Variation in Reported Learning Outcomes and Measurement Instruments in Hip Arthroscopy Simulation Training: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the current literature on the effectiveness of hip arthroscopy simulation training and to determine the consistency of reporting and validation of simulation used in hip arthroscopy. METHODS: Three databases (PubMed, EMBase, and CINAHL) were screened using PRISMA guidelines in January 2022 for published literature on virtual simulation in hip arthroscopy. Studies reporting on the use of hip arthroscopy simulation training in orthopedic surgical trainees were included and assessed for quality and risk of bias using MINORS criteria. The number of participants, participant education level, experience, simulator type, validation type, method of assessment, and simulation outcomes were extracted from included studies. RESULTS: Of the 286 articles screened, 11 met inclusion criteria for review evaluating 323 orthopedic trainees with a mean of 29.36 participants per study published between 2012 and 2021, most commonly in the United Kingdom (55%). The four most reported surgical skills evaluated were visualization and probing tasks (82%), mean time to perform the task (73%), number of cartilage and soft tissue collisions (73%), and number of hand movements (73%). The most described measurement instruments included a simulation built-in scoring system (55%), Arthroscopic Surgical Skill Evaluation Tool (ASSET) Global Rating Scale (GRS) (27%), and motion analysis system (18%). Construct validity was the most reported overall type of validity (82%), followed by face validity (36%), transfer validity (18%) and content validity (18%). Construct validity was also the most reported validity for the simulator and measurement instrument (55% and 89%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in reported learning outcomes and measurement instruments for evaluating the effectiveness of hip arthroscopic-based education. This study highlights that simulation training may be an effective tool for evaluation of hip arthroscopy skills. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of level I to III studies.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are Patient and Surgeon Expectations after ACL Reconstruction Realistic?

BACKGROUND: Patient expectations may affect their satisfaction and functional outcomes after treatment of musculoskeletal injuries. Although there is evidence that patient expectations of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) are inflated, there is limited knowledge about the relationship between physician and patient expectations and patient outcomes after they completely recover from ACLR. Furthermore, it is unclear if specific patient factors influence these expectations. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Are patient and surgeon expectations of knee function 18 months after ACLR similar? (2) Are patients' and surgeons' expectations of outcomes similar to patients' actual 2-year outcomes? (3) Is there a relationship between preoperative or intraoperative parameters and expectations? (4) Is there a relationship between preoperative or intraoperative parameters and 2-year ACLR outcomes? METHODS: One-hundred twenty-nine patients undergoing primary ACLR were prospectively enrolled in this study, with 98 (76%) completing 2-year follow-up. Patients completed the IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Patients also completed the same questionnaires preoperatively to evaluate expected knee function 18 months after surgery. Immediately postoperatively, surgeons completed the same questionnaires regarding the expected postoperative outcome at 18 months postoperative. Preoperative and intraoperative data were collected to determine an association between expectations and outcomes. Nonparametric analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test, the paired Wilcoxon signed ranks tests and Spearman's correlations, as applicable. RESULTS: There was no difference between patient and surgeon expectations (patient, 94.8 [range 47.4-100] versus surgeon, 94.3 [range 46-100]; p = 0.283), and there was no correlation between higher patient expectations and higher surgeon expectations (r = 0.168, p = 0.078). Patient and surgeon expectations were greater than the actual postoperative outcomes (2-year postoperative: 89.7 [range 32.2 to 100]; p < 0.0001); however, the differences are unlikely to be perceived. There was no correlation between higher 2-year postoperative outcomes and higher patient expectations (r = 0.14, p = 0.186) or higher surgeon expectations (r = 0.019, p = 0.86). Arthroscopic evidence of cartilage damage was independently associated with the worst patient and surgeon expectations. The surgeons themselves were also independently associated with surgeon expectation (p < 0.001). No parameters were associated with postoperative outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There are no clinically significant differences between surgeon expectations, patient expectations, and 2-year actual outcomes. However, there is also no correlation between the patient expectations, surgeon expectations, and actual outcomes. Although expectations are similar to actual outcomes for most patients, surgeons are unable to accurately predict outcomes for specific patients; thus, preventing adequate patient counseling. Surgeons should be cautious when evaluating and counseling patients preoperatively and avoid assuming high expectations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Unique Substantial Clinical Benefit Values for the 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool Based on Preoperative Level of Function.

