Barriers to and solutions for representative inclusion across the lifespan and in life course research: The need for structural competency highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Exclusion of special populations (older adults; pregnant women, children, and adolescents; individuals of lower socioeconomic status and/or who live in rural communities; people from racial and ethnic minority groups; individuals from sexual or gender minority groups; and individuals with disabilities) in research is a pervasive problem, despite efforts and policy changes by the National Institutes of Health and other organizations. These populations are adversely impacted by social determinants of health (SDOH) that reduce access and ability to participate in biomedical research. In March 2020, the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute hosted the "Lifespan and Life Course Research: integrating strategies" "Un-Meeting" to discuss barriers and solutions to underrepresentation of special populations in biomedical research. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted how exclusion of representative populations in research can increase health inequities. We applied findings of this meeting to perform a literature review of barriers and solutions to recruitment and retention of representative populations in research and to discuss how findings are important to research conducted during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We highlight the role of SDOH, review barriers and solutions to underrepresentation, and discuss the importance of a structural competency framework to improve research participation and retention among special populations.

Use of Opioids and Nonopioid Analgesics to Treat Pediatric Postoperative Pain in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: The incidence, demographic characteristics, and treatment approaches for pediatric patients who present to the ED with a primary complaint of postoperative pain have not been well described. The purpose of this study was to describe opioid and nonopioid prescribing patterns for pediatric patients evaluated for postoperative pain in the Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: Pediatric Health Information System is an administrative database of encounter-level data from 48 children's hospitals. Emergency department visits for postoperative pain from January 2014 to September 2017 were analyzed. Visits were matched by the Pediatric Health Information System identifier to associate corresponding same site surgery encounters directly preceding ED visits. RESULTS: There were 7365 ED visits for acute postoperative pain, for which 4044 could be linked to corresponding surgical procedure. Eight-one percent of ED visits were within 7 days of surgery. Opioids were given at 1979 (49%) of visits, and nonopioids at 678 (17%) of visits. The most common surgeries preceding a postoperative pain ED visit were for tonsils and adenoids (48.5%). Age, sex, length of stay for both procedure and ED visits, procedure specialty, and the number of days between procedure discharge and admission to ED were associated with opioid administration during ED visits (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric patients treated in the ED for postoperative pain were often treated with opioid and nonopioid analgesics, with wide prescriber variability. Further research is warranted to help balance optimal pain management and safe prescribing practices.

Impact of Information Presentation Format on Preference for Total Knee Replacement Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Patients have a poor understanding of outcomes related to total knee replacement (TKR) surgery, with most patients underestimating the potential benefits and overestimating the risk of complications. In this study, we sought to compare the impacts of descriptive information alone or in combination with an icon array, experience condition (images), or spinner on participants' preference for TKR. METHODS: A total of 648 members of an online arthritis network were randomized to 1 of 4 outcome presentation formats: numeric only, numeric with an icon array, numeric with a set of 50 images, or numeric with a functional spinner. Preferences for TKR were measured before and immediately after viewing the outcome information using an 11-point numeric rating scale. Knowledge was assessed by asking participants to report the frequency of each outcome. RESULTS: Participants randomized to the icon array, images, and spinner had stronger preferences for TKR (after controlling for baseline preferences) compared to those viewing the numeric only format (P < 0.05 for all mean differences). Knowledge scores were highest in participants randomized to the icon array; however, knowledge did not mediate the association between format and change in preference for TKR. CONCLUSION: Decision support at the point-of-care is being increasingly recognized as a vital component of care. Our findings suggest that adding graphic information to descriptive statistics strengthens preferences for TKR. Although experience formats using images may be too complex to use in clinical practice, icon arrays and spinners may be a viable and easily adaptable decision aid to support communication of probabilistic information.

Accuracy of Component Placement in Robotic-Assisted Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a recent platform introduced to decrease the risk of malpositioned components. The goals of this study were to determine whether intraoperative data on robotic-assisted THA acetabular component position accurately predict postoperative radiographic acetabular component position and to determine whether intraoperative data on robotic-assisted THA leg length and offset accurately predict postoperative radiographic leg length and offset data. In 146 patients, pre- and postoperative radiographs and intraoperative component measurements were reported for acetabular inclination, anteversion, leg length change, and offset change. Component position obtained by the robotic system and radiographic data were compared with subgroup analysis for the posterior and direct anterior approaches. The average difference between groups was 3.3°±3.1° for inclination, 2.9°±2.3° for anteversion, 3.0±2.3 mm for leg length change, and 4.0±3.1 mm for change in global offset. Correlation between the robotic system and postoperative radiographs was within 10° for 95.9% of cases for inclination and 99.3% for anteversion. Posterior approach correlation was within 10° for 97.1% of cases for inclination and 100% for anteversion. Anterior approach correlation was within 10° for 92.7% of cases for inclination and 97.6% for anteversion. Intraoperative data on component position obtained from the robotic system compared well with radiographic data on component position. Surgeons must remain vigilant to ensure outliers related to robotic system malfunction do not occur. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(3):193-199.].

