Virtual and Augmented Reality Simulators Show Intraoperative, Surgical Training, and Athletic Training Applications: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: To review published literature to identify and evaluate the effect of virtual reality (complete immersion) and augmented reality (overlay of digital information onto the physical world) simulators on intraoperative use for orthopaedic surgeons, orthopaedic surgical education, and athletic training. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify studies, published since 2014, that evaluated the role of augmented/virtual reality on intraoperative use for orthopaedic surgeons, orthopaedic surgical education, and athletic training. RESULTS: Virtual reality (VR) simulators provide 3-dimensional graphical simulation of the physical world, and augmented reality (AR) simulators overlay digital information onto the physical world. Simulators can include interactive features (i.e., replication of intraoperative bleeding), haptic feedback, and unrestricted task repetition, and they can record, compare, and analyze performance while being easily accessible and eliminating the need for the presence of a mentor or coach. Four studies reported on VR for intraoperative use, 47 studies on surgical education, and 10 studies on athletic training. Two studies revealed the advantages of using VR simulation during intraoperative procedures, specifically showcasing its benefits for elbow arthroscopy, while 2 studies demonstrated similar positive outcomes for hip arthroscopy. Seventeen studies demonstrated that a VR simulator could be a beneficial tool to assist in surgical education for the knee, while 12 studies found that VR simulation is a valuable tool for aiding in surgical education of shoulder arthroscopy. Ten studies demonstrated that VR simulation improves skills in the operating room. Three studies revealed that individuals with more experience exhibit superior performance on these simulators compared to those with less experience. In the realm of athletic training, 10 studies showcased the potential of VR simulation to play a significant role in athletic performance and injury rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: VR simulation shows benefits in the operating room, is a valuable tool for surgical education resulting in improved skills, and can be used to enhance athletic performance and injury rehabilitation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding that VR simulators can improve surgical outcomes, surgical skill training, and athletic training and rehabilitation could facilitate development and adoption of this advanced technology.

Rotator Cuff Repair With Patch Augmentation Is Associated With Lower Retear Rates for Large Tears: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing clinical outcomes of rotator cuff repair with and without patch augmentation. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials that directly compared outcomes between rotator cuff repair (RCR) with versus without patch augmentation. Patients were evaluated based on retear rate, histological outcomes, radiological outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes (Constant score; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] score; University of California-Los Angeles shoulder scale; Simple Shoulder Test; EuroQol-visual analog scale; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score; and PENN shoulder score questionnaire). RESULTS: Six studies (1 level I, 5 level II) met inclusion criteria, including 188 patients undergoing RCR alone (Control) and 193 patients undergoing RCR with patch augmentation (Patch). Patient age ranged from 56.0 to 68.0 years. The mean follow-up time ranged from 14.0 to 68.4 months. The average body mass index ranged from 24.4 to 29.4, and the overall percentage of males ranged from 32.5% to 82.3%. Three studies found significantly decreased retear rates with patch augmentation. The retear rate ranged from 34.0% to 65.4% in the Control group and 9.1% to 52.9% in the Patch group. One study found a significant difference for the Constant score favoring the Patch group. Two studies found a significant difference for the ASES score favoring the Patch group. One study found significantly better results with patch augmentation in terms of repaired tendon thickness and footprint coverage, based on magnetic resonance imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Patch augmentation of rotator cuff repairs may be associated with lower retear rates for large tears. There is limited evidence to suggest that patch augmentation is associated with improved patient-reported outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of level I and II studies.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptom State Values After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Are Highly Dependent on Their Study Population and Calculation Methods: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To provide a summary of available literature on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted via the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase to identify studies that calculated MCID, SCB, or PASS for patient-reported outcome measures after hip arthroscopy for FAI. The electronic search strategy used was as follows: hip AND arthroscopy AND (MCID OR "minimal clinically important difference" OR SCB OR "substantial clinical benefit" OR PASS OR "patient acceptable symptom state"). Inclusion criteria were English-language studies published from 1980 to 2023 reporting clinical outcome scores and calculated values of MCID, PASS, or SCB for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAI. RESULTS: Forty-two studies (5 Level II, 19 Level III, and 18 Level IV) met inclusion and exclusion criteria. The most commonly used outcome measures across MCID, SCB, and PASS were the Hip Outcome Score sports-specific subscale and the activities of daily living subscale, the modified Harris Hip Score, and the 12-item international Hip Outcome Tool. The range of MCID values for Hip Outcome Score sports-specific subscale, Hip Outcome Score activities of daily living subscale, modified Harris Hip Score, and 12-item international Hip Outcome Tool were 7.2-15.7, 7.3-15.4, 7.2-16.8, and 8.8-16.2 respectively. Similarly, for SCB the values ranged from 77.9-96.9, 90.4-98.5, 20.0-98.4, and 66.7-87.5, respectively. Lastly, the PASS values ranged from 63.9-80.9, 85.9-99.2, 74.0-97.0, and 59.5-86.0, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MCID, SCB, and PASS values for patient-reported outcome measures after hip arthroscopy for the management of FAI are highly dependent on their associated study including study population and calculation methods. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.

