ChatGPT has Educational Potential: Assessing ChatGPT Responses to Common Patient Hip Arthroscopy Questions.

PURPOSE: To assess the ability of ChatGPT to answer common patient questions regarding hip arthroscopy, and to analyze the accuracy and appropriateness of its responses. METHODS: Ten questions were selected from well-known patient education websites, and ChatGPT (version 3.5) responses to these questions were graded by two fellowship-trained hip preservation surgeons. Responses were analyzed, compared to the current literature, and graded from A to D (A being the highest, and D being the lowest) in a grading scale based on the accuracy and completeness of the response. If the grading differed between the two surgeons, a consensus was reached. Inter-rater agreement was calculated. The readability of responses was also assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). RESULTS: Responses received the following consensus grades: A (50%, n=5), B (30%, n=3), C (10%, n=1), D (10%, n=1) (Table 2). Inter-rater agreement based on initial individual grading was 30%. The mean FRES was 28.2 (SD± 9.2), corresponding to a college graduate level, ranging from 11.7 to 42.5. The mean FKGL was 14.4 (SD±1.8), ranging from 12.1 to 18, indicating a college student reading level. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT can answer common patient questions regarding hip arthroscopy with satisfactory accuracy graded by two high-volume hip arthroscopists, however, incorrect information was identified in more than one instance. Caution must be observed when using ChatGPT for patient education related to hip arthroscopy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Given the increasing number of hip arthroscopies being performed annually, ChatGPT has the potential to aid physicians in educating their patients about this procedure and address any questions they may have.

Editorial Commentary: Small Labral Size on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is an Indication for Labral Reconstruction in the Setting of Revision Hip Arthroscopy.

Revision hip arthroscopy is an increasingly common procedure as rates of primary hip arthroscopy rise. Etiologies for symptom recurrence may include residual femoroacetabular impingement, cam over-resection, labral pathology, chondral wear, adhesions, and instability. This has spawned sophisticated surgical techniques in hip arthroscopy including labral reconstruction. Indications for labral reconstruction in the revision setting obviously include labral deficiency. In addition, in the absence of other obvious reasons for failure of the primary procedure, a labral reconstruction should be considered for diminutive labra. The ability to predict labral size before surgery based on magnetic resonance imaging can be invaluable.

Single bundle hamstrings autograft preparation techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: current concepts.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is one of the most common orthopedic procedures, and huge variation exists in the surgical technique. Single bundle hamstrings autograft reconstruction is a common method and has good clinical outcomes. A criticism of the hamstrings autograft is a small graft diameter, often less than 8-mm, which has been associated with increased re-rupture rates. Several graft preparation techniques for single bundle hamstrings autograft exist. Perioperative decisions include the number of tendons utilized, number of graft strands, graft configuration, and femoral and tibial fixation methods. Awareness of the minimum tendon and graft length required to produce each graft variation is necessary to avoid common pitfalls. However, intraoperative graft modification is possible to maximize graft diameter, and obtain proper fixation. The objective of this current concepts review is to describe the indications, surgical anatomy, technique, intraoperative tips, clinical outcomes, and complications for single bundle hamstrings autograft preparation techniques in ACLR.

Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy Show No Differences Between Sexes: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To assess differences in postoperative outcomes between male and female patients following hip arthroscopy. METHODS: A systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed databases were searched. Key words included "hip," "arthroscopy," "outcome," "gender difference," "sex difference," "gender," and "patient-reported outcome." Studies were included that reported sex-specific analysis of outcomes following primary hip arthroscopy with minimum 2-year follow-up. Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were applied to each study. Data collected included patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, rates of revision arthroscopy (RA), and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). Forest plots were generated for the most frequently reported PROMs, RA, and THA rates. RESULTS: In total, 38 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 40,194 (57% female) hips included. The most common indications for hip arthroscopy were femoroacetabular impingement and labral tears. Eighteen studies reported PROMs, with no clear trend towards sex differences. Eleven studies reported on RA rates, with 4 showing a significantly greater rate of RA in female patients. Seventeen studies reported on conversion to THA, with an overall conversion rate of 9.64%. There were no clear sex differences in conversion to THA. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between sexes for postoperative PROM scores. Male patients were less likely to reach the MCID for the HOS-SSS than female patients in the majority of studies, and there were no sex differences for PASS rates. There were no significant differences between sexes in revision arthroscopy rates and conversion to total hip arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II, III and IV studies.

Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy in Patients With Previous Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Matched-Pair Controlled Comparative Study With Minimum Two-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to conduct a matched-pair analysis to determine the effect of prior lumbar spine surgery (LSS) on clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopy. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy during the study period from April 2008 to December 2012. Patients were excluded if they had previous hip conditions or had undergone prior hip surgery. Patients in the LSS group (history of LSS) were matched in a 1:1 ratio to a control group (no history of LSS) according to age ±5 years, gender, body mass index categories, Tönnis grade, and labral treatment. The following outcomes were recorded in each group: modified Harris Hip Score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, and visual analogue scale (VAS) score for pain, patient satisfaction, and rates for revision hip arthroscopies and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). RESULTS: During the study period, 1,405 hip arthroscopies were performed with 1,017 eligible for matching. A total of 873 (85.8%) patients had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Fifty-seven patients were matched in each group. Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in patient-reported outcome (PRO) and VAS scores. The LSS group had a lower mean for all preoperative PRO scores. There was no significant difference for the postoperative mean PRO score and change in the PRO score compared with the control group except for NAHS. The mean change in the NAHS demonstrated a greater magnitude of improvement in the LSS group. There was no significant difference between mean VAS scores, patient satisfaction, and rates for revision arthroscopy and conversion to THA between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prior LSS does not adversely affect outcomes of hip arthroscopy at a minimum 2-year follow-up. These patients have lower preoperative scores but similar magnitude of improvement and revision/THA rates compared with a matched comparative group of patients without prior LSS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

Central Acetabular Impingement Is Associated With Femoral Head and Ligamentum Teres Damage: A Cross-Sectional Matched-Pair Analysis of Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for Acetabular Labral Tears.

PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to report the prevalence of femoral head articular damage in patients with a central acetabular osteophyte (CAO) that was identified during hip arthroscopy and compare it with that in a matched control group without a CAO. A secondary purpose was to identify rates of coexisting intra-articular pathology in both patient groups. METHODS: Intraoperative data were collected prospectively on all hip arthroscopy patients at our institution between 2008 and 2015. The inclusion criteria for this study were CAOs identified during hip arthroscopy for a labral tear and/or femoroacetabular impingement. The exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade greater than 0, previous hip conditions, and prior surgical interventions. The matched control group was selected based on sex, age ± 5 years, body mass index, and Workers' Compensation claim at a 3:1 ratio and comprised patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for a labral tear and/or femoroacetabular impingement without a CAO. The size and location of labral tears and chondral lesions were recorded in square millimeters with a 5-mm probe and by the clock-face method. RESULTS: The CAO group consisted of 126 patients, who were matched to 378 patients in the control group. Femoral and acetabular chondral damage grades were significantly different between the 2 groups (P < .001). Of patients with CAOs, 55% had femoral head chondral damage compared with 24% of the control patients. The mean size of femoral chondral damage was 3.2 cm2 in the CAO group and 1.7 cm2 in the control group. The mean size of acetabular chondral damage was 1.7 cm2 in the CAO group and 1.2 cm2 in the control group. Both femoral and acetabular chondral damage sizes were significantly larger in the CAO group (P ≤ .007). The prevalence of ligamentum teres tears was significantly different between the 2 groups (P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in the types of labral tears between the 2 groups (P = .625). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that patients with CAOs had a significantly higher prevalence of femoral chondral damage and ligamentum teres tears than matched controls. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative study.