PURPOSE: To define unique substantial clinical benefit (SCB) values for improvement on the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) based on a preoperative self-rating of function in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for intra-articular pathology. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of prospective collected data on patients having hip arthroscopy for labral and chondral pathology and femoroacetabular impingement. On preoperative assessment and 1-year (+/-1 month) follow-up, subjects completed the iHOT-12 and a self-categorical rating of function ("severely abnormal," "abnormal," "nearly normal," or "normal"). Separate receiver operator characteristic analyses were performed for each preoperative categorical self-rating of function to determine unique SCB values for improvement-based changes in self-rating of function. RESULTS: Of 1034 eligible patients, 733 (71%) subjects met the inclusion criteria. Subjects consisted of 537 (73%) female and 196 (27%) male subjects with a mean age of 35.3 years (standard deviation 13). At a mean of 352 (standard deviation 21) days postsurgery, changes in iHOT-12 scores of 22, 28, and 27 points were associated with acceptable accuracy in identifying those who had an improved function rating when reporting a "severely abnormal," abnormal," and "nearly normal" rating on preoperative assessment, respectively. The accuracy of these SCB values in predicting improvement was different depending on the patient's preoperative rating of function. The accuracy of the SCB values in predicting improvement in those who had a "nearly normal" rating of function was not as accurate (area under the curve = 0.73) compared with those who had a "severely abnormal" or "abnormal" rating of function on preoperative assessment (area under the curve = 0.89; 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides surgeons with unique SCB values for the iHOT-12 based on a preoperative rating function and may allow for a more precise interpretation of score changes. SCB values of 22, 28, and 27 points on the iHOT-12 at 1-year (+/-1 month) follow-up identified those who had an improved function rating, when reporting a "severely abnormal," abnormal," and "nearly normal" rating on preoperative assessment, respectively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative study.

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.

Higher Prevalence of Concomitant Shoulder Labral Tears in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement.

PURPOSE: To examine the prevalence of concomitant symptomatic glenoid labral tears in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in comparison to a control group of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 1,644 patients who underwent femoroacetabular osteoplasty (FAO) and labrum repair from January 2007 to September 2016 and 1,055 patients who underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction from January 2012 to December 2014, which acted as our control group. An electronic questionnaire, including 8 questions regarding history of shoulder pathology, was sent to all patients in both groups. Symptomatic shoulder labral tears were identified on the basis of a positive magnetic resonance imaging scan or history of labral repair by reviewing patients' medical records and the filled questionnaire. Continuous variables were compared by use of a Mann-Whitney U test, and categorical variables were compared using Fisher's exact test. The Holm-Bonferroni sequential correction method was used to adjust P values for multiple comparisons of the presence of shoulder pathology. RESULTS: A total of 443 patients (405 cam lesion) in the FAO group and 307 patients in the ACL reconstruction group completed the prepared questionnaire and were included in the study. Patients in the FAO group were slightly older (36.3 years [range, 15.4-61.7] vs 32.3 years [range, 16.3-75.7]) and more commonly female in the FAO group (58.0%, n = 257) compared with those in the ACL group (48.9%, n = 150). The prevalence of shoulder labral tear was 12.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.3%-15.3%) for the FAO group compared with only 3.3% (95% CI, 1.8%-5.9%) for the ACL group. This represents a 3.7-fold (95% CI, 1.9-7.1) increase in the risk of shoulder labral tear for patients in the FAO group. Furthermore, shoulder labral tears were reported to be traumatic in only 43.4% of patients in the FAO group compared with 80.0% of patients in the ACL group. A similar proportion of patients in both groups (66.0% for FAO vs 60.0% for ACL) underwent a shoulder labral repair procedure. CONCLUSION: There appears to be an association between acetabular labral tear caused by FAI and shoulder labral lesions. Patients in the FAI group had a 3.7-fold increase in the risk of shoulder labral tear compared with the ACL group. Future studies are needed to examine a possible cause behind the current findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative trial study.