The Principles of Hip Joint Preservation.

The 3 primary factors involved with preservation of the hip joint are femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), hip dysplasia, and femoral torsion abnormalities. Each of these factors affects the health of the acetabular labrum and femoroacetabular cartilage. The appropriate surgical treatments for each of these factors include arthroscopic or open femoroplasty or acetabuloplasty for FAI, periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for acetabular dysplasia, and de-rotational femoral osteotomy for femoral torsion abnormalities. When evaluating patients with prearthritic hip conditions, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the various factors involved in hip joint preservation and, if surgery is indicated, surgeons should be sure to address all factors that need surgical treatment rather than focusing on the most obvious issue or injury (e.g., a labral tear). The purpose of this infographic is to illustrate the importance of the factors involved in hip joint preservation and the appropriate treatments for pathology in any of these factors.

During Postless Hip Arthroscopy, Male Patients, High Body Mass Index, Low Beighton Scores, and Limited Range of Motion Require High Traction Force.

PURPOSE: To determine the effects of demographic and anatomic factors on traction force required during postless hip arthroscopy. METHODS: A prospectively collected database was retrospectively analyzed on patients undergoing hip arthroscopy by the senior author, including patient sex, age, body mass index (BMI), Beighton Hypermobility Score, hip range of motion in clinic and under anesthesia, hip dysplasia, acetabular version, and femoral version. All patients underwent postless hip arthroscopy under general anesthesia. At the initiation of hip arthroscopy, the traction force required to distract the hip joint was measured before and following interportal capsulotomy. Multiple regression analysis was performed to determine the effects of demographic and anatomic factors on measured distraction force. RESULTS: In total, 352 hips (114 male, 238 female) were included with a mean age of 32.6 years and a mean BMI of 24.1 kg/m2. Mean initial traction force was 109 lbs and decreased to 94.3 lbs following capsulotomy (P < .0001). The starting traction force was significantly greater in male patients (P < .001), patients with a lack of hypermobility (Beighton Hypermobility Score of 0-2) (P = .026), and in patients with lower abduction (P < .001), lower internal rotation (P = .002), and lower external rotation (P = .012) on multiple regression analysis. When performing a subanalysis divided by sex, male patients with elevated BMI required significantly greater starting traction force (P = .014). Lateral center edge angle, sourcil angle, and the presence of hip dysplasia did not demonstrate a significant correlation with traction force. CONCLUSIONS: Male patients, patients with reduced preoperative hip range of motion, patients with a lack of joint hypermobility, and male patients with an elevated BMI require greater initial traction force during postless hip arthroscopy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective case series.

