Editorial Commentary: In Terms of Hip Arthroscopy Long-term Outcomes, Intra-articular Cartilage Damage Is More Important Than Hip Labral Treatment Method: The Second Habit of Highly Effective Surgeons.

There is a large debate revolving around the optimal surgical management of hip labral tears. Currently, the literature tends to gravitate toward labral repair as the mainstay of treatment, followed by labral reconstruction when repair is not feasible. Some studies assert that there is no difference between labral repair versus debridement, whereas others support repair. Other studies support labral reconstruction. In the end, it is the quality of the cartilage that may be most important. Intra-articular cartilage damage is more important than the labral treatment method when it comes to hip arthroscopy long-term outcomes.

Editorial Commentary: Machine Learning Can Indicate Hip Arthroscopy Procedures, Predict Postoperative Improvement, and Estimate Costs.

Complex statistical approaches are increasingly being used in the orthopaedic literature, and this is especially true in the field of sports medicine. Tools such as machine learning provide the opportunity to analyze certain research areas that would often require the complex assessment of large amounts of data. Generally, decision making is multifactorial and based upon experience, personal capabilities, available utilities, and literature. Given the difficulty associated with determining the optimal patient treatment, many studies have moved toward more complex statistical approaches to create algorithms that take large amounts of data and distill it into a formula that may guide surgeons to better patient outcomes while estimating and even optimizing costs. In the future, this clinical and economic information will play an important role in patient management.

Comparable Minimum 2-Year Patient-Reported Outcome Scores Between Circumferential and Segmental Labral Reconstruction for the Management of Irreparable Labral Tear and Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome in the Primary Setting: A Propensity-Matched Study.

PURPOSE: To compare minimum 2-year follow-up patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) in patients who underwent primary acetabular circumferential and segmental labral reconstruction for irreparable labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). METHODS: Data were reviewed from August 2010 to December 2017. Patients with primary labral reconstruction and minimum 2-year follow-up 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 were included. Circumferential and segmental reconstruction were selected in each case based on the extent of the labral pathology. Exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip surgery/conditions, dysplasia, or Tönnis grade >1. Patients were propensity matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and body mass index. Secondary surgeries were reported. The P value was set at <.05. RESULTS: In total, 144 hips were eligible, and 17 hips were lost to follow-up, leaving 127 hips (88.2%) for analysis. Eighty hips underwent a segmental reconstruction, and 47 hips underwent a circumferential reconstruction. Forty-seven hips with circumferential reconstruction were matched to 47 hips with segmental reconstruction. The average follow-up and age for the segmental and circumferential groups were 29.0 ± 7.8 and 27.9 ± 7.0 months (P = .732) and 43.1 ± 9.4 and 44.7 ± 10.2 years (P = .442) respectively. The segmental and circumferential groups were 48.9% and 51.1% female, respectively. The groups achieved significant and comparable improvement for all PROs and rates of secondary surgeries. No differences were found for achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS). The MCIDs for the segmental and circumferential groups were 76.7% and 77.8% for the mHHS, 64.9% and 77.8% for the HOS-SSS, 71.1% and 68.9% for the VAS, and 68.9% and 73.9% for the NAHS, respectively. The PASSs for the segmental and circumferential groups were 78.3% and 73.3% for the mHHS, 55.3% and 55.0% for the HOS-SSS, and 75.6% and 71.1% for the International Hip Outcome Tool 12, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At minimum 2-year follow-up, patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for either circumferential or segmental labral reconstruction for irreparable labra and FAIS reported significant improvement and similar postoperative scores for all PROs, with no difference in psychometric outcomes and rate of secondary surgeries. A customized approach, using the extent of the irreparable labral tear, seems to be an appropriate strategy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

The Inverse Relationship Between Labral Size and Acetabular Coverage: Does It Protect the Cartilage in the Dysplastic Hip?

