled study of microfracture of the hip with average 2-year follow-up: do full-thickness chondral defects portend an inferior prognosis in hip arthroscopy?

PURPOSE: This study compared 2-year clinical outcomes in hip arthroscopy patients treated with microfracture to a matched control group without full-thickness chondral damage. METHODS: During the study period between June 2008 and July 2011, data were collected on all patients treated with hip arthroscopy who underwent microfracture. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively with 4 patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Pain was estimated on the visual analog scale (VAS), and satisfaction was measured on a scale from 0 to 10. A matched-pair group of patients who did not undergo microfracture was selected in a 1:2 ratio. Matching criteria were age within 5 years, sex, surgical procedures, and radiographic findings. RESULTS: Average follow-up for the study was 26.66 months (17.29 to 48.89 months). Forty-nine hips were included in the microfracture group and 98 hips were in entered in the nonmicrofracture group, with no significant difference in PRO scores preoperatively between the groups. Both groups had statistically significant postoperative improvement in all scores, and the average amount of change from preoperative to postoperative scores between the 2 groups was not statistically significantly different for any of the PRO scores. Most importantly, there was no statistically significant difference in postoperative PRO scores between the microfracture and control groups. Patient satisfaction was 6.9 for the microfracture group and 7.84 for the nonmicrofracture group, which was statistically significant (P < .05). When comparing patients who received acetabular microfracture to those who received femoral microfracture, both groups had similar preoperative and postoperative PRO scores, with no significant difference in the magnitude of change (delta) at final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that patients undergoing microfracture during hip arthroscopy did not show a statistically significant difference in PRO scores when compared with a matched-pair control group at an average of 2 years of follow-up. Both groups showed significant improvement in all PRO scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, matched case-control study.

Best Practices During Hip Arthroscopy: Aggregate Recommendations of High-Volume Surgeons.

PURPOSE: To survey surgeons who perform a high volume of hip arthroscopy procedures regarding their operative technique, type of procedure, and postoperative management. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 27 high-volume orthopaedic surgeons specializing in hip arthroscopy to report their preferences and practices related to their operative practice and postoperative rehabilitation protocol. All participants completed the survey in person in an anonymous fashion during a meeting of the American Hip Institute. RESULTS: All surgeons perform hip arthroscopy with the patient in the supine position, accessing the central compartment of the hip initially, using intraoperative fluoroscopy. All surgeons perform labral repair (100%), with the majority performing labral reconstructions (77.8%) and gluteus medius repairs (81.5%). There is variability in the type of anchors used during labral repair. Most surgeons perform capsular closure in most cases (88.9%), inject either intra-articular cortisone or platelet-rich plasma at the conclusion of the procedure (59%), and prescribe a postoperative hip brace for some or all patients (59%). There is considerable variability in rehabilitation protocols. All surgeons routinely prescribe postoperative heterotopic ossification prophylaxis to their patients, with most surgeons (88.9%) prescribing a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication for 3 weeks. Forty percent of the respondents use the modified Harris Hip Score as the most important outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent practices such as use of intraoperative fluoroscopy, heterotopic ossification prophylaxis, and labral repair skills were identified by surveying 27 hip arthroscopy surgeons at high-volume centers. Most of the surgeons performed routine capsular closure unless underlying conditions precluded capsular release or plication. The survey identified higher variability between surgeons regarding postoperative rehabilitation protocols and use of intra-articular pharmacologic injections at the end of the procedure. These data may provide surgeons with a set of aggregate trends that may help guide training, clinical practice, and research in the evolving field of hip arthroscopy.

Hip Arthroplasty or Medical Management: A Challenging Treatment Decision for Younger Patients.

