Morbidity and Mortality Following Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty With Spinal Versus General Anesthesia: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal anesthetic mode in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has yet to be clearly identified. Patients undergoing TJA may recieve spinal anesthesia (SA) or general anesthesia (GA). While arthroplasty literature indicates differences in postoperative morbidity, hip fracture literature does not show clear superiority of SA or GA. The purpose of this study was to further investigate this relationship and determine if there is a significant difference in morbidity and mortality between GA and SA in patients undergoing primary total joint arthroplasty. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary THA or TKA from February 2007 to February 2021 were retrospectively reviewed, creating four cohorts: THA/GA (n = 1,266), THA/SA (n = 1,084), TKA/GA (n = 882), and THA/SA (n = 2,067). Readmission within 90 days, mortality within 365 days, and thromboembolic events within 30 days postoperatively were compared using logistic regression, controlling for age, body mass index, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: The odds of experiencing a deep venous thrombosis within 30 days postoperatively were elevated in the analysis of both the THA/GA (odds ratio (OR) = 3.1; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5 to 7.0; P = .004) and the TKA/GA (OR = 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2 to 3.0; P = .005) groups. Similarly, the risk of pulmonary embolism as higher in the THA/GA cohort (OR = 3.9; 95% CI: 1.2 to 17.3; P = .04). There were also higher odds of mortality within 365 days postoperatively in THA/GA patients (OR = 4.3; 95% CI: 1.7 to 13.0; P = .004). No other differences existed among TKA patients. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon these data, both SA and GA are reasonable options for primary TKA with similar risk profiles. However, GA may be associated with higher rates of deep venous thrombosis in TJA and pulmonary embolism in THA. General anesthesia (GA) was also loosely associated with increased mortality within 1 year of THA, but this result should be considered with caution.

Propensity-Matched Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy Older Than the Age of 40 Years Had Greater Risk of Conversion to Total Hip Arthroplasty Compared With Their Primary Counterparts.

PURPOSE: To report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship following revision hip arthroscopy in patients aged ≥40 years and to compare these results with a propensity-matched primary hip arthroscopy control group. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between June 2008 and January 2019. Patients were included if they were ≥40 years of age at the time of surgery and had minimum 2-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Visual Analog Scale for pain, and the Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale. Patients who had a previous hip condition, or those who lacked minimum 2-year follow-up, were excluded. The revision group was further analyzed by conducting a 1:1 propensity-matched sub-analysis to a primary hip arthroscopy control group based on age, sex, body mass index, and acetabular labrum articular disruption grade. Statistical significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS: Eighty-nine hips (92.7% follow-up) were included, with 66.3% being females. The mean age, body mass index, and follow-up time were 49.4 ± 8.0 years, 26.6 ± 4.1, and 62.7 ± 38.5 months, respectively. Significant improvement in all PROs (P < .001) was reported, and 71.8%, 58 74.4%, and 65.2% achieved the minimal clinically important difference for the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, and Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, respectively. Eighty-seven revision hips were successfully propensity-matched to 87 primary hips. Both groups reported similar improvement for all PROs, but the relative risk of conversion to total hip arthroplasty was 2.63 times greater (95% confidence interval 1.20-5.79) for the revision group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients aged ≥40 years who underwent revision hip arthroscopy reported significant improvement in all PROs at a mean follow-up of 62.7 months with favorable rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference. When compared to the propensity-matched control group, both achieved similar rates of improvement, but the revision group was 2.63 times more likely to convert to total hip arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. case-control study.