Microfracture of Acetabular Chondral Lesions Is Not Superior to Other Cartilage Repair Techniques in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review to compare clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopy patients undergoing microfracture (MFx) versus other cartilage repair procedures for chondral lesions of the acetabulum. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify comparative studies that directly compared outcomes between MFx and other cartilage repair procedures for full-thickness chondral lesions of the acetabulum identified during hip arthroscopy. The search phrase used was: hip AND arthroscopy AND microfracture. Patients were evaluated based on reoperation rates and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Six studies (all Level III evidence) met inclusion criteria, including a total of 202 patients undergoing microfracture (group A) and 327 patients undergoing another cartilage repair procedure (group B). Mean patient age ranged from 35.0 to 45.0 years. Mean follow-up time ranged from 12.0 to 72.0 months. Significantly better patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were found in patients undergoing treatment with bone marrow aspirate concentrate, microfragmented adipose tissue concentrate, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis, and a combination of autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis and bone marrow aspirate concentrate compared with MFx. No studies found significantly better postoperative PROs in group A. The reoperation rate ranged from 0% to 34.6% in group A and 0% to 15.9% in group B. Three of 5 studies reporting on reoperation rate found a significantly greater reoperation rate in group A, with no difference in the other 2 studies. CONCLUSIONS: The literature on MFx of acetabular chondral lesions is limited and heterogeneous. Based on the available data, MFx alone results in a greater or equivalent reoperation rate and inferior or equivalent PROs compared with other cartilage repair procedures for acetabular chondral lesions in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of level III studies.

Insufficient Evidence for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Utilizing Suture Tape Augmentation: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes at Minimum 1-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of clinical studies to directly compare clinical outcomes of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with versus without suture tape (ST) augmentation. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify comparative studies directly comparing outcomes of ACLR with versus without ST augmentation with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The search terms used were anterior cruciate ligament suture tape. Patients were evaluated based on graft failure rates, return to sport (RTS), anteroposterior (AP) laxity, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). RESULTS: Five studies (all Level III) met inclusion criteria, including a total of 246 patients undergoing ACLR with ST augmentation (SA group) and 282 patients undergoing ACLR without augmentation (control group). Patient age ranged from 14.9 to 29.7 years. The mean follow-up time ranged from 24.0 to 48.6 months. The mean body mass index ranged from 25.3 to 26.3 kg/m2 and the overall percentage of males ranged from 43.4% to 69.0%. Overall, the graft failure rate ranged from 1.0% to 25.0% in the SA group and 8.0% to 20.0% in the control group. Among the studies that reported RTS rates, the rate ranged from 69.2% to 88.9% in the SA group and 51.5% to 87.5% in the control group. Among all PROs, 2 studies found a significant difference in the Tegner score favoring the SA group. Otherwise, no significant differences were found between groups in terms of PROs. No significant differences in AP laxity were found between groups within any particular study. There was heterogeneity between studies regarding surgical techniques, postoperative rehabilitation protocols, and reported PROs. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to suggest that patients undergoing ACLR with ST augmentation may experience favorable clinical outcomes compared with ACLR alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level III studies.

Comparable Pain Levels and Functional Outcomes With and Without the Use of Dermal Allograft Augmentation in Endoscopic Gluteus Medius Repair.