Outcomes of Revision Hip Arthroscopy: 2-Year Clinical Follow-up.

PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical outcomes, pain, and patient satisfaction following revision hip arthroscopy with a minimum 2-year follow-up. METHODS: From April 2008 to October 2011, data were prospectively collected on all patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively with 4 patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: the modified Harris hip score (mHHS), nonarthritic hip score (NAHS), hip outcome score-activities of daily living (HOS-ADL), and hip outcome score-sport-specific subscales (HOS-SSS). Pain was estimated on the visual analog scale (VAS). Patient satisfaction was measured on a scale from 0 to 10. The number of patients who underwent subsequent revision arthroscopy or total hip arthroplasty during the study period is also reported. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy during the study period. Seventy (80.5%) patients were included in our study. Average follow-up time was 28 months (range, 20 to 47.4 months). In terms of residual femoroacetabular impingement morphology, 45.7% of patients had preoperative alpha angles ≥ 55°, and 7.14% of patients had a lateral center-edge angle ≥ 40°. The score improvement from preoperative to 2-year follow-up was 57.84 to 73.65 for mHHS, 62.79 to 83.04 for HOS-ADL, 37.33 to 54.93 for HOS-SSS, and 55.65 to 70.79 for NAHS. VAS decreased from 6.72 to 4.08. All scores demonstrated statistically significant improvement (P < .001). Overall patient satisfaction was 7.67. Our success rate was 74.58%. Ten (14.29%) patients underwent total hip arthroplasty during the study period. Our hip survivorship was 85.7%. Five (7.14%) patients underwent secondary revision hip arthroscopy during the study period. We found an overall minor complication rate of 10%. CONCLUSIONS: Revision hip arthroscopy for all procedures performed on aggregate has improved clinical outcomes for all PROs, high survivorship, and high patient satisfaction scores at short-term follow-up. Patients should be counseled regarding the potential progression of degenerative change leading to arthroplasty and the potential for revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV retrospective case series.

Does Primary Hip Arthroscopy Result in Improved Clinical Outcomes?: 2-Year Clinical Follow-up on a Mixed Group of 738 Consecutive Primary Hip Arthroscopies Performed at a High-Volume Referral Center.

BACKGROUND: Hip arthroscopy has gained increasing popularity over the past decade. The need to develop metrics to evaluate success and complications in primary hip arthroscopy is an important goal. PURPOSE: To evaluate 2-year patient-related outcome (PRO) scores and patient satisfaction scores for a single surgeon at a high-volume referral center for all primary hip arthroscopy procedures performed. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: During the study period between April 2008 and October 2011, data were collected on all patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively with 4 PRO measures: the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS). Pain was estimated on the visual analog scale (VAS), and satisfaction was measured on a scale from 0 to 10. The number of patients who underwent revision arthroscopy, total hip arthroplasty (THA), or a resurfacing procedure during the study period was also reported. RESULTS: A total of 595 patients were included in the study. The score improvement from preoperative to 2-year follow-up was 61.29 to 82.02 for mHHS, 62.79 to 83.05 for HOS-ADL, 40.96 to 70.07 for HOS-SSS, 57.97 to 80.41 for NAHS, and 5.86 to 2.97 for VAS. All scores were statistically significantly different (P < .0001). Overall patient satisfaction was 7.86 ± 2.3 (range, 1-10). Forty-seven (7.7%) patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy, and 54 (9.1%) patients underwent either THA or the hip resurfacing procedure during the study period. The multivariate regression analysis showed that increased age at time of surgery was a significant risk factor for conversion to THA, revision arthroscopy, and change in NAHS <10 points. Acute injury, acetabuloplasty, iliopsoas release, and patient sex were significant for 2 of these 3 types of failure. CONCLUSION: Primary hip arthroscopy for all procedures performed in aggregate had excellent clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction scores at short-term follow-up in this study. More studies must be conducted to determine the definition of a successful outcome. There was a 6.1% minor complication rate, which was consistent with previous studies. Patients should be counseled regarding the potential progression of degenerative change leading to arthroplasty as well as the potential for revision surgery.