Does Prior Hip Arthroscopy Affect Outcomes of Subsequent Hip Arthroplasty? A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of hip arthroplasty in patients with and without a history of hip arthroscopy through a systematic review. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the PubMed (MEDLINE) and Cochrane Central databases was performed using combinations of the keywords "hip," "arthroscopy," "arthroscopic," "arthroplasty," "replacement," and "conversion" in December 2017. Level I through III studies directly comparing outcomes of total or resurfacing hip arthroplasty between patients with and without a history of hip arthroscopy were included in this review if they reported at least 1 outcome measure. RESULTS: Seven retrospective case-control studies collectively evaluating arthroplasty outcomes of 235 patients (104 male and 131 female patients) with a history of hip arthroscopy and 374 matched controls met the inclusion criteria. The mean age in the arthroscopy and control groups was 47.2 years and 49.1 years, respectively. The mean follow-up period after arthroplasty was 3.2 years in the hip arthroscopy group and 3.3 years in the control group. The mean time between arthroscopy and arthroplasty was 1.8 years. A posterior approach was used in 83.6% of arthroplasties. No statistically significant differences were noted in intraoperative measures, postoperative complications, or revision rates, with the exception of 1 study that reported an increased operative time among controls. Most studies reported similar subjective outcomes between groups, with a single study noting worse postoperative findings for the Harris Hip Score, Forgotten Joint Score-12, visual analog scale pain score, and patient satisfaction in the prior hip arthroscopy group. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature suggests that short-term and midterm outcomes of hip arthroplasty are comparable in patients with and without a history of hip arthroscopy. However, the available literature is limited given the small sample sizes and therefore greater potential for ß error. Nevertheless, our findings may be useful for surgeons evaluating risks and prognoses in this patient population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level III studies.

The Clinical Evidence Behind Biologic Therapies Promoted at Annual Orthopaedic Meetings: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to systematically evaluate the available clinical data for biologic therapies promoted for articular cartilage defects and osteoarthritis of the knee at the 2016 American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine Meeting (AOSSM) and the 2017 Arthroscopy Association of North America meeting (AANA). METHODS: Our sample included all exhibitors at the 2016 AOSSM meeting and 2017 AANA meeting. All biologic products marketed at each conference were identified by reviewing exhibition booths and company websites. A systematic review of the clinical data on each product was then completed using PubMed, EMBASE, and the product's own webpage. All clinical peer-reviewed studies with level I-IV evidence were included in the study. Basic science or preclinical studies were excluded. RESULTS: There were 16 products promoted for biologic therapy for articular cartilage defects or osteoarthritis of the knee at the AOSSM meeting and 11 products promoted at the AANA meeting. A total of 280 articles detailed clinical findings for the articular cartilage products displayed at AOSSM and AANA. Of the 280, there were 36 level I evidence studies, 37 level II evidence studies, 18 level III evidence studies, and 189 level IV evidence studies. Of these articles, 91% were for 4 products. Of all biologic products promoted at the 2 meetings, 65% did not have any peer-reviewed clinical data supporting their use. CONCLUSION: Overall, many biologic therapies promoted at leading arthroscopy and sports medicine conferences did not have clinical evidence evaluating their use in the peer-reviewed literature. Although scientific advancement requires new technology, orthopaedic surgeons should be cautious about using biologic therapies in their practice with no proven efficacy. There are likely promising new interventions that, with additional scientific research, will be proven efficacious for our patients. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This article gives orthopaedic surgeons a detailed example of some of the biologic treatments being offered on the market for the treatment of knee articular cartilage disease. When patients request these treatments, physicians must be able to explain the data supporting their use.