Arthroscopic Reconstruction of Segmental Defects of the Hip Labrum: Results in 22 Patients With Mean 2-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To report mean 2-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and the incidence of revision hip arthroscopy or conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients who had undergone arthroscopic reconstruction of the hip labrum for segmental defects. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed on all patients who had undergone hip arthroscopy from April 2008 to April 2013. All patients who underwent arthroscopic labral reconstruction with either a semitendinosus allograft or a gracilis autograft with mean 2-year follow-up were part of the inclusion criteria. The following outcomes were recorded: modified Harris hip score, nonarthritic athletic hip score, hip outcome score-sports-specific subscale, hip outcome score-activities of daily living subscale, visual analog scale, for pain, patient satisfaction, revision hip arthroscopies, and conversion to THA. A 2-tailed Student's t-test was used to assess for statistically significant differences between the mean of preoperative and postoperative PROs. P values less than .05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients (14 females, 8 males) met the inclusion criteria. There was 100% follow-up. The mean age of the study population was 32.2 years. Twelve patients had reconstruction as part of a revision procedure and 10 patients had a reconstruction at the time of primary arthroscopy. Concomitant arthroscopic procedures included acetabuloplasty and femoroplasty. There was statistically significant improvement in all PROs (P = .013 to < .001). The mean changes for the modified Harris hip score, nonarthritic athletic hip score, hip outcome score-sports-specific subscale, and hip outcome score-activities of daily living subscale were 11.0 ± 19.5, 22.2 ± 15.0, 23.1 ± 30.9, and 19.1 ± 17.5 points, respectively. The mean improvement in the visual analog scale was 3.33 ± 2.92 points (P < .001), and the mean patient satisfaction was 6.73 out of 10 points. One patient required conversion to THA for presumed progression of osteoarthritis and 2 patients required a revision procedure for adhesions. CONCLUSIONS: This arthroscopic technique for labral reconstruction was associated with a significant improvement in PROs and function. Conversion to THA with the procedure was 4.5%. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Arthroscopic Capsular Plication and Labral Seal Restoration in Borderline Hip Dysplasia: 2-Year Clinical Outcomes in 55 Cases.

PURPOSE: To report clinical outcomes in patients with borderline dysplasia undergoing an arthroscopic technique of labral seal restoration with minimal acetabular rim resection and capsular plication. METHODS: Patients younger than 40 years with a lateral center-edge angle of 18° greater and 25° or less and 2-year follow-up after undergoing an arthroscopic technique of labral seal restoration with minimal rim resection (≤2 mm) and capsular plication (3-5 sutures placed in an oblique orientation to create an imbrication and inferior shift) were included. Patients underwent arthroscopy for symptoms that had marginal improvement with a minimum 6-week structured physical therapy program. Patients with a Tönnis grade of 1 or greater, a center-edge angle of 17° or less, and Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease were excluded. The following patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded prospectively but retrospectively reviewed: modified Harris Hip Score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale, and Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living. The visual analog scale score, patient satisfaction score, complications, and revision procedures were also recorded. A 2-tailed paired t test was used to analyze change in preoperative to postoperative PRO scores. Significance was defined as P < .05. RESULTS: During the study period, 232 hip arthroscopies were performed in patients with a lateral center-edge angle between 18° and 25°. The inclusion criteria were met by 59 procedures. Of these procedures, 55 (93.2%) were available for follow-up. The labrum was repaired, debrided, and reconstructed in 37 procedures, 17 procedures, and 1 procedure, respectively. The iliopsoas was released in 34 procedures, the ligamentum teres was debrided in 29, and femoral osteoplasty was performed in 32. At 2-year follow-up, there was significant improvement in the mean scores of all PROs compared with baseline. Mean improvements for the modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale, and Non-Arthritic Hip Score were 20.7, 17.5, 27.6, and 20.0, respectively. There was significant improvement in the visual analog scale score at 2 years, decreasing by 3.16 compared with baseline, and the mean patient satisfaction score was 8.09, with 83.6% of patients achieving a good to excellent result (patient satisfaction score ≥7). No complications were related to the procedure, and 6 patients (11%) required revision procedures (4 for labral retear, 1 for painful iliopsoas internal snapping, and 1 for removal of a symptomatic loose body). CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic intervention that encompasses minimal rim resection, restoration of labral function, and capsular plication significantly improves outcomes in patients with borderline dysplasia who do not warrant a periacetabular osteotomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Minimum 2-Year Outcomes of Arthroscopic Management of Symptomatic Hip Labrum Tears in Patients With Global Acetabular Overcoverage.