PURPOSE: To compare retrospectively the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing endoscopic gluteal tendon repair with and without the use of dermal allograft augmentation. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data, single-surgeon cohort study was performed on all patients undergoing endoscopic gluteus medius repair (GMR) and GMR with augmentation (GMR-A) between April 2017 and April 2022. Dermal allograft augmentation was used in cases where intraoperative gluteus tissue quality was poor. An electronic survey of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was completed at a minimum of 1 year postoperatively. PROMs included a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain; the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale; the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS); the Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS); and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE). The proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for each PROM were compared between groups. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were reached for follow-up (26 GMR, 38 GMR-A). No differences were found between the groups in terms of demographics. There was a significantly longer time to follow-up in the GMR group (39.4 ± 26.9 vs 24.2 ± 11.7 months, P = .003). There were no differences between the GMR and GMR-A groups in terms of postoperative PROMs including VAS (3.3 ± 2.6 vs 3.3 ± 2.8, P = .99), UCLA (5.8 ± 2.1 vs 5.1 ± 2.0, P = .17), mHHS (70.1 ± 18.1 vs 68.9 ± 17.8, P = .80), HOS-SSS (67.7 ± 28.9 vs 62.5 ± 30.2, P = .50), and SANE (71.7 ± 27.9 vs 71.3 ± 22.8, P = .95). A significantly greater proportion of patients in the GMR group achieved a PASS for UCLA (64% vs 34%, P = .02). One patient each in the GMR (3.8%) and GMR-A (2.6%) groups underwent revision gluteus medius repair with dermal allograft augmentation at the final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates comparable clinical outcomes with and without the use of dermal allograft augmentation in endoscopic gluteus medius repairs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative series.

Risk Factors for Failure of Hip Arthroscopy in Patients with Borderline Dysplasia include a Tönnis angle ≥ 15 degrees, Age ≥ 40-42 years, Female Sex, Anterior Wall Index < 0.35, Labral Debridement, and Preexisting Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature to determine potential risk factors for failure of hip arthroscopy (HA) in patients with borderline hip dysplasia (BHD). METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify English language clinical studies reporting on patients with BHD undergoing HA from 2003 to 2023. The search terms used were: (borderline OR mild) AND hip AND (arthroscopy OR dysplasia) AND failure. The primary outcomes assessed were risk factors reported by each study for failure of a HA-only approach in BHD patients. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (8 level III, 6 level IV) met inclusion criteria, totaling 749 hips. Patient age ranged from 29.8 to 39.2 years with a mean follow-up ranging from 24.0 to 144.0 months. The overall percentage of females ranged from 11.8 to 100.0%. Overall, the clinical failure rate ranged from 0 to 53.3% and the reoperation rate ranged from 0 to 44.0%. The predominant predictors of poor outcomes following HA alone included Tönnis angle ≥ 15°, age ≥ 40-42 years at surgery, and female sex. Other risk factors for failure were preoperative clinical arthritis, grade 3 or 4 articular cartilage changes to the femoral head or acetabulum, an anterior wall index (AWI) < 0.35, and labral debridement. Revision procedures performed included revision HA (n=88, 0-28.0%), total hip arthroplasty (n=55, 0-23.7%), and endoscopic shelf acetabuloplasty (n=5, 0-11.0%). One study included an additional 9 patients converting to either PAO or total hip arthroplasty (THA) without distinguishing between the two. CONCLUSION: For patients with BHD, Tönnis angle ≥ 15°, age ≥ 40-42 years at surgery, female sex, AWI < 0.35, labral debridement, and preexisting hip osteoarthritis are common risk factors for treatment failure following isolated HA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, systematic review of level III-IV studies.

The Windshield Wiper Sign Is an Instability-Related Osteochondral Defect of the Anterolateral Femoral Head.