Arthroscopic Outcomes as a Function of Acetabular Coverage From a Large Hip Arthroscopy Study Group.

PURPOSE: To report comparative hip arthroscopic outcomes of patients with low (borderline dysplasia), normal, and high (global pincer femoroacetabular impingement [FAI]) lateral acetabular coverage. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from a multicenter registry was performed. Primary hip arthroscopy patients were assigned to 1 of 3 groups based on preoperative lateral center-edge angle: borderline dysplasia (≤25°), normal (25.1°-38.9°), and pincer (≥39°). Repeated-measures analysis of variance compared preoperative with 2-year minimum postoperative International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) scores. Subsequent analysis of variance determined the effect of acetabular coverage on magnitude of change in scores. RESULTS: Of 437 patients, the only statistical difference between groups was a lower prevalence of acetabuloplasty in the borderline dysplasia group (P = .001). A significant improvement in the preoperative to postoperative iHOT-12 scores for patients with normal acetabular coverage, acetabular undercoverage, and acetabular overcoverage was observed: F(1, 339) = 311.06; P <.001, with no statistical differences in preoperative (P = .505) and postoperative (P <.488) iHOT-12 scores when comparing the groups based on acetabular coverage. Mean iHOT-12 scores increased from 37.3 preoperatively to 68.7 postoperatively (P <.001) in the borderline dysplasia group, from 34.4 to 72 (P <.001) in the normal coverage group, and from 35.3 to 69.4 (P <.001) in the pincer group. These preoperative scores increased by 31.4, 37.8, and 34.1, respectively, with no effect for acetabular coverage on the magnitude of change from preoperative to postoperative iHOT-12 scores: F(2,339) = 1.18; P = .310. Ten patients (2.3%) underwent conversion arthroplasty, and 19 patients (4.4%) underwent revision arthroscopy with no significant effect of acetabular coverage on the incidence of revision or conversion surgery: χ2 (6,433) = 11.535; P = .073. CONCLUSIONS: Lateral acetabular coverage did not influence outcomes from primary hip arthroscopy when performed in patients with low (borderline dysplasia), normal, and high (global pincer FAI) lateral center-edge angle. Borderline dysplasia and moderate global pincer FAI with no or minimal osteoarthritis do not compromise successful 2-year minimum outcomes or survivorship following primary hip arthroscopy when performed by experienced surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective therapeutic trial.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit Values for the 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool.

PURPOSE: To define minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) values for the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for intra-articular pathology. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on patients who underwent hip arthroscopy. On initial assessment and follow-up between 335 and 395 days after surgery, subjects completed the iHOT-12 and a categorical self-rating of function (severely abnormal, abnormal, nearly normal, or normal). One-half the standard deviation (SD) of the change in 1-year iHOT-12 scores was used to calculate the MCID. Receiver operator characteristic analysis was performed to determine SCB values. A change in SCB value was determined based on an improvement in the categorical rating of function. Absolute postoperative SCB scores were calculated to determine scores that would be associated with normal function ratings or with abnormal or severely abnormal function ratings. RESULTS: Of 1,034 eligible patients, 733 (71%) met the inclusion criteria. The subjects consisted of 537 female patients (73%) and 196 male patients (27%), with a mean age of 35.3 years (SD, 13 years). At a mean of 352 days (SD, 21 days) after surgery, 536 patients (73%) were in the "improved" group and 197 (27%) were in the "not improved" group. The MCID was 13 points. An SCB change score of 28 points was able to identify patients who improved with high sensitivity (0.79) and specificity (0.72). Scores of 86 points or greater and 56 points or less were the cutoff values found to identify subjects who rated their function as normal and abnormal, respectively, with high sensitivity (0.74 and 0.90, respectively) and specificity (0.82 and 0.86, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides information to help interpret iHOT-12 scores for a follow-up period ranging between 335 and 395 days with MCID and SCB values of 13 and 28 points, respectively. In addition, a vpatient who scored 86 points or better was likely to have a normal rating of function, whereas a patient with a score of 56 points or less was likely to have an abnormal rating of function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit Values for a Pain Visual Analog Scale After Hip Arthroscopy.