PURPOSE: To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after hip arthroscopy (HA) for symptomatic labral tears in patients with global acetabular overcoverage. METHODS: This study was a retrospective case series of patients who underwent HA from April 2008 to April 2013. The inclusion criteria were patients with global acetabular overcoverage, defined as a lateral center-edge angle greater than 40°, and with coxa profunda, defined radiologically by the ilioischial line lateral to the acetabular floor. Only patients with minimum 2-year follow-up and no history of hip conditions or surgery were included. We recorded demographic, examination, radiologic, and intraoperative findings; intraoperative procedures performed; and the following PROs: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), visual analog scale, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met by 39 patients, of whom 35 (89.7%) had 2-year follow-up. There was no distinct pattern of examination findings. The study population had a mean acetabular inclination of -1.19° and an anterior center-edge angle of 35°. There was no association with measures of acetabular retroversion. Intrasubstance tearing of the labrum occurred in 75% of patients (mean tear size, 2.68 hours on acetabular clock face; mean location, 11.5 to 3 on acetabular clock face). There were significant improvements in the mean scores for all PROs: mHHS, 13.5 ± 17.7 points (P < .01); Non-Arthritic Hip Score, 14.3 ± 21.3 (P < .001); HOS-ADL, 11.6 ± 19.7 (P < .001); HOS-SSS, 17.1 ± 35.1 (P < .001); and visual analog scale, -2.77 ± 2.58 (P < .001). The mean patient satisfaction rating was 6.61. The improvements in mHHS, HOS-ADL, and HOS-SSS did not reach the minimal clinically important difference. The incidence of secondary procedures was 17% (4 patients underwent conversion to total hip arthroplasty and 2 required revision HA). CONCLUSIONS: HA in patients with global acetabular overcoverage was associated with improvements in PROs and pain at minimum 2-year follow-up. However, these improvements did not reach the minimal clinically important difference for the mHHS, HOS-ADL, and HOS-SSS. The incidence of secondary procedures was 17%. The pattern of labral injury is predominantly intrasubstance labral damage with a narrow rim of adjacent chondral injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Arthroscopic Treatment of Labral Tears of the Hip in Adolescents: Patterns of Clinical Presentation, Intra-articular Derangements, Radiological Associations and Minimum 2-Year Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To report on patterns of clinical presentation, intra-articular derangements, radiological associations, and minimum 2-year outcomes after hip arthroscopy (HA) in patients 18 years or younger. METHODS: This study was a retrospective case series on patients 18 years or younger who had undergone HA for labral tears that had failed nonoperative management from April 2008 to April 2013 with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were previous hip conditions or surgery. The following were recorded: demographic, examination, radiological and intraoperative findings, intraoperative procedures performed, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and patient satisfaction. The PROs reported included the modified Harris Hip Score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, and Visual Analogue Score for pain. RESULTS: One hundred and two patients satisfied the inclusion criteria, of whom 90 (88.2%, 77 females and 13 males) had minimum 2-year follow-up. Females had increased external rotation in flexion (58.9° vs 50.0°, P = .041). Sixty-eight females had a Beighton's score of >4 compared to 6 males (P < .001). There was no distinct pattern within the group or between genders for radiological markers of acetabular coverage, depth, or version and femoral cam size. Mean femoral anteversion for females was 15.7° and for males 11.3°. Females had significantly smaller labral tears (1.73 hours vs 2.34 hours on the acetabular clock face, P = .028). Females were more likely to require a capsular plication and iliopsoas fractional lengthening (88.3% vs 46.2%, and 77.9% vs 38.5%, respectively). There was a significant improvement in all PRO measures in both males and females (P < .01), but females had lower preoperative and postoperative scores. Mean preoperative and postoperative PROs for males and females were as follows: modified Harris Hip Score 71.0/94.3 and 63.4/88.8, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living 78.1/93.4 and 64.0/91.8, Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale 51.7/91.0 and 45.7/78.6, Non-Arthritic Hip Score 78.1/94.5 and 63.1/89.2, and visual analog score 4.77/1.85 and 6.29/2.21. The mean patient satisfaction score was 8.29 out of 10. Five patients (5.56%) required a revision procedure. CONCLUSIONS: HA is associated with improved outcomes and pain and high satisfaction scores at minimum 2-year follow-up in adolescent population. The pattern of labral injury is different in males and females and dictates the arthroscopic approach. Females are likely to require a capsular plication and iliopsoas release to address soft-tissue laxity and impingement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Can Stem Version Consistently Correct Native Femoral Version Using Robotic Guidance in Total Hip Arthroplasty?