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to confirm the relationship between osseous coverage and labral size and to investigate the severity of intra-articular damage in borderline dysplastic hips in correlation to labral size. METHODS: Patients treated with primary hip arthroscopy for symptomatic labral tears between 2010 and 2018 were considered for this study. Patients were included if they had preoperative radiographic measures and intraoperative assessments of the labra and cartilage. The study group was divided into borderline dysplastic and nondysplastic groups via 3 measurements: lateral center edge angle (LCEA), acetabular index (Ax), and anterior center edge angle (ACEA). Undercoverage was defined as LCEA ≤ 25°, Ax ≥ 10°, and ACEA ≤ 20°. The labrum was measured in four quadrants: anterosuperior (AS), anteroinferior (AI), posterosuperior (PS), and posteroinferior (PI). Additionally, to assess cartilage damage in borderline dysplastic hips, hips with average labral size in the top quartile were compared to hips with average labral size in the bottom quartile. RESULTS: A total of 1765 hips (1589 patients) were included in the study. The mean LCEA, Ax, and ACEA between the borderline dysplastic and nondysplastic groups were significantly different (P < .001). According to the Ax classification, there was significant evidence that borderline dysplastic hips had larger labra (P < .05). Among the dysplastic group, there was significantly more cartilage damage according to the Outerbridge classifications along both the acetabulum and femoral head in hips with labra in the upper quartile (P =.011 and .005, respectively). CONCLUSION: An inverse relationship may exist between acetabular depth and labral size. Additionally, specifically in borderline dysplastic hips, a relatively large labrum correlates with worse intra-articular damage compared to borderline dysplastic hips with a relatively small labrum. Larger labral size may indicate a higher degree of instability in patients with borderline dysplasia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control study.

Dunn View Alpha Angle More Useful Than Femoral Head-Neck Offset to Predict Acetabular Cartilage Damage in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy.

PURPOSE: To identify radiographic measurements and demographics that are predictive of acetabular cartilage damage in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) undergoing hip arthroscopy. More specifically, to compare the predictive value of alpha angle and femoral head-neck offset, as measured on Dunn view radiographs, in determining the preoperative likelihood and severity of acetabular cartilage damage. METHODS: Patients were included if they underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS between February 2008 and June 2020. Exclusion criteria were prior ipsilateral hip conditions, Tönnis grade of osteoarthritis >1, unwilling to participate, missing intraoperative, demographic or radiographic variables of interest, and lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) >40° or ≤25°. Fourteen variables were assessed in a bivariate comparison and analyzed in a multivariate logistic model. The Acetabular Labrum Articular Disruption (ALAD) and Outerbridge (OB) classifications were used to define acetabular cartilage defects. Those without damage or those with mild acetabular cartilage damage belonged to the ALAD/OB ≤2 group and those with severe damage belonged to the ALAD/OB ≥ 3 group. RESULTS: A total of 1485 patients were analyzed, including 1038 patients with ALAD/OB ≤2 and 447 patients with ALAD/OB ≥3. There was a greater proportion of males in the ALAD/OB ≥3 group (64.21% vs 25.82%; P <.001). The multivariate logistic regression selected age, sex, anterior center-edge angle (ACEA), and alpha angle. Every additional degree in the alpha angle was associated with a 6% increase in the odds of severe acetabular cartilage damage (odds ratio [OR], 1.06 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-8.11]). The multivariate analysis did not identify femoral head-neck offset as a predictor. The odds of severe acetabular cartilage damage were 3.73 times higher in males than females (OR, 3.73 [95% CI, 0.01-1705.96]). Higher age was found to increase the likelihood of ALAD/OB ≥3 (OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.13-7.75]). CONCLUSIONS: In a multivariate analysis, factors identified as preoperative predictors of acetabular cartilage damage in patients with FAIS were age, sex, ACEA, and alpha angle. Femoral head-neck offset was not predictive, suggesting that Dunn view alpha angle may take precedence as a predictor of acetabular cartilage damage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, cohort study.

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.