The two main treatment options for total hip arthroplasty (THA), medical management and surgical intervention, have advantages and disadvantages, creating a challenging decision. Treatment decisions are further complicated in a younger population (≤50) as the potential need for revision surgery is probable. We examined the relationship of selected variables to the decision-making process for younger patients with symptomatic OA. Thirty-five participants chose surgical intervention and 36 selected medical management for their current treatment. Pain, activity restrictions, and total WOMAC scores were statistically significant (P < .05) for patients selecting surgical intervention. No difference in quality of life was shown between groups. Pain was the only predictor variable identified, however, activity restrictions were also influential variables as these were highly correlated with pain.

Comparison of robotic-assisted and conventional acetabular cup placement in THA: a matched-pair controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Improper acetabular component orientation in THA has been associated with increased dislocation rates, component impingement, bearing surface wear, and a greater likelihood of revision. Therefore, any reasonable steps to improve acetabular component orientation should be considered and explored. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We therefore sought to compare THA with a robotic-assisted posterior approach with manual alignment techniques through a posterior approach, using a matched-pair controlled study design, to assess whether the use of the robot made it more likely for the acetabular cup to be positioned in the safe zones described by Lewinnek et al. and Callanan et al. METHODS: Between September 2008 and September 2012, 160 THAs were performed by the senior surgeon. Sixty-two patients (38.8%) underwent THA using a conventional posterior approach, 69 (43.1%) underwent robotic-assisted THA using the posterior approach, and 29 (18.1%) underwent radiographic-guided anterior-approach THAs. From September 2008 to June 2011, all patients were offered anterior or posterior approaches regardless of BMI and anatomy. Since introduction of the robot in June 2011, all THAs were performed using the robotic technique through the posterior approach, unless a patient specifically requested otherwise. The radiographic cup positioning of the robotic-assisted THAs was compared with a matched-pair control group of conventional THAs performed by the same surgeon through the same posterior approach. The safe zone (inclination, 30°-50°; anteversion, 5°-25°) described by Lewinnek et al. and the modified safe zone (inclination, 30°-45°; anteversion, 5°-25°) of Callanan et al. were used for cup placement assessment. Matching criteria were gender, age ± 5 years, and (BMI) ± 7 units. After exclusions, a total of 50 THAs were included in each group. Strong interobserver and intraobserver correlations were found for all radiographic measurements (r > 0.82; p < 0.001). RESULTS: One hundred percent (50/50) of the robotic-assisted THAs were within the safe zone described by Lewinnek et al. compared with 80% (40/50) of the conventional THAs (p = 0.001). Ninety-two percent (46/50) of robotic-assisted THAs were within the modified safe zone described by Callanan et al. compared with 62% (31/50) of conventional THAs p (p = 0.001). The odds ratios for an implanted cup out of the safe zones of Lewinnek et al. and Callanan et al. were zero and 0.142, respectively (95% CI, 0.044, 0.457). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the robot allowed for improvement in placement of the cup in both safe zones, an important parameter that plays a significant role in long-term success of THA. However, whether the radiographic improvements we observed will translate into clinical benefits for patients-such as reductions in component impingement, acetabular wear, and prosthetic dislocations, or in terms of improved longevity-remains unproven.

The effect of liposomal bupivacaine injection during total hip arthroplasty: a controlled cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesia following total hip arthroplasty has been shown to improve patient satisfaction, participation with physical therapy, and allow early return to self care. Liposomal bupivacaine is a formulation of local anesthetic which has the potential to provide anesthesia for up to 72 hours following administration. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine with bupivacaine following total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 28 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty or hip resurfacing who received intraoperative administration of liposomal bupivacaine. A control group of 30 patients who had previously undergone total hip arthroplasty or hip resurfacing and had received intraoperative administration of bupivacaine also underwent a chart review. Length of stay, post-operative opioid use, and pain scores were compared for both groups. RESULTS: The average length of stay in the study group was 1.93 days and the control group length of stay was 2.47 days (p ≤ 0.05). Morphine equivalent use was less in the study group during the first 24 hours compared to the control group (p ≤0.05). During the second and third 24 hours the morphine equivalent use difference was not statistically significant. Visual analogue scores were not significantly different between groups at any time point. CONCLUSION: Liposomal bupivacaine administration during total hip arthroplasty appears to decrease the need for opioid use post operatively and decrease length of stay. The results of this study justify the need for a well-designed randomized controlled trial utilizing liposomal bupivacaine as part of multimodal analgesia during THA.