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether robotic guidance in total hip arthroplasty (THA) can consistently correct native femoral version. One hundred seventy-five consecutive patients who underwent MAKO® (Stryker, Kalamazoo, Michigan) robotic-guidance THA were included in the study. The study population had a mean age of 57.9 years and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 30.41. Forty-eight percent of the population was male and 74% of the procedures were performed through an anterior approach. Robotic guidance in THA was effective in correcting native femoral version toward a target of 15°. This can be achieved using both the anterior and posterior approach; it is not affected by BMI.

Editorial Commentary: Confirming Intuitive Thoughts in Hip Preservation.

In a biomechanical laboratory study of 63 bovine hip labra examining suture configuration, passer size, and radiofrequency treatment, superior biomechanical properties were found for vertical and oblique sutures compared with horizontal sutures, smaller puncture holes were better compared with large bore holes in the labra, and radiofrequency strengthened labra only when horizontal suture configuration was used. The authors appropriately acknowledge that suture anchor type, presence or absence of knots, and bone quality based on patient demographics and considering various regions of the acetabular rim are additional important factors. Although the authors wisely advocate caution in extrapolation to in vivo behavior, this study represents an important addition to our understanding of the importance of suture configuration in labral repair in the hip. Given the findings of this study and the present state of the art, the current winning formula appears to be labral base refixation with vertical or oblique mattress configuration, performed with small diameter suture passage devices.

Arthroscopic Central Acetabular Decompression: Clinical Outcomes at Minimum 2-Year Follow-up Using a Matched-Pair Analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess 2-year clinical outcomes of patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for central acetabular osteophytes (CAO) treated with central acetabular decompression (CAD), and to compare these outcomes with those of a matched control group. METHODS: Data were prospectively gathered for patients undergoing CAD during hip arthroscopy from February 2008 to July 2012. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years with modified Harris Hip Score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patient satisfaction (0 to 10) was collected. A matched control group of patients without CAOs who did not undergo CAD was selected on a 1:3 ratio. RESULTS: Forty-nine hips were included in the CAD group and 147 in the control group. The mean change in patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores at 2-year follow-up in the CAD group for modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, and VAS was 11.0, 19.6, 15.2, 21.4, and -2, respectively. The mean change in PRO scores at 2-year follow-up in the control group was 17.0, 19.8, 24.0, 20.9, and -2.75, respectively. All improvements in PRO scores for both groups were statistically significant compared with the data collected preoperatively (P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative PRO scores and VAS between the groups. Postoperative patient satisfaction at the latest follow-up was 7.14 and 7.60 for CAD and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that patients with a CAO treated with CAD during hip arthroscopy had favorable outcomes at minimum 2 years postoperatively. Furthermore, the study group showed similar PRO scores and VAS to the control group. We conclude that CAD is a viable treatment option for CAO, yielding clinical improvement at short-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prospective comparative study.