Concomitant Hip Arthroscopy and Periacetabular Osteotomy.

PURPOSE: To detail our early experience using concomitant hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for the treatment of acetabular dysplasia. METHODS: We prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed the surgical and outcome data of 17 patients who underwent concomitant hip arthroscopy and PAO between October 2010 and July 2013. Preoperative and postoperative range of motion, outcome and pain scores, and radiographic data were collected. Intraoperative arthroscopic findings and postoperative complications were recorded. RESULTS: The group consisted of 3 male and 14 female patients with a mean follow-up period of 2.4 years. Three patients had undergone previous surgery on the affected hip. Chondrolabral pathology was identified in all 17 patients. Twelve patients underwent labral repair, and five patients underwent partial labral debridement. No patient was converted to total hip arthroplasty or required revision surgery at short-term follow-up. All 4 patient-reported outcome scores showed statistically significant changes from baseline to latest follow-up (P < .001). An excellent outcome was obtained in 82% of patients (13 of 16). The lateral center-edge angle averaged 11° preoperatively and 29° postoperatively. The acetabular inclination averaged 18° preoperatively and 3° postoperatively. The anterior center-edge angle averaged 7° preoperatively and 27° postoperatively. At most recent radiographic follow-up, 1 patient had progression of arthritic changes but remained asymptomatic. No other patient showed any radiographic evidence of progression of arthritis. Complications included 3 superficial wound infections, 1 pulmonary embolism, and 1 temporary sciatic neurapraxia. CONCLUSIONS: Our initial experience with concomitant hip arthroscopy and PAO has been favorable. We noted that all our patients have evidence of chondrolabral damage at the time of PAO when the joint is distracted and evaluated. All patients in this series had intra-articular pathology treated arthroscopically and showed satisfactory mean clinical improvement. Hip arthroscopy with PAO did not appear to introduce complications beyond the PAO alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Leg-Length Discrepancy After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Comparison of Robot-Assisted Posterior, Fluoroscopy-Guided Anterior, and Conventional Posterior Approaches.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) effectively provides adequate pain relief and good long-term outcomes in patients with hip osteoarthritis. However, leg-length discrepancy (LLD) remains the most common cause of patient dissatisfaction and malpractice litigation in hip arthroplasty. We conducted a study to compare LLD in patients who underwent THA performed with a robot-assisted posterior approach (RTHA), a fluoroscopy-guided anterior approach (ATHA), or a conventional posterior approach (PTHA). We reviewed all RTHA, ATHA, and PTHA cases performed by Dr. Domb between September 2008 and December 2012. Patients included in the study had a primary diagnosis of hip osteoarthritis and proper postoperative anteroposterior pelvis radiographs available. Two blinded observers calibrated and measured all radiographs twice. After exclusions, 67 RTHA, 29 ATHA, and 59 PTHA cases remained in the study. There were strong interobserver and intraobserver correlations for all LLD measurements (r > 0.9; P < .001). Mean (SD) LLD was 2.7 (1.8) mm (95% CI, 2.3-3.2) in the RTHA group, 1.8 (1.6) mm (95% CI, 1.2-2.4) in the ATHA group, and 1.9 (1.6) mm (95% CI, 1.5-2.4) in the PTHA group (P = .01). When LLD of more than 3 mm was set as an outlier, percentage of outliers was 37.3% (RTHA), 17.2% (ATHA), and 22% (PTHA) (P = .06-.78). When LLD of more than 5 mm was set as an outlier, percentage of outliers was 10.4% (RTHA), 6.9% (ATHA), and 8.5% (PTHA) (P = .72 to > .99). No patient in any group had LLD of 10 mm or more. RTHA, ATHA, and PTHA did not differ in obtaining minimal LLD. All 3 techniques are effective in achieving accuracy in LLD.

Best Practices During Hip Arthroscopy: Aggregate Recommendations of High-Volume Surgeons.