Outcomes of Staged Bilateral Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in the Context of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Nested Matched-Pair Control Study Focusing on the Effect of Time Between Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Bilateral hip symptoms from femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) are a common finding in patients regardless of athletic involvement. Oftentimes, patients and surgeons choose to stage bilateral hip arthroscopic surgery. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was (1) to compare minimum 2-year outcomes between patients who underwent staged bilateral hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS to a propensity score-matched control group that underwent unilateral hip arthroscopic surgery and (2) to investigate the effect of time between bilateral procedures on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We hypothesized that, after bilateral hip arthroscopic surgery, the improvement in outcomes would be similar to that after unilateral hip arthroscopic surgery and the time duration between bilateral procedures would not affect the final outcome. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data were retrospectively reviewed on a consecutive series of patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery at our institution between June 2008 and November 2017. Patients who underwent bilateral hip arthroscopic surgery with minimum 2-year PROs for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), the Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), patient satisfaction, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were included. The study group was matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and body mass index to a control group that only required unilateral hip arthroscopic surgery. Additionally, a subanalysis was performed on the study group to determine the effect of time between arthroscopic procedures. Rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the mHHS and HOS-SSS were determined. The P value was set at <.05. RESULTS: A total of 205 patients (410 hips) were included. The mean age and body mass index of the study group were 32.3 ± 13.2 years and 25.0 ± 5.1, respectively. All 410 hips that met the inclusion criteria were matched. There were no significant differences in patient, radiographic, or procedural data. A significant and comparable improvement was reported for all PRO measures and the VAS (P < .0001) in both groups. Similarly, rates of achieving the MCID and PASS were comparable. After dividing the study group based on whether the contralateral procedure was performed <3 months or >3 months after the first procedure, it was determined that patients had a significant improvement and favorable outcomes regardless of time between bilateral procedures. CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent unilateral and bilateral hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS had a significant and comparable improvement in PROs at a minimum 2-year follow-up. A time interval of <3 months or >3 months between bilateral procedures did not affect PROs.

Surgeon-Specific Traction Time During Hip Arthroscopy for Primary Labral Repair Can Continue to Decrease After a Substantial Number of Surgeries.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the total traction time and traction time as a function of anchors placed (TTAP) for primary labral repair in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy by a single surgeon. METHODS: Patients were included if they received a primary labral repair with or without acetabuloplasty, chondroplasty, or ligamentum teres debridement as part of the treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Patients were excluded if they had a previous ipsilateral hip surgery, prior hip conditions, Tönnis grade >1, open procedures, microfracture, ligamentum teres reconstruction, or labral reconstruction. TTAP was calculated by dividing total traction time by the number of anchors placed. RESULTS: 2,350 hips met the inclusion criteria. The mean age and BMI in this cohort were 34.22 years and 25.72 kg/m2, respectively. A total traction time of 60 minutes was first achieved after 268 cases. Mean overall total traction time was 58.16 minutes (95% CI [57.35, 58.97]) and mean TTAP was 16.24 minutes (95% CI [15.93,16.55]) after 2,350 cases. Total traction time plateaued after 374 cases at 55.92 minutes, while TTAP plateaued after 487 cases at 14.93 minutes. CONCLUSION: Surgeons who introduce hip arthroscopy into their practice can expect to see improvements in traction time during the first 500 surgeries performed, as total traction time plateaued after 374 cases and TTAP plateaued after 487 cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV: case series.

In-line Pullout Strength of 2 Acetabular Fixation Methods for Ligamentum Teres Reconstruction of the Hip: A Cadaveric Study.

BACKGROUND: Ligamentum teres (LT) reconstruction is an appropriate alternative in select cases of LT full-thickness tears, resulting in hip micro- or macroinstability. Graft fixation at the acetabular fossa is critical to achieving the best functional results. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the pullout strength of 2 graft fixation methods used for LT reconstruction of the hip. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: In 7 cadaveric specimens, the acetabular socket was prepared after the native LT was transected and the femoral head was removed. Seven separate tibialis anterior grafts were then prepared by suturing a running-locking No. 2 suture on each tail of the graft. Three specimens had fixation of the graft to the acetabulum using an adjustable cortical suspension suture button; the remaining 4 were fixed to the acetabulum using a knotless suture anchor. Specimens were then mounted onto a custom jig within a mechanical test frame to allow for the in-line pull of the graft fixation construct. After a preload of 5 N, each specimen was loaded to failure at 0.5 mm/s. Stiffness and load to failure were measured for each specimen construct. RESULTS: Suture button fixation had a higher mean load to failure when compared with the knotless anchor fixation method (mean ± SD, 438.1 ± 114.3 vs 195.9 ± 50.0 N; P = .01). There was no significant difference in mean stiffness between the methods of fixation (24.5 ± 1.4 vs 26.5 ± 5.8 N/mm; P = .6). CONCLUSION: In this cadaveric study, the suture button fixation demonstrated greater load to failure than the knotless anchor fixation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results of this study can guide surgical decision making when selecting an acetabular fixation method for LT reconstruction.