Open and Arthroscopic Treatment of Adult Hip Dysplasia: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To compare patient-reported outcome (PRO) and rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) after hip arthroscopy, Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO), and a combined approach for the management of patients with different grades of hip dysplasia. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and PubMed databases for articles published since 2000 using the following terms: (((("hip dysplasia") or "dysplastic") and "arthroscopy")) or ((("hip dysplasia") or "dysplastic") and "osteotomy"). Two authors independently reviewed the literature. Inclusion criteria were English language, relevance to hip dysplasia, surgical outcomes, and sample size of 10 patients or more. We excluded articles that were reviews or techniques; articles that included overlapping populations, patients with a mean age less than 18 years, patients with other hip conditions, patients with genetic or neuromuscular causes of hip dysplasia, and patients with Tonnis grade 2 or greater arthritis; articles on femoral osteotomy, and articles on previous surgical intervention, except hip arthroscopy. Articles were analyzed for PRO scores and rates of conversion to THA. RESULTS: Ten of 759 articles reviewed met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of 834 hips treated for dysplasia with a mean age of 31 years, 114 were treated with arthroscopy alone, 703 were treated with PAO alone, and 17 were treated with both procedures. Mean follow-up was 3.2 years, 6.5 years, and 5.6 years, respectively. Conversion rates to THA were 4.8%, 12.0%, and 17.7%, respectively. In studies reporting pre- and postoperative PRO scores, all but one reported improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The management of hip dysplasia may entail hip arthroscopy, PAO, or a combined approach. Arthroscopy has resulted in improved outcomes in borderline dysplastic cases (lateral center edge angle between 18° and 25°). PAO has primarily been used in true dysplasia with continued success. There were too few combined procedures of arthroscopy with PAO to reach a reliable conclusion in this subgroup.