Mid- to Long-Term Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To assess mid- to long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of hip arthroscopy as well as the rates of secondary surgery and to identify indications for surgery and noted predictors of failure. METHODS: A systematic review of the current literature was performed with the terms "hip arthroscopy," "outcomes," "patient-reported outcomes," "mid-term," "5-year," "long-term," and "10-year" in the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases in April of 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Data for study characteristics, patient demographics, follow-up time, indications for surgery, PROs, predictors of failure or unfavorable PROs, and rates of secondary hip preservation surgery and conversion to total hip arthroplasty were collected. RESULTS: Thirteen articles were included. Four studies were level III and 9 were level IV. In total, 1571 hips were included, and the average follow-up time ranged from 60 to 240 months. The most common indications for hip arthroscopy were labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Twelve studies reported on PROs and all reported improvement at latest follow-up. The most reported on scores were the modified Harris Hip Score, Harris Hip Score, and the Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale. When grouped based on average follow-up time, the conversion rates at the 5- and 10-year time points ranged from 3.0% to 17.9% and 2.4% to 32.5%, respectively. One study with 20-year follow-up reported a conversion rate of 41.0%. Osteoarthritis and increased age were the most cited predictors for secondary surgery or decreased PROs. CONCLUSIONS: At mid- to long-term follow-up, patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy demonstrated improvement in several PROs. There was great variability in rates for revision surgery and conversion to total hip arthroplasty. The most common indications for hip arthroscopy were labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Osteoarthritis and increased age were the most cited predictors for unfavorable outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Determining Clinically Meaningful Thresholds for the Nonarthritic Hip Score in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to improve the interpretability of the Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS) by determining the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement. The secondary aim was to identify variables associated with achievement of the thresholds. METHODS: Patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement and completed postoperative questionnaires between August 2019 and March 2020 were included. Patients were excluded if they underwent previous ipsilateral hip surgery, underwent gluteus medius repair, or had a previous hip condition. The MCID, PASS, and SCB thresholds were calculated for the NAHS at minimum 1-, 2-, and 5-year follow-up. Distribution- and anchor-based methods with receiver operating characteristic analysis were used to determine the thresholds. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of achieving the MCID and PASS. RESULTS: The study included 343 hips with an average follow-up period of 48 months. On the basis of the distribution-based approach, the MCID was 8.7 using a method in which the standard deviation of the baseline score was divided by 2. By use of a method in which the standard deviation of the change score was divided by 2, MCID scores of 9.1, 8.3, and 12.6 resulted at a minimum of 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively. The PASS thresholds for these time points were 81.9, 85.6, and 81.9. The absolute SCB thresholds were 91.9, 94.4, and 93.1 and the change score thresholds were 30.6, 24.4, and 29.3 for a minimum of 1, 2, and 5 years, respectively. The preoperative NAHS was positively associated with achievement of the PASS and inversely related to achievement of the MCID. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important clinical thresholds for the NAHS. These thresholds were determined for minimum 1-, 2-, and 5-year time points. The MCID was determined as 8.7, the PASS ranged between 81.9 and 85.6, and the absolute SCB value ranged from 91.9 to 94.4. The preoperative NAHS was found to be positively associated with achievement of the PASS and inversely related to achievement of the MCID. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective case series.

Intraoperative Classification System Yields Favorable Outcomes for Patients Treated Surgically for Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome.

PURPOSE: To use a prospectively collected database to internally validate a previously published intraoperative classification system by determining its utility in improving patient-reported outcome scores (PROS). METHODS: Open or endoscopic procedures performed at a single center between February 2008 and March 2018 with minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed. Patients were prospectively classified intraoperatively as one of five greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) types according to the Lall GTPS classification system and underwent one of the six following surgical procedures: trochanteric bursectomy (TB, type I); TB with trochanteric micropuncture (type II); endoscopic suture staple repair (type IIIA); endoscopic single row transtendinous repair (type IIIB); open or endoscopic double row repair (type IV); and gluteus maximus/tensor fasciae latae transfers (type V). The following PROS were analyzed to assess the efficacy of treatment and validity of the classification scheme: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score, The International Hip Outcome Tool, Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale, and visual analog scale for pain. RESULTS: In total, 324 patients (287 female, 37 male) underwent surgical management per GTPS classification type: 109 type I; 26 type II; 20 type IIIA; 118 type IIIB; 44 type IV; and 7 type V. The mean age and follow-up time were 51.9 ± 12.5 years and 44.5 ± 20.5 months, respectively. All patients PROS improved from baseline to minimum 2-year follow-up (P < .05). High rates of the minimal clinically important difference for mHHS (70.0-100.0) and Nonarthritic Hip Score (73.1-92.7) and patient acceptable symptomatic state for mHHS (70.0-94.5) and International Hip Outcome Tool (58.1-86.7) were achieved per GTPS type. Patient satisfaction was 7.9/10. CONCLUSIONS: This validation study supports that the classification system and treatment algorithm for surgical treatment of various GTPS types leads to favorable patient-reported outcomes. These findings provide surgeons with a validated classification system and treatment algorithm to manage peritrochantric pathology diagnosed intraoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, prognostic study.