Favorable Outcomes of Revision Hip Arthroscopy Irrespective of Whether Index Surgery was Performed by the Same Surgeon or a Different Surgeon.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) after revision hip arthroscopy between two different patient cohorts who had undergone primary hip arthroscopy with the same surgeon (SS) and a different surgeon (DS). We hypothesized no difference in clinical outcomes between the groups despite differences in intraoperative findings based on the surgical decision making in a revision setting at a high-volume center. METHODS: Between January 2012 and August 2017, 71 SS patients were matched for age, sex, body mass index, and follow-up to 71 DS patients. Modified Harris hip score (mHHS), nonarthritic hip score, and hip outcome score-sports-specific subscale (HOS-SSS) were collected prospectively. The minimal clinically important difference was calculated for mHHS and HOS-SSS. RESULTS: All the DS patients had labral tears, and 94.4% had femoroacetabular impingement from residual bony deformity (P < 0.001). The SS and DS groups demonstrated significant and comparable improvement in mHHS (Δ = 18.3 ± 21.5 versus 19 ± 20.1; P = 0.837), nonarthritic hip score (Δ = 18.8 ± 18.8 versus 18.2 ± 18.8; P = 0.850), and HOS-SSS (Δ = 22 ± 27.4 versus 17.5 ± 28.1; P = 0.275). The rates of achieving minimal clinically important difference for mHHS and HOS-SSS were similar. Furthermore, the need for revision surgery and conversion to total hip arthroplasty were comparable (P = 0.228 and P = 0.383). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy reported notable and comparable improvement in multiple patient-reported outcomes at a minimum 2-year follow-up, irrespective of intraoperative findings or primary source of patient pool.

Modern Suture Anchor Techniques for Gluteus Medius Tear Repair With Concomitant Total Hip Arthroplasty Using the Direct Anterior and Posterior Approaches.

Gluteus medius (GM) tears are currently a well-established source of pain and disability. However, their role in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the setting of osteoarthritis (OA) has been underexamined in the literature. The purpose of this study was to report on short-term patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) for patients who underwent concomitant primary THA and GM repair. Data were prospectively collected from September 2011 and June 2017. Inclusion criteria were primary THA along with concomitant GM repair and complete follow-up for the Harris Hip Score, Forgotten Joint Score 12, Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey both Physical and Mental, 12-item Short Form Survey both Physical and Mental (SF-12 P and SF-12 M), visual analog scale for pain, and patient satisfaction. Patients were excluded if they did not have follow-up. Thirty patients (30 hips) were included. Mean follow-up was 24.2±19.3 months. Twenty-nine (96.7%) patients were female. Mean age was 65.2±7.4 years. Mean body mass index was 31.1±5.9 kg/m2. The posterior approach was used for 16 (53.3%) cases and the anterior approach for the remaining 14 (46.7%). Two (6.7%) patients had a less than 25% tear, 7 (23.3%) had a 25% to 50% tear, 14 (46.7%) had a greater than 50% tear, and 7 (23.3%) had a full-thickness tear. All PROMs except SF-12 M demonstrated significant improvement at latest follow-up. Patients who underwent THA with either the anterior or the posterior approach with concomitant GM repair using modern suture anchor techniques reported favorable PROMs at short-term follow-up. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(5):e653-e660.].