Revision hip preservation surgery with hip arthroscopy: clinical outcomes.

PURPOSE: To analyze and report the clinical outcomes of a cohort of patients who underwent revision hip preservation with arthroscopy and determine predictors of positive and negative outcomes. METHODS: During the study period from April 2008 to December 2010, all patients who underwent revision hip preservation with arthroscopy were included. This included patients who had previous open surgery and underwent revision with arthroscopy. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores were obtained preoperatively and at 3-month, 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year follow-up time points. Any revision surgeries and conversions to total hip arthroplasty were noted. A multiple regression analysis was performed to look for positive and negative predictive factors for improvement in PROs after revision hip arthroscopy. RESULTS: Forty-seven hips in 43 patients had completed 2 years' follow-up or needed total hip arthroplasty. The mean length of follow-up was 29 months (range, 24 to 47 months). Of the hips, 31 (66%) had either unaddressed or incompletely treated femoroacetabular impingement. There was a significant improvement in all PRO scores at a mean of 29 months after revision (P < .0001). The visual analog scale score improved from 7.3 ± 1.5 to 3.9 ± 2.5 (P < .0001). Improvements in the Non-Arthritic Hip Score of at least 10 points and 20 points were found in 28 hips (65%) and 19 hips (44%), respectively. Four hips in 3 patients required conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Positive predictive factors for PRO improvement were previous open surgery, pincer impingement, cam impingement, symptomatic heterotopic ossification, and segmental labral defects treated with labral reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of multiple PROs, revision hip preservation with hip arthroscopy can achieve moderately successful outcomes and remains a viable treatment strategy after failed primary hip preservation surgery. Preoperative predictors of success after revision hip arthroscopy include segmental labral defects, unaddressed or incompletely addressed femoroacetabular impingement, heterotopic ossification, and previous open surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

The hip-spine syndrome: how does back pain impact the indications and outcomes of hip arthroscopy?