Defining the Maximum Outcome Improvement of the Modified Harris Hip Score, the Nonarthritic Hip Score, the Visual Analog Scale For Pain, and the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 in the Arthroscopic Management for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome and Labral Tear.

PURPOSE: To determine the respective percent thresholds for achieving the maximal outcome improvement (MOI) for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) that were associated with satisfaction following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and labral tear, and to identify preoperative predictors of reaching the mHHS, NAHS, VAS, and the iHOT-12 thresholds for achieving the MOI. METHODS: An anchor question was provided to patients who underwent hip arthroscopy between April 2008 and April 2019. Patients were included if they answered the anchor question and had minimum 1-year follow-up. Patients were excluded if they had a previous ipsilateral hip surgery, a Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia, or a previous hip condition. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the thresholds for the percentage of the MOI predictive of satisfaction. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of achieving the MOI threshold. RESULTS: In total, 407 hips (375 patients) were included, with 279 female patients (68.6%). The average age, body mass index, and follow-up time were 38.8 ± 13.7 years, 26.6 ± 5.8, and 51.8 ± 33.2 months, respectively. Satisfaction with the current state of their hip was reported in 77.9% (317) of the cases. It was determined that 54.8%, 52.5%, 55.5%, and 55.8% of MOI were the thresholds for maximal predictability of satisfaction for mHHS, NAHS, VAS, and iHOT-12, respectively. Predictors of achieving MOI were not identified. CONCLUSIONS: Following hip arthroscopy in the context of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and labral tear, the thresholds for achieving the MOI for the mHHS, NAHS, VAS for pain, and iHOT-12 were 54.8%, 52.5%, 55.5%, and 55.8% respectively. No preoperative predictors of achieving the MOI were identified. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, case-series.

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.

Intraoperative Findings and Clinical Outcomes Associated With Arthroscopic Management of Subspine Impingement: A Propensity-Matched, Controlled Study.