Arthroscopic Triple Reconstruction in the Hip Joint: Restoration of Soft-Tissue Stabilizers in Revision Surgery for Gross Instability.

Gross hip instability in an active adult with previous normal hip anatomy is usually due to disruption of the static stabilizers of the hip joint. Although such a disruption can result from a high-grade injury, it can be iatrogenic after previous hip arthroscopy. The patient may present with a painful limp and recurrent subluxation sensation in the affected hip joint. Revision hip arthroscopy in this scenario is generally complicated, and it is not uncommon for all the soft-tissue stabilizers to be compromised. The labrum, ligamentum teres (LT), and capsule of the hip joint are often so damaged that reparation is not an option. Reconstruction of the torn LT is an established method to add secondary stability while addressing the labral pathology in the hip joint with microinstability. Concomitant reconstruction of all the static restraints has yet to be described addressing triple instability. This Technical Note presents a stepwise approach, including tips and pearls, for arthroscopic triple reconstruction of the labrum, LT, and capsule. We believe this method is a safe and reproducible way to effectively treat gross hip instability in young patients.

Minimum 5-Year Outcomes for Revision Hip Arthroscopy With a Prospective Subanalysis Against a Propensity-Matched Control Primary Group.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of midterm outcome data on hip revision arthroscopic surgery. PURPOSE: (1) To report minimum 5-year patient-reported outcome measurement scores (PROMSs) in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy, (2) to compare minimum 5-year PROMSs with a propensity-matched control group that underwent primary hip arthroscopy, and (3) to compare the rate of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at minimum 5-year follow-up between the revision group and the propensity-matched control primary group. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected between June 2008 and April 2014. Patients were included who underwent revision hip arthroscopy with preoperative and minimum 5-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patients with Tönnis grade >1 or with hip conditions such as avascular necrosis, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and pigmented villonodular synovitis were excluded. A subanalysis was performed against a propensity-matched control group that underwent primary surgery. Groups were propensity matched in a 1:2 ratio for sex, age, body mass index, and follow-up time. RESULTS: A total of 127 revision arthroscopies (113 patients) were included, and the mean ± SD follow-up time was 72.8 ± 23.3 months. The revision group was 74.0% female, and the average age and body mass index were 34.9 ± 12.4 years and 24.8 ± 4.2, respectively. The revision group demonstrated improvement for all PROMSs and reached the MCID for the mHHS (66.1%), HOS-SSS (68.4%), NAHS (66.9%), and VAS (80.0%). All revision cases were propensity matched to 254 primary arthroscopy cases. PROMSs in the revision group were lower than those of the control group before and after surgery. Delta values were similar between groups for all PROMSs. There were no differences in rates of achieving the MCID. The relative risk of arthroplasty conversion was 2.6 (95% CI, 1.5-4.6) for the revision group as compared with the primary group. CONCLUSION: Significant improvement in all PROMSs, including the VAS, and high patient satisfaction at minimum 5-year follow-up were reported after revision hip arthroscopy. A high proportion of patients in the revision cohort reached the MCID for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, NAHS, and VAS, with similar rates and magnitudes of improvement relative to the control group. As expected, these data indicate that patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy have higher PROMSs before and after surgery and lower rates of conversion to arthroplasty.

Borderline Dysplastic Female Patients With Painful Internal Snapping Improve Clinical Outcomes At Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up Following Hip Arthroscopy With Femoroplasty, Labral Repair, Iliopsoas Fractional Lengthening, and Capsular Plication: A Propensity-Matched Controlled Comparison.

