The Gluteus-Score-7 Predicts the Likelihood of Both Clinical Success and Failure Following Surgical Repair of the Hip Gluteus Medius and/or Minimus.

PURPOSE: To identify patient preoperative history, examination, and imaging characteristics that increase the risk of postoperative failure of gluteus medius/minimus repair, and to develop a decision-making aid predictive of clinical outcomes for patients undergoing gluteus medius/minimus repair. METHODS: Patients from 2012 to 2020 at a single institution undergoing gluteus medius/minimus repair with minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. MRIs were graded according to the "three-grade" classification system: grade 1: partial-thickness tear, grade 2: full-thickness tears with <2 cm of retraction, grade 3: full-thickness tears with ≥2 cm retraction. Failure was defined as undergoing revision within 2 years postoperatively or not achieving both a cohort-calculated minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and responding "no" to patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). Inversely, success was defined as reaching both an MCID and responding "yes" to PASS. Predictors of failure were verified on logistic regression and a predictive scoring model, the Gluteus-Score-7, was generated to guide treatment-decision making. RESULTS: In total, 30 of 142 patients (21.1%) were clinical failures at mean ± SD follow-up of 27.0 ± 5.2 months. Preoperative smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-8.4; P = .041), lower back pain (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.1-7.3; P = .038), presence of a limp or Trendelenburg gait (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.5-10.2; P = .006), history of psychiatric diagnosis (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.3-10.8; P = .014), and increased MRI classification grades (P ≤ .042) were independent predictors of failure. The Gluteus-Score-7 was generated with each history/examination predictor assigned 1 point and MRI classes assigned corresponding 1-3 points (min 1, max 7 score). A score of ≥4/7 points was associated with risk of failure and a score ≤2/7 points was associated with clinical success. CONCLUSIONS: Independent risk factors for revision or not achieving either MCID or PASS after gluteus medius and/or minimus tendon repair include smoking, preoperative lower back pain, psychiatric history, Trendelenburg gait, and full-thickness tears, especially tears with ≥2 cm retraction. The Gluteus-Score-7 tool incorporating these factors can identify patients at risk of both surgical treatment failure and success, which may be useful for clinical decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, prognostic case series.

Defining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State After Endoscopic Gluteus Medius or Minimus Repair With or Without Labral Treatment and Routine Capsular Closure at Minimum 5-Year Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information in the literature on midterm outcomes of endoscopic gluteus medius and/or minimus repair with concomitant labral treatment using only modern surgical techniques. PURPOSE: To define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively for patients undergoing endoscopic hip abductor repair with routine capsular closure. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent primary endoscopic repair of gluteus medius and/or minimus tears between January 2012 and December 2015 by the senior author were eligible for inclusion. Patient-reported outcome scores were assessed preoperatively and at 5 years postoperatively: Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), HOS-Sport Specific (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. The MCID was uniquely calculated using the distribution method, and the PASS was determined via the anchor-based method utilizing receiver operating characteristic curves and Youden index. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients were included in the study. The majority were female (87.0%), with a mean ± standard deviation age of 59.1 ± 8.9 years and body mass index of 27.3 ± 6.9. Significant postoperative improvements (P < .001) in each of the 5 patient-reported outcomes were observed at 5 years postoperatively. The MCID threshold values were calculated as follows: HOS-ADL, 11.5; HOS-SS, 15.1; mHHS, 13.3; iHOT-12, 11.8; and VAS, 15.8. The PASS thresholds were calculated as follows: HOS-ADL, 75.7; HOS-SS, 79.7; mHHS, 81.2; and iHOT-12, 60.8. A majority of patients achieved a clinically significant outcome, with 96.2% of patients reaching a threshold score for the MCID or PASS for at least 1 patient-reported outcome. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic hip abductor repair with concomitant arthroscopic labral treatment has a high rate of achievement of clinically significant outcomes and survivorship at a minimum 5-year follow-up. We defined the MCID for the HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, mHHS, iHOT-12, and VAS outcome scores to be 11.5, 15.1, 13.3, 11.8, and 15.8, respectively. The PASS threshold scores for the HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, mHHS and iHOT-12 scores of 75.7, 79.7, 81.2, and 60.8, respectively. Future researchers and clinicians can use the MCID and PASS values established in this study to better evaluate mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing hip abductor repair.