PURPOSE: To investigate a radiographic sign believed to be indicative of hip instability and acetabular suction seal disruption in the native hip, coined the "windshield wiper" (WSW) sign. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for patients who underwent periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) with the senior author between March 2021 and September 2023. A WSW sign was identified on plain films as a concave or flat osteochondral defect on the anterolateral femoral head extending medial to the head-neck junction with resultant loss of femoral head sphericity in the native hip. Every patient underwent a standardized series of radiographs, as well as computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. All patients underwent arthroscopy before PAO to address intra-articular pathology and other indicated procedures. The osteochondral defect and resultant suction seal disruption were verified during arthroscopy. These patients were then compared with a control group of arthroscopically treated hips without hip instability. RESULTS: Of 250 patients reviewed, a total of 19 hips in 17 patients (prevalence of 7.6%) demonstrated radiographic evidence of the WSW sign. All patients with a WSW sign presented with symptomatic clinical hip instability requiring a PAO. The mean patient age was 31.2 years, with a mean lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) of 14.3°. There were 13 hips (68.4%) with dysplasia, 4 (21.1%) with borderline dysplasia, and 2 (10.5%) with a normal LCEA. All patients with a WSW sign and LCEA ≥ 20° displayed significant femoral antetorsion abnormalities. All arthroscopic videos and images demonstrated a compromised suction seal. Of the 50 control group hips reviewed, the WSW sign was not identified. CONCLUSIONS: The WSW sign is an uncommon radiographic finding in patients with hip instability. When identified, it can be predictive of substantial instability, especially in cases which are otherwise considered borderline dysplasia or normal based on LCEA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative case control study.

Medial Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction With Allograft Provides Excellent Clinical Outcomes, High Rates of Return to Play, and a Low Incidence of Postoperative Complications: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review evaluating clinical outcomes in patients undergoing medial ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction (MUCLR) with soft-tissue allograft. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary outcomes evaluated were patient-reported outcome scores, return to play (RTP) rates, incidence of postoperative complications, and rates of graft rupture or mechanical failure. RESULTS: The literature search identified 395 articles, and 5 studies met final inclusion criteria after full-text review. A total of 274 patients were analyzed in the included studies and follow-up ranged from 3.0 to 7.6 years. Two studies (number of patients = 141) reported outcomes exclusively of MUCLR with allograft, whereas 3 studies (number of patients = 133) reported outcomes in patients undergoing MUCLR with either allograft or autograft. Allograft sources included gracilis, semitendinosus, plantaris, peroneus longus, and palmaris longus. Level of patient athletic competition ranged from recreational athletes to the professional level; however, nonathletes in the setting of trauma were also included. The RTP rate after MUCLR with soft-tissue allograft was 95.3%, and 89.3% of patients returned to a similar or greater level of play postoperatively. The Timmerman-Andrews score was reported in 2 studies, and the means postoperatively ranged from 94.55 to 97. Postoperative complication rates were low (range, 0% to 20%), and there were no reported incidences of allograft rupture or mechanical failure. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available data, soft-tissue allograft for MUCLR in athletic patient populations provides excellent clinical outcomes, high rates of RTP, and low rates of postoperative complications and graft failure at short-term follow-up. There remains a lack of high-quality evidence directly comparing autograft versus allograft outcomes in elite overhead-throwing athletes to support allograft as an acceptable alternative for MUCLR in this patient population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III-IV studies.