PURPOSES: To report minimum 2-year follow-up patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) in borderline dysplastic female patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with femoroplasty, labral repair, iliopsoas fractional lengthening, and plication of the capsule (FLIP procedure) for cam-type femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS), labral tear, and painful internal snapping and to compare these PROs to a propensity-matched borderline dysplastic control group without painful internal snapping. METHODS: Data were retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for cam-type FAIS and labral tear between September 2008 and May 2017. Females with borderline dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle of ≥18° to ≤25°) and painful internal snapping, who underwent the FLIP procedure, with minimum 2-year PROs for modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale, patient satisfaction, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were included. The group was matched 1:1 to a control group without painful internal snapping for age, sex, body-mass index (BMI), and surgical procedures. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated. P-value was set at .05. RESULTS: Seventy-four hips were included. The mean was 26.82 ± 10.49 years and 23.62 ± 4.56 kg/m2 for age and BMI, respectively. Improvement was reported for all PROs and VAS (P < .0001). Twenty-nine patients were matched. At minimum 2-year follow-up, the FLIP procedure demonstrated comparable improvement in PROs and rate of achievement of MCID to the control group. CONCLUSION: After primary hip arthroscopy and FLIP procedure, females with borderline dysplasia and painful internal snapping demonstrated significant improvement in PROs at minimum 2 years' follow-up. When compared to a propensity-matched control group without painful internal snapping, the improvement between groups was comparable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; Case-Control study.

Repair of Symptomatic Partial Gluteus Medius Tear During Total Hip Arthroplasty Through the Direct Anterior Approach.

Gluteus medius (GM) tears are a well-established source of pain and disability. Considering previous studies, which have reported rates of incidental GM tears in 20% of patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and a 3-fold greater rate in elderly female patients, additional focus should be placed on identifying treatment options. The direct anterior approach (DAA) for primary THA has gained popularity within the past few years. However, there has been a paucity in the literature on how to address symptomatic and partial GM tears through this approach. The purpose of this Technical Note is to describe a method to repair partial GM tears during primary THA using the DAA.

Capsular Management of the Hip During Arthroscopic Acetabular Chondral Resurfacing: Pearls, Pitfalls, and Optimal Surgical Technique.

Treatment of hip joint chondral damage is a well-recognized aspect of the arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Hip chondral resurfacing has evolved from microfracture to different forms of cartilage grafting, all with variable long-term outcomes. Recent literature has focused on techniques using different cartilage sources (native and synthetic products) that are available for clinicians to choose from during hip arthroscopy. None of the published reports on cartilage grafts have commented on hip joint capsular management as part of the procedure. This is likely because of the increased difficulty of capsular closure in the dry arthroscopic environment required for graft stabilization. However, potential iatrogenic hip instability induced by an unrepaired interportal capsulotomy can be detrimental to the existing joint architecture and possibly to the cartilage graft. This article presents a step-by-step approach, including tips and pearls, for capsular closure during arthroscopic acetabular chondral resurfacing with BioCartilage (Arthrex, Naples, FL). This method is a safe and reproducible way to close the joint capsule during chondral resurfacing in patients undergoing hip preservation that can potentially enhance the chances of a successful outcome.

Development of a Predictive Algorithm for Symptomatic Hip Abductor Tears in Patients Undergoing Primary Hip Arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with lateral hip pain may pose a difficult diagnostic challenge, as pain can be due to various causes. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose was to identify risk factors and predictors for symptomatic hip abductor tears in a cohort of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. We hypothesized that body mass index (BMI), female sex, age, and presence of chondral damage would be significant predictors of hip abductor pathologies. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if they underwent primary hip arthroscopy between March 2009 and December 2019. Patients with Tönnis grade >1, previous hip conditions, incomplete radiographic data, or open procedures were excluded. All demographic variables, intraoperative measurements, and radiographic measurements were assessed using a bivariate analysis. A stepwise logistic regression was used to determine predictive variables. RESULTS: In total, 255 hips with a hip abductor tear that underwent hip arthroscopy and 2106 hips without a tear that underwent hip arthroscopy were included. The stepwise logistic regression successfully created a predictive model using age, sex, BMI, lateral joint space, and alpha angle as variables. The efficiency of the predictive model was 90.7%, with an area under the curve of 0.894. The odds of having a hip abductor tear were 7.41 times higher in females (odds ratio [OR], 7.41; 95% CI, 4.61-11.9). Each additional year of age was associated with a 13.7% (OR, 1.137; 95% CI, 1.12-1.16) increase in the odds of having a tear. Similarly, with each 1-unit increase in BMI, the odds of having a tear increased by 3.4% (OR, 1.034; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06). CONCLUSION: This study successfully created a predictive model that identified female sex (OR, 7.41), increasing age (OR, 1.137 for each year), and increased BMI (OR, 1.034 for each unit of BMI) as significant independent predictors of the presence of hip abductor tears in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. This model can be used in support of physical examination and imaging suggestive of hip abductor pathology to preoperatively identify the probability of a symptomatic hip abductor tear in these patients.