Surgical Treatment of Gluteus Medius Tears.

The gluteus medius originates on the posterior face of the ilium between the posterior and anterior gluteal lines and inserts into the lateral and superoposterior facets of the greater trochanter. Because of the asymmetric nature of the muscle, tears are more likely to occur on the thinner anterolateral portion of the tendon footprint. Gluteus medius tears range from interstitial, partial thickness tears to retracted, full-thickness tears and may result from trauma, but they are more commonly the result of chronic degeneration. Patients commonly present with lateral hip pain aggravated by weight bearing and sleeping on the affected side, weakness in abduction, and the Trendelenburg sign observable on physical examination. Indications for surgery include failed conservative treatment and an ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging study demonstrating a torn tendon. Surgical intervention aims to reapproximate and secure the torn tendon to the tendon footprint on the greater trochanter via suture anchors. Both open and endoscopic techniques have shown to be effective methods for treating gluteus medius tears at short- and long-term follow-up; however, endoscopic techniques have been shown to result in fewer postoperative complications, such as retear. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis found patients with more severe fatty infiltration (FI) may experience greater improvement after open repair, whereas patients with less severe FI may benefit more from endoscopic treatment. A double-row repair maximizes contact area between tendon and bone and has shown to be superior to single-row repair with an endoscopic technique.

Medial Patellofemoral Complex Reconstruction Techniques Are Not Equivalent at Lower Flexion in the Setting of Patella Alta: A Biomechanical Comparison.

PURPOSE: To (1) determine the effect of severe patella alta on lateral patellar displacement after medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction and medial quadriceps tendon-femoral ligament (MQTFL) reconstruction and (2) determine whether lateral displacement significantly differs between MPFL and MQTFL reconstructions in the setting of severe patella alta (Caton-Deschamps Index [CDI] of 1.6). METHODS: Eight cadaveric specimens were included. High-tensile strength suture was used to create a model of adjustable patellar height. Patellar height was set using fluoroscopy to CDI ratios of 1.0 (normal) and 1.6 (alta). Specimens underwent testing (1) with MPFL reconstruction, (2) with MQTFL reconstruction, and (3) in a medial patellofemoral complex (MPFC)-deficient control state, in randomized order, at both CDI settings: 1.0 and 1.6. Lateral patellar translation was measured at 0°, 10°, 20°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion with 10 N of laterally directed load. RESULTS: At a CDI of 1.6, MPFL reconstruction showed significantly lower lateral displacement than MQTFL reconstruction at 0° and 20°. When compared with MPFC-deficient controls at a CDI of 1.6, MPFL reconstruction showed significantly lower displacement at 0° and 20° whereas MQTFL reconstruction was not significantly different at any degree of flexion. CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of severe patella alta (CDI of 1.6), MPFL reconstruction results in less lateral patellar displacement than MQTFL reconstruction at 0° and 20° of knee flexion. At higher flexion angles (≥30°), there is no difference between the 2 reconstruction techniques and the CDI no longer has an effect. At a CDI of 1.0, MPFL reconstruction shows lower displacement than MQTFL reconstruction in full extension only. Surgeons performing MPFC reconstruction should evaluate patients for patella alta and consider patellar height when deciding on the reconstruction technique. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study suggests that MQTFL reconstruction may be less stable than MPFL reconstruction in the setting of patella alta, without other known pathoanatomic factors, at early knee flexion angles. Patellar height should be considered when choosing the appropriate reconstruction technique in the absence of a distalization procedure.