Patients Undergoing Postless Hip Arthroscopy Demonstrate Significantly Better Patient-Reported Outcomes and Clinically Significant Outcomes Compared to Conventional Post-Assisted Hip Arthroscopy at Short-Term Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare the short-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with versus without the use of a perineal post. METHODS: A prospective, single-surgeon cohort study was performed on a subset of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy between 2020 and 2022. A post-free hip distraction system was used at 1 center at which the senior author operates, and a perineal post was used at another surgical location. An electronic survey of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was completed by each patient at a minimum of 1 year postoperatively. PROMs included a visual analog scale for pain; University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale; modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS); Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS); and a Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation. Postoperative scores and clinically significant outcomes, including the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state, for each PROM were compared between groups. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were reached for follow-up (41 post, 28 postless) of 87 patients eligible for the study (79%). No significant differences were found between groups in terms of sex (post: 61% female, postless: 54% female, P = .54), age (post: 34 years, postless: 29 years, P = .11), body mass index (post: 26, postless: 24, P = .23), or follow-up duration (post: 24.4 months, postless: 21.3 months, P = .16). There was a significantly higher visual analog scale (3.1 vs 1.4, P = .01), a significantly lower UCLA Activity Scale score (7.0 vs 8.4, P = .02), and a significantly lower mHHS (73.7 vs 82.2, P = .03) in the post-assisted group. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the postless group achieved a patient acceptable symptom state for the UCLA (89.3% vs 68.3%, P = .04), mHHS (84.6% vs 61.0%, P = .04), and HOS-SSS (84.0% vs 61.0%, P = .048) and a substantial clinical benefit for HOS-SSS (72.0% vs 41.5%, P = .02). One patient (2.6%) in the post group underwent revision hip arthroscopy, and another was indicated for total hip arthroplasty by the time of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Postless hip arthroscopy may result in better clinical outcomes compared with post-assisted hip arthroscopy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Outcomes following arthroscopic treatment of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions using fresh osteochondral allograft plugs: a case series.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation is a well-described technique for the treatment of large, engaging Hill-Sachs lesions (HSLs). Traditionally, OCAs are size-matched to the defect, which can be expensive and time-consuming, and the majority of described techniques require an open approach. Recently, an all-arthroscopic approach to Hill-Sachs OCA transplantation using premade plugs was described, eliminating the need for size-matching and graft harvest. The purpose of this study was to evaluate postoperative outcomes of patients who have undergone arthroscopic treatment of HSLs using premade OCA plugs. We hypothesized that these patients would have improved pain and function without recurrent instability. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed using operative reports for a single surgeon with search terms Hill-Sachs and allograft. Patients were excluded if an open approach was used or if graft harvest was performed. Postoperative imaging was reviewed to assess for graft incorporation and reconstitution of the HSL. Recurrent instability and reoperation were recorded. Patients completed surveys including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). RESULTS: Five patients were identified through chart review and met inclusion criteria. All patients underwent concurrent labral repair and 2 patients underwent a concurrent open Latarjet procedure. Postoperative radiographs showed reconstitution of the HSLs in all patients. There were no complications in the postoperative period with no recurrent instability or reoperations in any patient. The average ASES score was 87% (higher score indicating better outcome) with standard deviation 9.7, and the average WOSI score was 27% (lower score indicating better outcome) with standard deviation 8.3. CONCLUSION: Favorable outcomes can be expected after arthroscopic treatment of Hill-Sachs lesions using premade OCA plugs. Further research is needed to assess larger patient cohorts and compare outcomes to size-matched approaches.

Management of the in-season athlete with an anterior shoulder dislocation.

BACKGROUND: Management of the in-season athlete presenting with an anterior shoulder dislocation is a nuanced process that continues to be refined. Options and pathways between nonoperative and operative treatment have undergone many iterations over a century of orthopedic research and advancement. It requires an understanding of sport-specific demands and the individual athlete's goals. The orthopedic surgeon must have mastery of the natural history, treatment options, and outcomes of anterior shoulder dislocations. Balance of these factors is delicate and highly individualized for each athlete, and is why management of the in-season athlete with an anterior shoulder dislocation remains an art for the orthopedic surgeon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A narrative review of the literature regarding the in-season athlete with anterior shoulder dislocation was conducted of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The findings are summarized in this article. RESULTS: Multiple studies have investigated management of the in-season athlete with anterior shoulder dislocation. Treatment is highly individualized for each athlete and their respective circumstances. Nonoperative treatment remains the only option for athletes that seek to return to play in the same season, however with a high risk of recurrence. Operative treatment has a track record of success in terms of returning to high level of play and lower recurrence, but would preclude a return to competition in the same season. CONCLUSIONS: Management of the in-season athlete with anterior shoulder dislocation remains a challenging issue without consensus recommendation among shoulder surgeons. Much has been done to understand the pathology and delineate indications for nonoperative treatment and surgical management. Although recurrence and return to play rates have improved with each iteration, recurrent instability and revision surgery continue to occur at high rates. Therefore, additional work remains to optimize return to play as well as long-term outcomes for athletes.