Robotics and Navigation as Learning Tools for Fellows Training in Hip Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: The association between implant malpositioning and complications has been repeatedly demonstrated. Recently, technological advancements have allowed for more consistent implant placement. Beyond this obvious application, these technologies may also serve as a learning tool. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of fellows' estimation of implant positioning using a robotic system. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected for all patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty between September 2019 and December 2019. The fellow was blinded to the robotic system. Before reaming and broaching by the senior surgeon, the fellow was asked to place the reamer at 40° of cup inclination and 20° of version. The resulting values were recorded before the true measurements were revealed. A similar process was followed for femoral broaching. RESULTS: The mean difference between the estimated and actual cup inclination and version was 7.24° (P = 0.060) and 4.81° (P = 0.031), respectively. The mean difference in broach version was 7.00° (P = 0.159). Without the robotic system, 43.47% and 69.57% of patients would have had the cup placed outside of the safe zones described by Lewinnek and Callanan, respectively. CONCLUSION: The estimated anteversion of the acetabular implant was found to be markedly different from its actual anteversion. A considerable portion of the cups would have been positioned outside of the Lewinnek and Callanan "safe zones" provided that the implants would have been manually positioned. The use of robotic or navigation systems may provide useful learning tools for fellows in training to understand their own inaccuracies in estimated implant position and hence refine their abilities.

Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in the Context of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome, Labral Tear, and Acetabular Overcoverage: Minimum 5-Year Outcomes With a Subanalysis Against Patients Without Overcoverage.

BACKGROUND: Improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been reported in the short term after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and labral tear in the setting of acetabular overcoverage. Yet, there is a paucity of information in the literature on midterm PROs. PURPOSE: To (1) report minimum 5-year PROs in patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS and acetabular labral tears in the context of acetabular overcoverage and (2) compare outcomes with those of a propensity-matched control group without acetabular overcoverage. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed on all patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS and labral tears between February 2008 and November 2013. Inclusion criteria were lateral center-edge angle >40° and minimum 5-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and the Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS). Exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions, active workers' compensation claims, or lack of minimum 5-year outcomes. A 1:1 propensity-matched comparison was made between the study group and a control group without acetabular overcoverage (lateral center-edge angle, 25°-40°) based on age at surgery, sex, body mass index, Tönnis grade, laterality, and follow-up time. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, and NAHS. Secondary surgical procedures were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria for the study group, of whom 45 (83.3%; 45 hips) had a minimum 5-year follow-up and were matched without differences in age at surgery, sex, body mass index, or follow-up time. The study and control groups demonstrated significant and comparable improvements for the mHHS (mean ± SD Δ, 24.06 ± 24.19 vs 26.33 ± 17.27; P = .625), NAHS (Δ, 31.22 ± 25.31 vs 27.15 ± 17.61; P = .399), and HOS-SSS (Δ, 33.16 ± 34.73 vs 34.75 ± 26.15; P = .557). The rates for achieving the MCID were similar for the study and control groups for the mHHS (76.7% vs 84.2%; P = .399), HOS-SSS (79.1% vs 75.8%; P = .731), and NAHS (81.4% vs 84.2%; P = .738). Need for revision surgery was similar (P = .748). A lower conversion rate to total hip arthroplasty was reported for the study than for the control group (2.2% vs 15.6%; P = .026). CONCLUSION: In the context of FAIS, labral tears, and acetabular overcoverage, patients who underwent hip arthroscopy reported significant improvement in several PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up. Moreover, outcomes were comparable with those of a propensity-matched control group without acetabular overcoverage. Furthermore, the rate of achieving the MCID for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, and NAHS was similar between these groups.