Patients Require Less Time to Complete Preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Than Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

PURPOSE: To analyze time to completion of preoperative legacy patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and more recent computer adaptive Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) questionnaires in patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement syndrome undergoing primary hip arthroscopy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing hip arthroscopy by a single fellowship-trained hip arthroscopist. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing primary arthroscopic hip surgery and completion of at least 1 legacy PRO or PROMIS questionnaire at the preoperative time point. Exclusion criteria were history of contralateral or ipsilateral hip surgery, non-English-speaking patients, patients who completed PROs by phone or by paper form, and patients who did not complete preoperative PROs. Legacy PROs included modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and Hip Pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS-Pain). PROMIS PROs included Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI), and Depression (PROMIS-D). Only preoperative PROs were included in the analysis. Completion time was calculated using the questionnaire start and stop time reported by the survey collecting software. The median and interquartile range of each PRO were reported for analysis of central tendency and statistical dispersion, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 1,901 patients and 269 patients were included in the legacy and PROMIS groups, respectively. The median time required for completion of each PRO in (minutes: seconds) format was as follows: mHHS (1:29), HOS (3:58), iHOT (2:11), VAS-Pain (0:32), PROMIS-PF (0:46), PROMIS-PI (0:37), and PROMIS-D (0:43). The interquartile range of the middle 50% of respondents was as follows; mHHS (0:58), HOS (2:46), iHOT (1:22), VAS-Pain (0:28), PROMIS-PI (0:19), PROMIS-D (0:29), and PROMIS-PF (0:20). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports that preoperative PROMIS forms require less time to complete than preoperative legacy PROs and are not significantly influenced by age, race, or workers compensation status. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.

Superior Gluteal Reconstruction Results in Promising Outcomes for Massive Abductor Tendon Tears.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the 1-year outcomes of a small patient series following open gluteus medius/minimus repair with human dermal allograft incorporated into the repair construct using a double-row repair. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients undergoing a superior gluteal reconstruction for massive, irreparable abductor tendon tears with severe tendon loss and atrophy by a single fellowship trained surgeon from January 2018 to May 2019 were collected and analyzed. Baseline demographic data and magnetic resonance imaging were collected preoperatively. Clinical outcomes including Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), HOS-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris hip score (mHHS), international Hip Outcome Score-12 (iHOT-12), visual analog scale (VAS) pain, and VAS satisfaction were recorded at 1-year postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 8 patients underwent open superior gluteal reconstruction for severe hip abductor deficiency. The mean age and body mass index were 62.6 ± 7.3 years and 29.6 ± 5.3 kg/m2, respectively. The majority of patients were female (N = 7, 87.5%). Three (37.5%) patients had undergone previous endoscopic gluteus medius repair and presented for revision surgery. All patients had full-thickness tears with gluteus medius and gluteus minimus involvement. Patients were evaluated at an average of 11.5 ± 1.7 months from the initial surgical intervention and reported a mean HOS-ADL of 82.9 ± 24.3, HOS-SS of 73.2 ± 37.3, mHHS of 83.6 ± 17.1, iHOT-12 of 63.9 ± 27.4, VAS Pain of 30.0 ± 23.1, and VAS Satisfaction of 87.1 ± 17.0. There was no evidence of retears in this patient cohort as defined by physical examination findings and/or corroborating magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Superior gluteal reconstruction for massive, irreparable abductor tendon tears with severe tendon loss and atrophy is a technique that demonstrates promising 1-year postoperative outcomes in both primary and revision patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Hip Capsular Plication With Crossed Mattress Stitch Configuration for a Revision Hip Arthroscopy in the Setting of Capsular Insufficiency.

The hip capsule is an important static stabilizer of the hip joint. Perioperative capsular management during hip-preservation surgery is critical to maintain hip stability. Many biomechanical and clinical studies have demonstrated the importance of performing a comprehensive capsular closure to restore normal hip kinematics. For this reason, capsular closure or plication is now routine practice for many hip arthroscopists. The purpose of the technique is to describe a capsular plication technique using a mattress stitch configuration performed in the revision setting.

Pain Catastrophizing and Kinesiophobia Affect Return to Sport in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for the Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement.