PURPOSE: (1) To investigate intra-articular damage in the hip joint associated with subspine impingement (SSI); (2) to evaluate clinical outcomes of arthroscopic treatment of hips with SSI; and (3) to compare the findings and outcomes to a control group without SSI. METHODS: Eligible patients had arthroscopic treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) concurrent with SSI between January 2015 and December 2017. Inclusion criteria consisted of preoperative and minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes and preoperative measurements for Tönnis, lateral center edge angle, and alpha angle. Included patients were propensity-matched in a 1:3 ratio to patients who had FAI without SSI. Patient-reported outcomes were compared between groups. Minimal clinically important difference was calculated for modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS). RESULTS: Fifty SSI cases were matched to 150 patients who had FAI without SSI. A greater proportion of the SSI cohort required labral reconstruction (P = .010). The size and locations for labral tears and chondral defects were comparable between groups (P > .05). Both groups demonstrated similar minimum 2-year outcomes for mHHS (P = .103), Nonarthritic Hip Score (P = .200), HOS-SSS (P = .119), visual analog scale (P = .231), international Hip Outcome Tool-12 (P =.300), Short Form-12 Mental (P = .426), Short Form-12 Physical (P = .328), Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, Mental (P = .419), and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, Physical (P = .316). The percentage of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference for mHHS and HOS-SSS was similar (P > .05). Survivorship was 96.0% and 98.7% for the SSI and control cohorts at 2 years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic treatment of hips with SSI with subspine decompression and concomitant treatment of labral tears and FAI yielded significant improvement in patients' outcomes, which compared favorably with the control group. SSI may correlate with more complex labral tears, not amenable to repair, and complete tears of the ligamentum teres. Other findings, such as location and size of intra-articular damage, were similar between the cohorts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, case-control study.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Athletes Following Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement With Subanalysis on Return to Sport and Performance Level: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To identify present trends in demographics, surgical indications, preoperative findings, and surgical treatment of athletes undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement and (2) to investigate the outcomes in this patient population, including patient-reported outcome scores (PROS), return-to-sport, complications, and reoperation data at minimum 2-year follow-up in the athletic population. METHODS: Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed databases were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to distinguish articles that reported PROS after hip arthroscopy in athletes. Athletes were defined as anyone who played a sport for minimum 2 years at any level. The standardized mean difference was calculated to compare the effect size of hip arthroscopy on various PROS. RESULTS: Eighteen studies, with 904 athlete hips and a collective study period of January 1993 to April 2017, were included in this systematic review. Across all studies, the mean age and body mass index ranged from 15.7-36.7 years and 20.3-26.3, respectively. The follow-up range was 24-240 months. Mean preoperative alpha angle ranged from 57.7° to 80.0°. Athletes most commonly underwent femoroplasty and labral management. At latest follow-up, the modified Harris Hip Score were excellent in 6 studies (range, 92.1-98), good in 10 studies (range, 84.2-88.5), and fair in 1 study (77.1). Each studies' individual athletic cohort showed significant improvement on the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, the Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale, visual analog scale for pain, and International Hip Outcome Tool at latest follow-up (P < .05). The return-to-sport rate ranged from 72.7% to 100%, with 74.2-100% of these athletes returning to preinjury or greater level. CONCLUSIONS: Athletes undergoing arthroscopic hip surgery in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement, not only exhibit significant functional improvement, but also have a high rate of return to sport at the same or greater competition level compared with preinjury level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Capsular Repair May Improve Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review of Comparative Outcome Studies.

PURPOSE: To review the existing literature in order to determine the effect of hip capsule repair on outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. METHODS: This study used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to find articles by using PubMed and Embase. Included studies were Level I through III studies that focused on patient outcomes as a function of hip capsular treatments: capsulotomy repair, partial repair, plication, and unrepaired capsulotomies. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies was used for quality assessment of clinical outcome studies. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 16 comparative outcome studies evaluating 2,996 hips were included; they evaluated the following capsular management techniques: complete repair (n = 1,112, 37.1%), partial repair (n = 32, 1.1%), plication (n = 223, 7.4%), and unrepaired capsulotomy (n = 1629, 54.4%). RESULTS: Of the 16 studies, 13 included patient-reported outcome scores (PROs), 3 included imaging outcomes data, and 2 reported on reoperation. Of the studies, 10 directly compared patient-reported outcomes between a capsular repair group and an unrepaired group. Of the 10 studies that directly compared PROs between a group with unrepaired capsulotomy and a group with capsular repair, 8 studies demonstrated statistically significantly better PROs in the repaired group compared to the unrepaired group, and 2 studies found no difference between the groups. Reoperation rates demonstrated mixed results between groups, and no difference was found in regard to imaging outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Midterm outcome studies suggest that capsular repair is safe and effective in patients without arthritis who are undergoing hip arthroscopy, and it may result in superior PROs compared with those found after unrepaired capsulotomy. Studies consistently demonstrate similar or superior outcomes in cohorts after capsular repair compared to unrepaired capsulotomy, and no studies reported superior results in unrepaired capsulotomy patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level I through Level III studies.