PURPOSE: Many patients presenting with hip disease also have coexisting lumbar spine disease (LSD). At present there is a paucity of literature examining the effect of arthroscopic hip surgery in patients with coexisting LSD. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the relationship between the hip and lumbar spine to determine whether low back pain impacts the indications and outcomes for surgical intervention of the hip. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed by a search of PubMed using the following search terms: (1) hip, back, and motion; (2) hip, back, and pain; and (3) hip, lumbar spine, and pain. Two reviewers searched for relevant articles that met established inclusion criteria. We excluded review articles, technique articles, articles reporting on the same patient population, and articles without reported patient data. Kinematic data pertaining to the hip for patients with low back pain was collected. Preoperative and postoperative data were collected for patients treated for hip disease in the setting of LSD. RESULTS: After examining 2,020 references and abstracts, 15 articles were selected for this review. Patients with low back pain consistently demonstrated decreased hip range of motion compared with controls. Patients undergoing hip surgery with coexisting LSD showed improvement in the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Harris Hip Score (HHS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), SF-36 scores, and the Owestry Disability Index. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with low back pain frequently have limited or altered hip range of motion, and these patients routinely improve after surgical intervention for hip disease. Surgical intervention for hip disease should be considered in the context of low back pain and LSD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Arthroscopic labral base repair in the hip: clinical results of a described technique.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a cohort of patients who underwent labral repair by use of a previously published labral base repair suture technique for the treatment of acetabular labral tears and pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). METHODS: Patients who received hip arthroscopy for symptomatic intra-articular hip disorders and underwent the previously described labral base repair technique were included in the study group. Patients who had Tönnis arthritis grade 2 or greater, had Legg-Calves-Perthes disease, or underwent simple looped stitch repair were excluded. The patient-reported outcome scores included the modified Harris Hip Score, the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, and the Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale obtained preoperatively and at 2 years' and 3 years' follow-up. Any complications, revision surgeries, and conversions to total hip arthroplasty were noted. RESULTS: Of the patients, 54 (82%) were available for follow-up. The mean length of follow-up for this cohort was 2.4 years (range, 1.7 to 4.1 years). At final follow-up, there was significant improvement in all 4 patient-reported outcome scores (modified Harris Hip Score, 63.7 to 89.9; Non-Arthritic Hip Score, 60.9 to 87.9; Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, 66.9 to 91.0; and Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale, 46.5 to 79.2) (P < .0001). A good or excellent result was achieved in 46 patients (85.2%). There was significant improvement in pain as measured by the change in visual analog scale score from 6.5 to 2.3 (P < .0001), and the patient satisfaction rating was 8.56 ± 2.01. There were no perioperative complications. Revision surgery was required in 3 patients (5.6%), and 2 patients (3.7%) required conversion to total hip arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical results of this labral base repair technique showed favorable clinical improvements based on 4 patient-reported outcome questionnaires, visual analog scale, and patient satisfaction. More clinical, biomechanical, and histologic studies are needed to determine the optimal repair technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Radiographic, histologic, and arthroscopic findings in amorphous calcifications of the hip labrum.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical, radiographic, histologic, and intraoperative findings of an amorphous calcification involving the acetabular labrum. METHODS: From October 2008 to April 2013, all patients who underwent arthroscopic hip surgery for symptomatic intra-articular hip disorders and were found to have the characteristic calcific deposit involving the acetabular labrum were included. These patients were reviewed retrospectively on prospectively collected data. Radiographs were retrospectively evaluated for morphologic features of impingement and characteristics of labral calcification. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were identified as having amorphous calcification at the time of arthroscopy. There were 15 women and 1 man. Mean age was 37.3 years (range, 30 to 50 years). Symptoms were present for a mean of 9.3 months (range, 3 to 48 months). All patients reported anterior groin pain. Fifteen (94%) patients had positive anterior impingement and 9 (56%) had positive results for lateral impingement. Calcifications measured on average 3.2 mm (range, 1.9 mm to 5.6 mm), and 14 had a clear separation from the rim with increased opacity compared with neighboring trabecular bone. Intraoperatively, the characteristic amorphous calcium deposit was located in the anterosuperior labrum, with the deposit found to be accessible from the capsule-labral recess in all cases. All patients had labral tears and all patients had at least one component of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). CONCLUSIONS: Calcification in the anterosuperior acetabular labrum presents with a consistent patient demographic and distinct radiographic and arthroscopic presentation that is different from os acetabuli. As with os acetabuli, one should have a high suspicion for FAI when this lesion is encountered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Endoscopic repair of a chronic incomplete proximal hamstring avulsion in a cheerleader.

: Injuries to the hamstring muscle are common among athletes, especially strains at the myotendinal junction that respond well to nonoperative treatment. Proximal hamstring avulsion injuries can be severely debilitating, and the role of endoscopic treatment for these injuries has not been explored. This article describes the case report of a 16-year-old girl who was diagnosed with incomplete proximal hamstring avulsion showing no improvement despite extensive nonoperative treatment. The patient was treated by endoscopic repair in the prone position using a novel technique. Her preoperative pain on the ischial tubercle and while sitting disappeared completely 3 months postoperatively.

Prehospital point-of-care testing for troponin: are the results reliable?