PURPOSE: To survey surgeons who perform a high volume of hip arthroscopy procedures regarding their operative technique, type of procedure, and postoperative management. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 27 high-volume orthopaedic surgeons specializing in hip arthroscopy to report their preferences and practices related to their operative practice and postoperative rehabilitation protocol. All participants completed the survey in person in an anonymous fashion during a meeting of the American Hip Institute. RESULTS: All surgeons perform hip arthroscopy with the patient in the supine position, accessing the central compartment of the hip initially, using intraoperative fluoroscopy. All surgeons perform labral repair (100%), with the majority performing labral reconstructions (77.8%) and gluteus medius repairs (81.5%). There is variability in the type of anchors used during labral repair. Most surgeons perform capsular closure in most cases (88.9%), inject either intra-articular cortisone or platelet-rich plasma at the conclusion of the procedure (59%), and prescribe a postoperative hip brace for some or all patients (59%). There is considerable variability in rehabilitation protocols. All surgeons routinely prescribe postoperative heterotopic ossification prophylaxis to their patients, with most surgeons (88.9%) prescribing a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication for 3 weeks. Forty percent of the respondents use the modified Harris Hip Score as the most important outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent practices such as use of intraoperative fluoroscopy, heterotopic ossification prophylaxis, and labral repair skills were identified by surveying 27 hip arthroscopy surgeons at high-volume centers. Most of the surgeons performed routine capsular closure unless underlying conditions precluded capsular release or plication. The survey identified higher variability between surgeons regarding postoperative rehabilitation protocols and use of intra-articular pharmacologic injections at the end of the procedure. These data may provide surgeons with a set of aggregate trends that may help guide training, clinical practice, and research in the evolving field of hip arthroscopy.

Hip Arthroplasty or Medical Management: A Challenging Treatment Decision for Younger Patients.

The two main treatment options for total hip arthroplasty (THA), medical management and surgical intervention, have advantages and disadvantages, creating a challenging decision. Treatment decisions are further complicated in a younger population (≤50) as the potential need for revision surgery is probable. We examined the relationship of selected variables to the decision-making process for younger patients with symptomatic OA. Thirty-five participants chose surgical intervention and 36 selected medical management for their current treatment. Pain, activity restrictions, and total WOMAC scores were statistically significant (P < .05) for patients selecting surgical intervention. No difference in quality of life was shown between groups. Pain was the only predictor variable identified, however, activity restrictions were also influential variables as these were highly correlated with pain.

Predictive value of robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty.

Acetabular cup positioning, leg-length discrepancy, and global offset are important parameters associated with outcomes following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Deviation from an accepted range of values can lead to significant complications, including dislocation, leg-length discrepancy, impingement, accelerated bearing surface wear, and revisions. The purpose of this study was to assess whether robotic-assisted THA was reliable in predicting radiographic measurements of cup inclination and anteversion, leg-length change, and global offset change. All 61 robotic-assisted THAs that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were performed by a single surgeon through a mini-posterior approach. Data provided by the robot were collected prospectively, and radiographic data were collected retrospectively by 2 blinded independent reviewers. The cohort in this study consisted of 27 male and 34 female patients, with an average age of 60.5 years. A strong inter- and intraobserver correlation was found for the radiographic measurements of cup inclination, cup anteversion, leg-length discrepancy, and global offset (r>0.8 with P<.001 for all). Ninety-six point seven percent of robotic-measured inclination angles and 98.4% of robotic-measured anteversion angles were within 10° of radiographic measurements. One hundred percent of robotic-measured leg-length change and 91.8% of robotic-measured global offset change were within 10 mm of radiographic measurements. Robotic-assisted THA showed good predictive value for cup inclination and anteversion angles and measurements of leg-length change and global offset change done postoperatively on plain radiographs. Further refinement of the robotic system would make it more accurate in predicting the postoperative parameters mentioned.