Surgical options and clinical outcomes following a failed Latarjet procedure: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A failed prior Latarjet procedure can be a challenging situation for both patients and surgeons. The purpose of this study was to report on the techniques and outcomes of patients undergoing revision surgery for the treatment of recurrent anterior shoulder instability after a failed Latarjet procedure. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify clinical studies which reported on surgical techniques for a failed Latarjet procedure with reporting of clinical outcomes. The search terms used were Latarjet failed. Patients were evaluated based on revision method, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), reoperation rates, recurrent instability, overall satisfaction, and return to sports and work. RESULTS: Thirteen studies (all Level IV evidence) met inclusion criteria, including a total of 293 shoulders with a mean age of 28.3 years (range, 16-55 years) at the time of surgery. The mean follow-up time was 50.4 months (range, 14.0-208.0 months) and males accounted for 78.6% of all patients. Revision procedures included open and arthroscopic Eden-Hybinette, distal tibial allograft, iliac crest autograft, osteochondral glenoid allograft, and Bankart repair and/or capsular plication. These may all be viable techniques for revision surgery for a failed Latarjet procedure. All revision procedures showed improvements in PROMs including the Visual Analogue Scale, Constant score, subjective shoulder value, Walch-Duplay, and Rowe scores. Return to sports ranged from 46.1% to 94%. Recurrent instability rates ranged from 0% to 43.8%. Reoperation rates ranged from 0% to 31.3%. Overall satisfaction following a revision procedure ranged from 80% to 100%. CONCLUSION: A failed Latarjet procedure can be treated with various revision procedures such as open and arthroscopic Eden-Hybinette, distal tibial allograft, iliac crest autograft, osteochondral glenoid allograft, and Bankart repair and/or capsular plication. Overall, surgical management of the failed Latarjet results in improvements in PROMs, pain, return to sports, and decreased recurrent instability with a moderate complication rate.

Editorial Commentary: Most Patients With Borderline Hip Dysplasia Do Well After Hip Arthroscopy: Could Instability Be the Problem for Those Who Do Poorly?

Borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) is often defined based on the lateral center edge angle. While patients with frank hip dysplasia often require bony realignment with periacetabular osteotomy and/or derotational femoral osteotomy, patients with BHD represent an "in-between" group of patients. While many, perhaps even most, patients with BHD will have successful outcomes after hip arthroscopy alone, some will be unresponsive to an arthroscopic-only approach and require the same surgical treatments as those with frank dysplasia. A variety of radiographic and arthroscopic parameters can be used to assess the degree of instability in patients with BHD. It may be that patients with "borderline" hip dysplasia combined with hip instability are more likely to fail an arthroscopic-only approach but to date we still do not have a great algorithm for determining which patients with BHD should undergo bony treatment with periacetabular osteotomy. It is important for future studies to continue to seek out characteristics of BHD patients that predict failure of an arthroscopic-only approach. This will not only allow for optimal initial surgical treatment in "at-risk" patients with BHD but will also improve success rates in BHD patients selected for hip arthroscopy as initial surgical treatment.

Editorial Commentary: For Surgical Treatment of Elbow Lateral Epicondylitis, Arthroscopic Treatment Is Recommended for Surgeons With Elbow Arthroscopy Training.

Lateral epicondylitis is a commonly encountered and persistent problem in the active, middle-aged population, with a reported annual incidence as high as 3.4%. Lateral epicondylitis is often treated successfully with conservative measures but may necessitate surgical intervention in refractory cases. Most of the review literature has failed to definitively identify arthroscopic or open debridement as the superior surgical approach. We favor the arthroscopic approach because it allows for the examination and treatment of concomitant intra-articular pathologies, which may be underappreciated on magnetic resonance imaging, and for minimal disruption of the superficial extensors to access the pathologic structures. In addition, this approach often allows for a quick resolution of symptoms and expeditious return to work and sport with a low rate of complications or revisions. For surgeons who are not experienced in elbow arthroscopy, the option of open debridement remains a reasonable approach. However, our preferred management of surgically indicated tennis elbow is arthroscopic repair of the affected extensor tendons along with addressing any concomitant pathology, when present. In our opinion, this leads to optimized long-term outcomes.