How much arthritis is too much for hip arthroscopy: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the extent of preoperative osteoarthritis (OA) that precludes benefit from hip arthroscopy by systematically reviewing the literature on hip arthroscopy in the setting of OA. METHODS: We searched the Medline and PubMed databases using the following Medical Subject Heading terms: arthritis, osteoarthritis, chondral damage, chondral injury, chondral delamination, and hip arthroscopy. Two authors independently reviewed the literature and included articles if they were in the English language; commented on preoperative factors, parameters, physical examination, or diagnostic testing that may be evidence of cartilage damage and/or arthritis; contained outcome data on patients undergoing hip arthroscopy; and had a sample size of at least 10 patients with arthritic changes in the hip. We excluded review articles, technique articles, articles with overlapping patient populations, articles with hip arthroscopy used as an adjunct to an open procedure, articles with inflammatory and septic arthritis, and articles with a mean age younger than 18 years. RESULTS: Our search identified 518 articles, of which 15 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two thousand fifty-one hips underwent arthroscopy at a mean patient age of 40.2 years. Of these, 1,195 hips had signs of OA. There were 345 conversions to total hip arthroplasty/surface replacement arthroplasty. Of these patients, 274 had OA. Eight patient-reported outcome instruments were used. Factors influencing outcomes were preoperative OA, age, chondral damage, femoroacetabular impingement, and duration of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence is insufficient to define a cutoff for how much arthritis is too much for hip arthroscopy. However, this analysis shows that patients with a Tönnis grade of 1 or greater or a joint space of 2 mm or less are less likely to benefit from hip arthroscopy and more likely to require conversion to total hip arthroplasty/surface replacement arthroplasty. Postoperative scores on patient-reported outcome instruments are lower in the arthritic population at follow-up compared with their nonarthritic counterparts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Outcomes of Open Versus Endoscopic Repair of Abductor Muscle Tears of the Hip: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcome of open versus endoscopic gluteal tendon repair. METHODS: An extensive review of PubMed was conducted by 2 independent reviewers for articles containing at least 1 of the following search terms: gluteus medius, gluteus medius tear, gluteus medius tendinopathy, gluteus medius repair, hip abductors, hip abductor tears, hip abductor repair, hip rotator cuff, hip rotator cuff repair, trochanteric bursa, trochanteric bursitis, trochanteric bursectomy, peritrochanteric procedures, peritrochanteric repair, and peritrochanteric arthroscopy. This yielded 313 articles. Of these articles, 7 satisfied the following inclusion criteria: description of an open or endoscopic gluteal repair with outcomes consisting of patient-reported outcome scores, patient satisfaction, strength scores, pain scores, and complications. RESULTS: Three studies on open gluteal repairs and 4 on endoscopic gluteal repairs met the inclusion criteria. In total, there were 127 patients who underwent open procedures and 40 patients who underwent endoscopic procedures. Of the 40 patients who underwent endoscopic procedures, 15 had concomitant intra-articular procedures documented, as compared with 0 in the open group. The modified Harris Hip Score was common to 1 study on open repairs and 3 studies on endoscopic repairs. The scores were similar for follow-up periods of 1 and 2 years. Visual analog pain scale scores were reported in 1 study on open gluteal repairs and 1 study on endoscopic repairs and were similar between the 2 studies. Improvement in abductor strength was also similarly reported in selected studies between the 2 groups. The only difference between the 2 groups was the reported incidence of complications, which was higher in the open group. CONCLUSIONS: Open and endoscopic gluteal repairs have similar patient-reported outcome scores, pain scores, and improvement in abduction strength. Open techniques have a higher reported complication rate. Randomized studies of sufficient numbers of patients are required to ultimately determine if one technique produces superior patient outcomes over the other. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.

Not all patient-reported outcome measures are equivalent at two years compared to one year after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction based on a retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This article aims to assess for clinically important differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at one and two years post anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: A retrospective comparison of prospectively collected PROMs for a single cohort who underwent a primary ACLR with or without associated meniscal surgery from 2016 to 2020 was assessed. Six externally validated PROMs were collected preoperatively and at standardized times postoperatively. Descriptive statistics and paired equivalence testing of PROMs at one and two years after surgery was completed using previously published or calculated minimal clinically important differences as upper and lower equivalence limits. A repeated measures analysis of PROMs that were not clinically equivalent at one and two years after surgery was completed to assess for a clinically significant difference. Subgroup analyses based on sex, age and associated meniscal injury were completed. RESULTS: One-hundred and forty-five participants with a mean age of 28.7 years (standard deviation: 9.9 years) were included in the final analysis. All PROMs were clinically equivalent at two years compared to one year after ACLR except the quality of life and sport and recreation domains of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). The quality of life (mean difference (MD):12.3, P â€‹< â€‹0.01, effect size (η2): 0.65) and sport and recreation (MD: 8.78, P â€‹< â€‹0.01, η2: 0.50) domains of the KOOS were clinically different at two years compared to one year postoperatively. No major differences were found in the subgroup analyses compared to the entire included sample. CONCLUSION: While most PROMs were equivalent at two years compared to one year after ACLR, the quality of life and sport and recreation domains of the KOOS, which reflect knee performance during higher demand activities, exhibited a clinically significant difference. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Pediatric Hip Arthroscopy: a Review of Indications and Treatment Outcomes.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of hip arthroscopy has expanded substantially over the last decade, including in pediatric and adolescent populations. Indications for hip arthroscopy in the pediatric population continue to be refined and research of outcomes following hip arthroscopy has increased. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of current indications for hip arthroscopy in the pediatric population and the outcomes for each indication. RECENT FINDINGS: Hip arthroscopy is used in the treatment of a range of pediatric hip conditions, spanning from the infant to young adult. In femoroacetabular impingement, hip arthroscopy in young adolescents has shown improvement in patient-reported outcome measures, high return to sport rates, and low complications. Intra-articular hip pathology secondary to Legg-Calve-Perthes and the persistent deformities following slipped capital femoral epiphysis can be managed with primary hip arthroscopy, and outcomes show significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes. Arthroscopy can be used safely as a reduction aid in developmental hip dysplasia, and as a primary treatment for borderline hip dysplasia in adolescents. In septic hip arthritis, arthroscopic drainage is a safe and effective treatment. Hip arthroscopy is used in the pediatric and adolescent population in the management of femoroacetabular impingement, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, the sequelae of slipped capital femoral epiphysies, developmental hip dysplasia, and septic arthritis. Research for each of these conditions shows that arthroscopy is a safe and effective treatment when performed for the correct indications, and results are comparable to open surgical options.