Ligamentum Teres Reconstruction May Lead to Improvement in Outcomes Following a Secondary Hip Arthroscopy for Symptomatic Microinstability: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To present the indications, surgical technique, outcomes, and complications for patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of the ligamentum teres (LT). METHODS: Articles were included if they had postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for arthroscopic LT reconstruction. Studies were analyzed for patient demographics, clinical assessment and indications, radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging data, concomitant procedures performed, PROs, surgical techniques, intra-articular classifications, complications, and need for follow-up surgeries. For PROs, the standard mean difference was calculated. The proportion of patients achieving patient acceptable symptomatic state for postoperative modified Harris Hip Score (≥74) was recorded. The number of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference for modified Harris Hip Score (Δ ≥8) was calculated. RESULTS: The majority of the cases were revision arthroscopies. Of the 3 studies reporting on patients undergoing LT reconstruction due to microinstability, 4, 9, and 11 patients demonstrated a mean improvement of 25.7, 35.2, and 27.7 in modified Harris Hip, respectively. In addition, one of the studies reported a mean improvement of 31.1 and 4.2 in Nonarthritic Hip Score and visual analog scale, respectively. Of the 3 studies, the percentile of patients surpassing minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state ranged between 50% and 100% and 33.3% and 88.8%, respectively. Overall, 5 patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy due to adhesions, iliopsoas impingement, and persistent microinstability, and 3 patients underwent a secondary hip arthroplasty due to refractory pain and radiographic evidence of hip osteoarthritis. CONCLUSION: Reconstruction of the LT may be considered in surgical management for patients with symptomatic hip instability due to soft-tissue causes. Current evidence supports for LT reconstruction predominantly for patients experiencing refractory instability following previous hip preservation procedures. Patients' expectations as well as the relatively high reoperation rate (i.e., 33%) should be discussed before the procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.

Hip Capsular Management in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement or Microinstability: A Systematic Review of Biomechanical Studies.

PURPOSE: To investigate the correlation between hip capsular management (repair or reconstruction) and biomechanical results in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement and microinstability. METHODS: A search of the PubMed and Embase databases was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Included studies focused on hip biomechanics related to capsular release, repair of I- and T-capsulotomy, or capsular reconstruction. Studies were assessed for external/internal rotation of the femur, femoral head translation, rotational torque, and distraction force. Articles were excluded if they discussed treatment of the hip capsule related to surgical dislocation, mini-open surgery, arthroplasty, reorientation osteotomy, or traumatic dislocation. RESULTS: Twenty-four biomechanical studies were included that evaluated rotation/translation (11 studies), distraction (3 studies), the capsular role in microinstability (simulated with anterior capsule pie crusting [2 studies] and cyclical loading [2 studies]), allograft reconstruction (3 studies), and anatomic properties (3 studies). Repair and reconstruction demonstrated improvements in maximum distractive force, total ROM, and torsional stability when compared to capsular release. Significant differences were observed between capsular repair and release in total ROM in the coronal plane with improved stability in the repair groups (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -1.3°, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.68 , -0.854; P < .001). There was significantly increased total motion in the coronal plane in the capsular laxity state compared to the native state (SMD: 1.4° (95% CI 0.32, 2.49; P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: Biomechanical evidence supports closure of the capsule after hip arthroscopy to reverse the significant effects of capsulotomy. Simulated capsule laxity models created altered joint motion and translation. Capsule reconstruction appears to restore the hip to its native capsule state. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Investigating the biomechanical outcomes of capsular repair and reconstruction will help surgeons better understand the rationale and implications of these capsular management strategies.