PURPOSE: To assess whether pain catastrophizing and kinesiophobia affect return to sport (RTS) or clinically significant outcome (CSO) achievement in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). METHODS: Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy at a single institution between January 2017 and March 2017 were prospectively enrolled. Patients received the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia-11 (TSK-11) and Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) questionnaires preoperatively, 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Patients also received the Hip Outcome Score Sport-Specific (HOS-SS) questionnaire preoperatively and 1 year and 2 years' postoperatively. An RTS questionnaire was completed at final follow-up. Bivariate correlations were conducted between PCS and TSK-11 scores and RTS status and achievement of CSOs of HOS-SS, based on patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB). RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients with an average age of 31.9 ± 12.2 and body mass index of 24.0 ± 3.8 participated in sport prior to surgery and were included in the study. Forty-two (72.4%) patients returned to sport at 10.5 ± 7.1 months following surgery. There was a significant reduction in TSK-11 and PCS scores at 1-year follow-up (TSK-11, 26.1 ± 6.0 vs 18.6 ± 6.1, P < .001; PCS, 17.7 ± 10.5 vs 4.3 ± 6.8, P < .001) as well as a significant improvement in HOS-SS (P < .001). At 1 year, fair correlations were demonstrated between PCS (r = -0.446, P = .010) and TSK (r = -0.330, P = .029) scores and RTS. Patient who returned to sport had lower PCS (8.5 ± 11.7 vs 3.0 ± 3.7, P = .010) and TSK-11 (21.8 ± 8.5 vs 17.6 ± 4.8, P = .029) scores at 1 year. At 1-year follow-up, PCS (r = -0.572, P = .001) and TSK-11 (r = -0.441, P = .012) scores demonstrated fair correlations with achieving PASS for HOS-SS at 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Patient kinesiophobia and pain catastrophizing at 1-year follow-up were negatively correlated with RTS and achievement of a CSO in sport-related activities at 2-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, prospective cohort study.

Arthroscopic Anchor-Based Hip Capsular Reconstruction Without Graft Augmentation.

The hip capsule is one of the most important static stabilizers of the hip joint. Routine capsulotomy without closure during hip arthroscopy increases instability of the hip joint, leading to pain and dysfunction. Capsular repair is now part of routine practice for most hip arthroscopists with restoration of normal hip biomechanics. In patients requiring revision surgery due to ongoing pain and instability as a result of deficient capsule, capsular reconstruction often is necessary to restore hip stability. Although there are many techniques available both with and without the use of allograft tissue, the purpose of this report is to describe a novel technique for capsular reconstruction without the use of graft augmentation using suture anchors at the acetabular rim.

Repeat Revision Hip Arthroscopy Outcomes Match That of Initial Revision But Not That of Primary Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome.

PURPOSE: To (1) report on pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores for patients undergoing repeat revision surgery in short-term follow-up and (2) compare minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state achievement between primary, revision, and repeat revision hip arthroscopy cohorts. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy from January 2012 to February 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Hips that underwent 2 revision hip arthroscopic surgeries were identified and matched 1:3 to patients undergoing revision surgery and 1:3 to patients undergoing primary surgery by age, sex, and body mass index. Baseline demographic data, surgical indications, and hip-specific PROs were collected were obtained preoperatively and at minimum 1-year follow-up. MCID was calculated individually for each cohort. RESULTS: Twenty patients who underwent repeat revision were matched to 60 patients who underwent revision and 60 primary patients. Patients who underwent repeat revision achieved MCID on all investigated PROs at a similar rate to patients undergoing primary surgery (90.0% vs 91.7%, P = .588) and at a greater rate than patients undergoing first-time revision surgery (90.0% vs 71.7%, P = .045). Patients who underwent repeat revision achieved patient acceptable symptomatic state on all investigated PROs at a similar rate to patients who underwent first-time revision (30.0% vs 55.0%, P = .053) but at a significantly lower rate than primary patients (30.0% vs 76.7%, P < .001). However, patients undergoing repeat revision surgery had significantly lower preoperative PROs (P < .001 for all) and no significant difference in PROs at minimum 1-year follow-up compared with patients undergoing revision (P > .05). Compared with the primary cohort, patients who underwent repeat revision had significantly lower Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (77.3 ± 16.7 vs 86.1 ± 14.4; P = .034), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (60.6 ± 27.2 vs 76.1 ± 23.8; P < .001), and modified Harris Hip Score (69.2 ± 19.3 vs 81.7 ± 16.1; P = .048) at a minimum of 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Second-time revision hip arthroscopy, which often requires advanced procedures, results in clinically significant improvement in PROs; however, outcomes for repeat revision cases are similar to first-time revision cases but inferior to those obtained following primary surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective case-control study.