Tunnel position and graft orientation in failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a clinical and imaging analysis.

PURPOSE: It has been reported that technical error in positioning the graft tunnel is the most common problem in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The objective of this study was to quantitatively evaluate femoral and tibial tunnel positions and intra-articular graft orientation of primary ACL reconstruction in patients who had undergone revision ACL reconstruction. We postulated that this patient cohort had a nonanatomically positioned tunnel and graft orientation. METHODS: Twenty-six patients who had undergone a revision ACL were investigated. Clinical magnetic resonance (MR) images prior to revision were analysed. Three-dimensional models of bones and tunnels on the femur and tibia were created. Intra-articular graft orientation was measured in axial, sagittal and coronal planes. Graft positions were measured on the tibial plateau as a percentage from anterior to posterior and medial to lateral; graft positions on the femur were measured using the quadrant method. RESULTS: Sagittal elevation angle for failed ACL reconstruction graft (69.6° ± 13.4°) was significantly greater (p < 0.05) than that of the native anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundles of the ACL (AM 56.2° ± 6.1°, PL 55.5° ± 8.1°). In the transverse plane, the deviation angle of the failed graft (37.3° ± 21.0°) was significantly greater than native ACL bundles. The tibial tunnel in this patient cohort was placed posteromedially and medially to the anatomical AM and PL bundles, respectively. The femoral tunnel was placed anteriorly to the anatomical AM and PL bundles. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals that both the tibial and femoral tunnel positions and consequently the intra-articular graft orientation in this patient group with failed ACL reconstruction were nonanatomical when compared with native ACL values. The results can be used to improve tunnel placement in ACL reconstruction.

Intra-articular Soft Tissue Pathology of the Postpartum Hip: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Pregnancy-related lumbopelvic and hip pain affects over half of postpartum females and has multiple aetiologies. The relative contribution of intra-articular soft tissue pathology to pregnancy-related hip pain is unknown. The current review investigates the available evidence regarding underlying intra-articular soft tissue aetiologies of hip pain in females during pregnancy and in the acute postpartum period. RECENT FINDINGS: Three online databases (Embase, PubMed and Ovid [MEDLINE]) were searched from database inception until 11 April 2021. All titles, relevant abstracts and full-text articles were screened by two reviewers independently. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) instrument. Descriptive study characteristics are presented in a narrative summary. Five level IV evidence articles were eligible for inclusion. Twenty-two females were included. Twenty patients presented with labral pathology, 15 of which necessitated hip arthroscopy with labral debridement or repair with or without acetabuloplasty and/or femoroplasty. One patient presented with an incidental labral tear in the context of osteitis condensans illi. One patient presented with posttraumatic osteoarthritis necessitating a hip arthroplasty. The contribution of intra-articular soft tissue injury is a documented, albeit sparse, aetiology contributing to pregnancy-related hip pain. Further research to better delineate the prevalence, natural history and optimal management options for females who sustained these injuries at a life-altering juncture is necessary to advance the care of these patients.