Asymptomatic Gluteal Tendinopathies Negatively Impact Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with preoperative asymptomatic gluteus medius and minimus (GMM) pathology to a control group with no GMM pathology. METHODS: Patients undergoing THA for osteoarthritis between August 2012 and March 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Asymptomatic GMM pathology was considered as the presence of gluteal tendinopathy diagnosed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) without the following clinical symptoms: Trendelenburg gait or test, abductor weakness, and lateral thigh tenderness. Patients with asymptomatic GMM pathology were matched (1:1) to patients without GMM pathology on MRI. Two-year data were collected on patient-reported outcomes including Harris Hip Score, Forgotten Joint Score, pain, and satisfaction. Postoperative clinical examination, radiographic measures, complications, and revisions for both groups were reviewed. RESULTS: Fifty cases of asymptomatic GMM pathology were successfully matched to 50 hips without GMM pathology on MRI. Patients with asymptomatic GMM pathology demonstrated significantly worse outcomes regarding 2-year Harris Hip Score (86.24 vs 92.39, P = .04), VAS for pain (1.82 vs 0.98, P = .05), and patient satisfaction (7.69 vs 9.16, P = .002). The study group exhibited significantly higher rates of lateral hip pain postoperatively. Two cases (4%) in the control group underwent a revision THA and 4 cases (8%) in the study group underwent revision THA. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing THA for osteoarthritis, those with asymptomatic GMM pathology experience inferior 2-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes compared to a matched group. This finding should raise awareness surrounding this important pathology's negative impact on surgical outcomes, thus warranting increased vigilance, and possibly justifying concomitant treatment, even in cases of asymptomatic GMM tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III - Retrospective comparative prognostic study.

Minimum Five-Year Outcomes of Hip Resurfacing: Propensity-Score Matched Against Total Hip Arthroplasty Control Groups.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes of patients undergoing Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) with a minimum 5-year follow-up and compare these outcomes to 2 matched control groups of patients undergoing either direct anterior approach (DAA) or posterior approach (PA) total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: Data between September 2008 and April 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Male patients were included if they underwent a THA or BHR with minimum 5-year patient-reported outcomes. BHR patients were propensity-score matched in a 1:1 ratio to 2 control groups of patients: one group who underwent DAA THA and one group who underwent PA THA. RESULTS: Fifty BHR patients were propensity-score matched to 2 control groups: 50 cases of PA THA and 50 cases of DAA THA. Both control groups were well matched with respect to demographics. The BHR 5-year patient-reported outcomes were comparable to both control groups. The BHR cohort compared favorably to the PA THA group with no significant differences in their average Forgotten Joint Score (77.9, 79.4, P = .84 respectively) and the number of patients reporting a score greater than or equal to 50 were also comparable, 41 (82%), 42 (84%), P = .79 respectively. CONCLUSION: BHR yielded good functional status and outcomes, which compared favorably with control groups of DAA THA and PA THA. Decision-making should be based upon other factors such as potential risk factors, the surgeon's and patient's preferences, and the patient's physical demand.

[ROBOTICS- WHY NOW?]

INTRODUCTION: Total knee arthroplasty is already one of the most successful procedures in orthopedics with high survival rates and excellent post-operative outcomes. Despite these satisfying results, robotic-guided arthroplasty is slowly but surely infiltrating both worldwide and domestic. In Steinfeld et al.'s review "Robotic Total Knee Arthroplasty" the authors navigate through the pros and cons of robotic-guided total knee arthroplasty and try to answer the question: Robotics, why now?

[ANTERIOR HIP ARTHROPLASTY: EVOLUTION, REVOLUTION, OR AN ELAPSING TREND?]

INTRODUCTION: Over the years total hip arthroplasty had turned from a procedure indicated for elderly, low functioning patients, into a procedure indicated also for younger patients who are interested in a well-functioning hip joint to maintain their active lifestyle. Previously, posterior approach was most commonly utilized, however in recent years, due to the accumulating evidence regarding the advantages of the anterior approach, an increase in the prevalence of the anterior approach is noted. In contrast to other surgical approaches, the anterior approach "respects" inter-muscular and inter-nervous planes and therefore is perceived as associates with less pain, faster rehabilitation, and a good stability relative to other approaches. Thus, the anterior approach received the attention of both the orthopedic community and the patients who are interested in maintaining their active life routine. In contrast to the advantages associated with the anterior approach, there are some disadvantages that are unique to this approach such as technical difficulties, a challenging learning curve, and a relatively common impairment of the sensation of the lateral aspect of the operated thigh. Due to the increasing rates of total hip arthroplasty procedures that are performed via the anterior approach, there is a need for reviewing the different aspects of this approach. The aim of this review is to discuss the principles of the anterior approach, the outcomes and complications.