PURPOSE: To define minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) values for a pain visual analog scale (VAS) in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement or chondrolabral pathology. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of prospective collected data on patients having hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement and/or chondrolabral pathology. On initial assessment and follow-up between 335 and 395 days postsurgery, subjects completed a pain VAS and categorical self-rating of function. MCID was calculated using one-half the standard deviation (SD) of the change in 1-year pain VAS values. Receiver operator characteristic analysis was performed to determine SCB values. A change in SCB value was determined based on change in categorical self-rating of function to create "improved" and "not improved" groups. Absolute postoperative SCB scores were calculated to determine scores that would be associated with "normal" or "abnormal" function ratings. RESULTS: Of 1,034 eligible patients, 733 (71%) met the inclusion criteria, with 537 (73%) women and 196 (27%) men having a mean age of 35.3 years (SD 13). At a mean of 352 (SD 21) days postsurgery, 536 (73%) were in the improved group and 197 (27%) in the not improved group. MCID was -15.0 mm. A change of -22.7 mm on the pain VAS was able to identify those that improved with high sensitivity (0.74) and specificity (0.63). Values of ≤10.4 mm and ≥29.0 mm were cutoffs identifying subjects that rated their function as normal or abnormal, respectively, with high sensitivity (0.79 and 0.76) and specificity (0.88 and 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides surgeons with information to help interpret pain VAS values at a follow-up period ranging from 335 to 395 days with MCID and SCB values of -15.0 mm and -22.7 mm, respectively. Additionally, a patient who assesses a pain level at ≤10.4 mm is likely to have a normal rating of function, whereas a patient who assesses a pain level at ≥29.0 mm is likely to have an abnormal rating of function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative study.

The Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State of the 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool at 1-Year Follow-Up of Hip-Preservation Surgery.

PURPOSE: To determine the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) cutoff score for the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) for patients after hip-preservation surgery. METHODS: A multicenter hip arthroscopy registry containing deidentified patient data was analyzed to discriminate patients who achieved satisfactory results from patients who did not. Patients eligible for inclusion in the study were between 18 and 75 years of age, consented to undergo elective hip arthroscopy, and completed preoperative patient-reported outcome questionnaires. A receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to determine the PASS cutoff score for the iHOT-12 at 1 year after surgery based on the sensitivity and specificity of achieving satisfaction with surgery. A visual analog scale rating patient satisfaction 1 year after surgery was documented and compared between subjects who achieved the PASS score for the iHOT-12 and those who did not achieve it through an independent t test with an a priori α set at .05. RESULTS: A total of 647 subjects (66% women) aged between 18 and 73 years (mean, 36.5 years; standard deviation [SD], 12.0 years) were included in the study. A cutoff score of 75.2 for the iHOT-12 yielded a sensitivity of 0.91 and specificity of 0.81. Satisfaction averaged 89.5% (SD, 18.0%) for the patients with iHOT-12 scores greater than the PASS cutoff score versus 60.9% (SD, 30.61%) for those who did not achieve the PASS iHOT-12 score. CONCLUSIONS: The PASS cutoff score of 75.2 for the iHOT-12 establishes a "minimal" target score at which the patient is highly likely to be satisfied with the physical state of his or her hip joint at 1 year after hip arthroscopy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control study.

Hip Dysplasia: Prevalence, Associated Findings, and Procedures From Large Multicenter Arthroscopy Study Group.