The Principles of Knee Joint Preservation.

The 3 primary factors involved with preservation of the knee joint include joint alignment, meniscal status, and ligament stability (in particular that of the anterior cruciate ligament [ACL]). These factors are interdependent and result in knee joint homeostasis when all factors are stable. When a deficiency exists in one of the factors, it will affect the others. For example, the ACL and posterior horn of the medial meniscus both act as restraints to anterior tibial translation. Thus, medial meniscal deficiency increases the risk for failure of ACL reconstruction, and chronic ACL insufficiency increases the risk for medial meniscus tears. Furthermore, all 3 of the factors of joint preservation have an impact on the articular cartilage status of the knee joint. Studies have shown that cartilage-preservation procedures do not result in optimal outcomes if there is joint malalignment, meniscal deficiency, or ligament deficiency. When evaluating patients with knee cartilage pathology, surgeons should be aware of the various factors involved in knee joint preservation and, if surgery is indicated, all factors should be addressed in order to support a successful result.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Sports Medicine Patient Care.

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated new practices in sports medicine patient care. Telehealth has been validated as a reliable tool for consultations and physical examinations and increases access to care in a cost-efficient manner. Social distancing and avoiding team members who have tested positive are the most effective ways to reduce spread. For screening, daily self-reported symptom checklists and fever monitoring help identify potentially infected athletes who should be instructed to isolate and seek care. Polymerase chain-reaction (PCR) testing for the virus via nasopharyngeal swab is not recommended for screening and should be reserved for symptomatic individuals with fever, cough, or shortness of breath. Face masks and personal protective equipment (PPE) may be beneficial in high-risk settings, but there is little evidence to support use in athletic populations. Median return to play after COVID-19 in elite athletes has been reported as 18 days (range: 12 to 30), with 27% not fully available at 28 days. Chest pain at diagnosis was the only symptom associated with time loss longer than 28 days. Finally, canceled competitions or time loss results in grief, stress, and frustration for athletes, as well as loss of a social support network and routine training regimens. Mental health support services may be indicated.

Improved Pain and Perioperative Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy With the Pericapsular Nerve Group Block.

PURPOSE: To compare early postoperative pain in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with versus without the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of prospectively collected data was performed to identify patients who underwent hip arthroscopy at a single institution between May 2019 and October 2021. Patients were included if they received general anesthesia and were opioid naive. Patients who received the PENG block were compared with patients who did not. Opioid, benzodiazepine, and antiemetic medication administration was recorded both intraoperatively and for the duration of the patient's stay in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Opioids administered were converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). Pain was assessed with a visual analog scale. Time to discharge (in minutes) and complications were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients were identified for inclusion, of whom 28 received the PENG block and 25 did not. Opioid consumption was significantly lower in the PENG block group both intraoperatively (16.9 ± 14.1 MMEs vs 40.6 ± 18.3 MMEs, P < .001) and in the PACU (14.4 ± 11.4 MMEs vs 31.2 ± 20.1 MMEs, P < .001). The highest recorded PACU pain score was significantly greater in the no-PENG block group (7.0 ± 1.9 vs 5.3 ± 2.1, P = .004). Within the PENG block group, fewer patients required antiemetics (0 vs 4, P = .043). There was a greater time to discharge in the no-PENG block group (161 ± 50 minutes vs 129 ± 34 minutes, P = .008). No complications, including postoperative falls, were noted in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The PENG block improves perioperative outcomes by decreasing pain, opioid consumption, time to discharge, antiemetic requirements, and benzodiazepine requirements after hip arthroscopy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.