Does obesity affect outcomes after hip arthroscopy? A cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Obesity presents a challenging problem in surgical treatment and has led to poorer postoperative outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether hip arthroscopy in the obese patient influences postoperative clinical and patient-reported outcome scores. METHODS: From February 2008 to February 2012, data were collected prospectively on all patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy. A total of 680 patients were included. All patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively with four patient-reported outcome measures. Pain was estimated on the visual analog scale. The patient satisfaction score was measured. Three groups were stratified by body mass index. The non-obese group, those with a body mass index of <30 kg/m(2) (mean, 23.61 kg/m(2)), included 562 patients with a mean age of 34.78 years. The class-I obese group, those with a body mass index of ≥30 to 34.9 kg/m(2) (mean, 33.85 kg/m(2)), included ninety-four patients with a mean age of 44.02 years. The class-II obese group, those with a body mass index of ≥35 to 39.9 kg/m(2) (mean, 39.11 kg/m(2)), included twenty-four patients with a mean age of 39.33 years. RESULTS: In the non-obese group, the score improvement from the preoperative assessment to the two-year follow-up visit was 63.41 to 83.81 points for the modified Harris hip score, 60.86 to 83.62 points for the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, 66.24 to 86.24 points for the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living, and 44.01 to 73.26 points for the Hip Outcome Score Sport-Specific Subscale. In the class-I obese group, the score improvement from the preoperative assessment to the two-year follow-up visit was 54.81 to 75.95 points for the modified Harris hip score, 48.98 to 72.51 points for the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, 53.22 to 72.99 points for the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living, and 30.56 to 60.75 points for the Hip Outcome Score Sport-Specific Subscale. In the class-II obese group, the score improvement from the preoperative assessment to the two-year follow-up visit was 50.81 to 80.01 points for the modified Harris hip score, 42.36 to 72.50 points for the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, 48.11 to 74.73 points for the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living, and 28.25 to 62.56 points for the Hip Outcome Score Sport-Specific Subscale. Traction time did not vary significantly between groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that obese patients started with lower absolute scores preoperatively and ended with lower overall absolute postoperative scores. However, obese patients showed substantial benefit from hip arthroscopy and demonstrated a degree of improvement that was similar to that of the control non-obese group.

Does obesity affect outcomes in hip arthroscopy? A matched-pair controlled study with minimum 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Hip arthroscopy has gained popularity over the past decade, and its indications have broadened as newer techniques have been developed. However, there has been a paucity of literature evaluating the outcomes of hip arthroscopy in obese patients. PURPOSE: To compare 2-year clinical outcomes of obese patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with matched nonobese controls. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: From February 2008 to February 2012, data were collected prospectively on all obese patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy. A matched-pair nonobese control group was selected at a 1:2 ratio. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively with 4 patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: the modified Harris Hip Score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, and Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale. Pain was estimated on the visual analog scale, and satisfaction was measured on a scale from 0 to 10. RESULTS: Sixty-two hips (62 patients) were included in the obese group and 124 hips (124 patients) in the control group. At preoperative baseline, the obese group had significantly lower PRO scores when compared with the control group. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant postoperative improvement in all scores (P < .05). Absolute scores were significantly lower in the obese group for all PRO measures, pre- and postoperatively. However, the improvement (delta) in PRO scores from pre- to postoperative time was not significantly different between groups. The rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty, the rate of revision, and the complication rate were not significantly different between the 2 groups; however, rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty and revision tended to be twice as high in the obese patients, but the study was not powered for these 2 outcomes. CONCLUSION: Overall, obese patients had lower absolute PRO scores preoperatively and at 2-year follow-up. Both obese and nonobese patients demonstrated significant improvement in all PRO scores, and the change in scores were similar between groups. These results indicate that while obese patients may not have similar absolute scores after hip arthroscopy, they may show similar gains in improvement when compared with baseline. Hip arthroscopy appears to be a viable treatment option in the obese patient as long as expectations are adjusted accordingly.