BACKGROUND: Swift assessment of patients presenting with chest pain results in faster treatment and improved outcomes. Allowing ambulance crews to use point-of-care (POC) devices to measure cardiac troponin I levels during transport of patients to the emergency department (ED) may result in earlier diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, particularly in those patients without ST-segment elevation. The ability of POC devices to measure cardiac troponin I levels reliably in a moving ambulance has not previously been tested. Objective. This study was conducted to determine whether POC devices operated in a moving ambulance reliably duplicate the measurement of cardiac troponin I levels obtained by POC devices in the ED. METHODS: Blood samples were obtained in the ED and the hospital from patients reporting chest pain or other cardiac complaints. Troponin I assays were then performed in a moving ambulance using two POC devices. The POC devices were placed on flat surfaces in the rear of the ambulance. The ambulance driver was instructed to keep the ambulance moving in traffic while each assay was completed. A variety of routes were taken. Each set of two assays was completed entirely during a single simulated run. The results of the two assays performed in the moving ambulance were then compared with the results of the control assay, which was performed simultaneously in the ED on the same sample. RESULTS: Forty-two whole-blood samples underwent troponin I assays in a moving ambulance. Thirteen (30.9%) assays were positive. One (2.4%) was excluded because of cartridge error. Two (4.8%) were excluded because of interfering substance. No significant difference in whole-blood troponin results was found between the assays performed in the moving ambulance and those performed in the ED (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.997; 95% confidence interval 0.994 to 0.998; p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: When used in a moving ambulance, the POC device provided results of cardiac troponin I assays that were highly correlated to the results when the device was used in the ED. The feasibility, practicality, and clinical utility of prehospital use of POC devices must still be assessed. Key words: point-of-care systems; prehospital emergency care; troponin; reliability of results; ambulances; myocardial infarction; chest pain.

Surgical dislocation of the hip versus arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: a prospective matched-pair study with average 2-year follow-up.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to prospectively compare outcomes of patients receiving surgical hip dislocation and those undergoing arthroscopic treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), using a matched-pair analysis. METHODS: Between January 2008 and August 2011, patients aged 30 years or younger with a diagnosis of FAI treated with surgical dislocation or arthroscopy were included. Patients were excluded with Tönnis grade 2 or greater, dysplasia, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, and previous hip surgery. Patients treated with surgical dislocation were pair-matched to patients treated arthroscopically in a 1:2 ratio. Patient-reported outcomes were prospectively obtained in all patients preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 months, at 1 year, at 2 years, and at latest follow-up. Alpha angles were measured preoperatively and postoperatively for both groups. Revision surgery and complications were recorded for each group. RESULTS: Ten patients were included in the surgical dislocation group, and 20 pair-matched patients were included in the arthroscopic group. We obtained 100% follow-up at a mean of 24.8 months in the open group and 25.5 months in the arthroscopic group. Preoperative scores were similar between the 2 groups; significant improvements were made postoperatively for both groups. When we compared the 2 groups, the change in Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (42.8 v 23.5, P = .047) and 2-year Non-Arthritic Hip Score (94.2 v 85.7, P = .01) were significantly higher in the arthroscopic group. Both groups showed a significant decrease in the alpha angle postoperatively (P = .775). CONCLUSIONS: Favorable results were shown with both approaches, with significant improvement in all patient-reported outcome measures and high patient satisfaction ratings. However, arthroscopic treatment of FAI showed greater improvement in the Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale and a higher absolute Non-Arthritic Hip Score at an average 2-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective matched-pair comparative study.

Barriers to and solutions for representative inclusion across the lifespan and in life course research: The need for structural competency highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Exclusion of special populations (older adults; pregnant women, children, and adolescents; individuals of lower socioeconomic status and/or who live in rural communities; people from racial and ethnic minority groups; individuals from sexual or gender minority groups; and individuals with disabilities) in research is a pervasive problem, despite efforts and policy changes by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations. These populations are adversely impacted by social determinants of health (SDOH) that reduce access and ability to participate in biomedical research. In March 2020, the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute hosted the "Lifespan and Life Course Research: integrating strategies" "Un-Meeting" to discuss barriers and solutions to underrepresentation of special populations in biomedical research. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how exclusion of representative populations in research can increase health inequities. We applied findings of this meeting to perform a literature review of barriers and solutions to recruitment and retention of representative populations in research and to discuss how findings are important to research conducted during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We highlight the role of SDOH, review barriers and solutions to underrepresentation, and discuss the importance of a structural competency framework to improve research participation and retention among special populations.