PURPOSE: To report observational findings of patients with acetabular dysplasia undergoing hip arthroscopy. METHODS: We performed a comparative case series of multicenter registry patients from January 2014 to April 2016 meeting the inclusion criteria of isolated hip arthroscopy, a documented lateral center-edge angle (LCEA), and completion of preoperative patient-reported outcome measures. A retrospective analysis compared range of motion, intra-articular pathology, and procedures of patients with dysplasia (LCEA ≤25°) and patients without dysplasia (LCEA >25°). RESULTS: Of 1,053 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 133 (13%) had dysplasia with a mean LCEA of 22.8° (standard deviation, 2.4°) versus 34.6° (standard deviation, 6.3°) for non-dysplasia patients. There were no statistically significant differences in preoperative modified Harris Hip Score, International Hip Outcome Tool-12 score, or visual analog scale score (pain). Cam deformity occurred in 80% of dysplasia patients. There was a significant difference in internal rotation between the dysplasia (21°) and non-dysplasia groups (16°, P < .001). Mean internal rotation (33.5°; standard deviation, 15.6°) of the dysplastic subjects without cam morphology was greater than that of the dysplastic patients with cam morphology (18.5°; standard deviation, 11.6°; P < .001). Hypertrophic labra were found more commonly in dysplastic (33%) than non-dysplastic hips (11%, P < .001). Labral tears in patients with dysplasia were treated by repair (76%), reconstruction (13%), and selective debridement (11%); labral treatments were not significantly different between cohorts. The most common nonlabral procedures included femoroplasty (76%) and synovectomy (73%). There was no significant difference between the dysplasia and non-dysplasia groups regarding capsulotomy types and capsular closure rates (96% and 92%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Dysplasia, typically of borderline to mild severity, comprises a significant incidence of surgical cases (13%) by surgeons performing high-volume hip arthroscopy. Despite having similar preoperative pain and functional profiles to patients without dysplasia, dysplasia patients may have increased flexed-hip internal rotation. Commonly associated cam morphology significantly decreases internal rotation. Arthroscopic labral repair, femoroplasty, and closure of interportal capsulotomy are the most commonly performed procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic comparative case series.

Sex-Dependent Differences in Preoperative, Radiographic, and Intraoperative Characteristics of Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy: Results From the Multicenter Arthroscopic Study of the Hip Group.

PURPOSE: To compare preoperative, radiographic, and intraoperative findings between male and female patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a multicenter registry of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy between January 2014 and January 2017. Perioperative data from patients who consented to undergo surgery and completed preoperative patient-reported outcome questionnaires were analyzed to determine the effect of sex on preoperative symptoms, patient-reported outcomes, radiographic measures, and surgical procedures. RESULTS: A total of 1,437 patients (902 female and 535 male patients) with a mean age of 34 years were enrolled in the study. Female patients reported greater pain preoperatively on a visual analog scale (55.42 vs 50.40, P = .001) and deficits in functional abilities as per the modified Harris Hip Score (53.40 vs 57.83, P < .001) and International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (31.21 vs 38.51, P = .001) than male patients. There was a significant difference in the alpha angle (67.6° in male patients vs 59.5° in female patients, P < .001) corresponding with a higher prevalence of cam deformity in male patients (94.6% vs 84.5%, P < .001). Male patients had less range of motion in flexion (-5.67°, P < .001), internal rotation (-8.23°, P < .001), and external rotation (-4.52°, P < .001) than female patients. Acetabular chondroplasty was performed in 58% of male patients versus 40.2% of female patients (P < .001). Acetabuloplasty was performed in 59.1% of male patients versus 43.9% of female patients (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Male and female patients undergoing hip arthroscopy differ statistically in terms of preoperative hip function, hip morphology, and self-reported functional deficits, as well as the prevalence of surgical procedures. However, they do not differ significantly in terms of symptom localization, duration, or onset. The observed differences in preoperative functional scores between sexes, although statistically significant, may not represent clinically meaningful differences. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cross-sectional study.