Arthroscopic-Assisted Intraosseous Bioplasty of the Acetabulum.

Intraosseous bioplasty (IOBP), has been previously described for arthroscopic-assisted treatment of subchondral bone cysts in the proximal tibia associated with early stages of knee osteoarthritis (OA). This technique entails combining bone marrow aspirate concentrate or concentrated platelet-rich plasma with demineralized bone matrix as a bone substitute before injecting into a subchondral bone defect under fluoroscopic guidance. The principles of IOBP as a procedure that combines core decompression with biologic bone substitute augmentation can be extended to treat subchondral bone marrow lesions such as acetabular and femoral cysts in degenerative hip OA. Intraosseous bioplasty of the hip, in particular the acetabulum, when done using this technique, is a useful alternative that can be beneficial in treating young patients with early hip arthritis to achieve successful outcomes while delaying more invasive procedures. The Technical Note described here presents a step-by-step approach, including tips and pearls for arthroscopic-assisted IOBP with decompression of the subchondral cyst in the acetabulum followed by bone substitute injection under fluoroscopic guidance. We believe this method is a safe and reproducible way to treat subchondral defects in young patients with signs of early osteoarthritis of the hip joint.

An Iliopsoas Impingement Lesion in the Absence of Painful Internal Snapping May Not Require Iliopsoas Fractional Lengthening.

BACKGROUND: Iliopsoas impingement (IPI) has been associated with a distinct lesion on the anterior labrum. Iliopsoas fractional lengthening (IFL) can treat IPI in instances of painful internal snapping (PIS) and mechanical groin pain. PURPOSE: To report minimum 2-year outcomes of patients without PIS who had an IPI lesion diagnosed intraoperatively that did not undergo IFL (+IPI -PIS -IFL) as compared with a matched group of patients with PIS and an IPI lesion that was treated with IFL (+IPI +PIS +IFL). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data on all patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy between May 2009 and June 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if they underwent hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement-related pathology, an IPI lesion was diagnosed intraoperatively, and they had minimum 2-year postoperative scores for the following: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), iHOT-12 (International Hip Outcome Tool-12), patient satisfaction, and visual analog score (VAS) for pain. Patients were propensity score matched based on the following criteria: age, body mass index, follow-up time, sex, labral treatment, femoroplasty, and acetabuloplasty. RESULTS: A total of 412 hips were eligible for the current study, of which 336 (81.6%) had 2-year follow-up. The matching process established 37 hips in the +IPI -PIS -IFL group and 87 hips in the +IPI +PIS +IFL group. Both groups experienced significant improvements from presurgery to latest follow-up for all recorded patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The +IPI -PIS -IFL group compared favorably with the +IPI +PIS +IFL group for mHHS (86.0 vs 86.1; P = .53), NAHS (83.0 vs 84.7; P = .40), and HOS-SSS (78.1 vs 76.5; P = .87). Additionally, iHOT-12, VAS, patient satisfaction, and rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference for mHHS, NAHS, and HOS-SSS were similar between groups at the latest follow-up. CONCLUSION: Patients without PIS who were diagnosed with an IPI lesion intraoperatively and did not undergo IFL had similar and favorable improvements in PROs, VAS, and satisfaction to a matched cohort with PIS who had IFL performed. Thus, an IPI lesion in the absence of PIS may not require IFL.