Labral injury: radiographic predictors at the time of hip arthroscopy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of multiple demographic and radiographic findings on the size of labral tears identified at the time of hip arthroscopy. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected for patients treated with arthroscopic labral repair or debridement from February 2008 to August 2011. Preoperative radiographic and demographic data were collected for 392 patients during the study period. Exclusion criteria included revision surgery and previous hip conditions. An anteroposterior pelvic view, 45° Dunn view, and false-profile view were used to measure Tönnis grade, neck-shaft angle, alpha angle, lateral center edge angle (LCEA), anterior center edge angle (ACEA), acetabular inclination, and the extent of crossover sign when present. At the time of surgery, labral tear size and location were documented for all patients, using traditional acetabular clock face nomenclature for sizing. A multiple linear regression analysis was then performed to assess the correlation of radiographic and demographic findings with the size of the labral tear. RESULTS: Regression analysis displayed statistical significance for sex (P < .0001), age (P < .0001), and alpha angle (P = .005) with labral tear size. For female patients, Tönnis grade (P = .0004) and neck-shaft angle (P = .004) correlated with labral tear size. This model accounted for only 26% of variation in labral tear size. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative risk factors for the extent of labral tear size are male sex, increasing age, and increasing alpha angle. Labral tears were larger in female patients with higher Tönnis grades and lower neck-shaft angles. Measurements of acetabular coverage and version showed no correlation with labral tear size. The majority of labral tear size variation was not accounted for in this model. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Arthroscopic acetabuloplasty and labral refixation without labral detachment.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic acetabuloplasty was initially described with detachment of the labrum to access the acetabular rim for resection, followed by labral refixation. Recent technical improvements have made it possible to perform acetabuloplasty and labral refixation without labral detachment when the chondrolabral junction is intact. PURPOSE: To compare outcomes for patients undergoing arthroscopic acetabuloplasty and labral refixation without labral detachment (study group), as well as compare this with a group of patients who underwent acetabuloplasty with labral refixation and labral detachment (control group) with a minimum 2-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: During the study period, data were prospectively collected on all patients treated with hip arthroscopy. Inclusion criteria for the study group were acetabuloplasty and labral refixation without detachment, performed in cases with an intact chondrolabral junction. Patients were then compared with a control group of patients who had acetabuloplasty with labral detachment and refixation. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively using 4 patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, as well as monitored for revision surgery. RESULTS: In the study group, the preoperative to postoperative score changed from 64.2 to 86.6 for modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 60.5 to 83.8 for Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), 65.3 to 87.3 for Hip Outcome Score-Activity of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), 45 to 75.1 for Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and 5.7 to 2.6 for VAS. In the control group, the preoperative to postoperative score changed from 61.2 to 84.4 for mHHS, 59 to 84 for NAHS, 62.7 to 86.2 for HOS-ADL, 40.1 to 74.1 for HOS-SSS, and 6.3 to 2.8 for VAS. There was no difference between preoperative and postoperative PRO scores. The preoperative VAS score was lower in the study group than in the control group (P=.04). The control group demonstrated larger mean preoperative anterior center edge angles (ACEA) (33.8° vs 29.5°) and mean alpha angles (60.5° vs 53.5°) than the study group (P<.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the change in PRO or VAS scores between groups. Both groups demonstrated significant improvement from preoperative to 2-year follow-up for all 4 PRO scores (P<.05) and decrease in VAS (P<.05). One patient in the study group converted to total hip arthroplasty. Seven patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy in the study group, and 8 patients in the control group underwent revision hip arthroscopy. There was no difference in revision rates between groups. CONCLUSION: Treatment of pincer- and combined-type impingement with arthroscopic acetabuloplasty and labral refixation without detachment, when possible, resulted in similar patient outcomes compared with acetabuloplasty with labral detachment. We may conclude that in cases where the chondrolabral junction remains intact, acetabuloplasty and labral refixation without detachment is a viable option.

Clinical results of hip arthroscopy for labral tears: a comparison between intraoperative platelet-rich plasma and bupivacaine injection.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective comparative study was to evaluate the effect of intraoperative platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection on the outcomes of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for labral treatment. METHODS: During the period from November 2010 through March 2012, all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for labral tears were considered for this study. The study group received intra-articular PRP at the end of the operation, and the control group received an intra-articular injection of 0.25% bupivacaine. Selection for the study group was based on the day of the week on which the patient underwent surgery. The protocol included administration of 4 hip-specific patient-reported outcome tools. Patients also reported their pain score on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10. Scores were recorded at the preoperative visit and at 3 months and 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: A minimum of 2 years' follow-up was available for 306 patients. Thirteen patients (4.2%) underwent conversion to total hip arthroplasty and 24 patients (7.8%) underwent revision hip arthroscopy, which left 91 patients in the study group and 180 patients in the control group. The study group had slightly higher pain scores than the control group (3.4 v 2.5) 2 years after surgery (P = .005). No difference in pain scores was identified at 3 months postoperatively. The 2-year modified Harris Hip Score was slightly lower in the study group (78.6) than in the control group (82.6) (P = .049). No significant difference was observed for the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale, or Non-Arthritic Hip Score at any time point. There was no significant difference between groups for conversion to total hip arthroplasty or revision surgery. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the results of this study, intraoperative PRP injection does not appear to improve the clinical results of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for labral treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.

Influence of capsular repair versus unrepaired capsulotomy on 2-year clinical outcomes after arthroscopic hip preservation surgery.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether capsular management technique influences clinical outcomes at a minimum of 2 years after arthroscopic hip preservation surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted to determine the relative influence of 2 capsular management strategies on clinical outcomes: unrepaired capsulotomy (group A) and capsular repair (group B). Four hundred three patients who had undergone arthroscopic hip preservation surgery met the inclusion criteria and had 2-year outcome data available. All patients completed 4 patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. These included the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) subsets, Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). RESULTS: Group A included 235 patients and group B, 168. The mean age of all patients at final follow-up was 36.9 years. Patients in group A were significantly older (42.3 years v 29.4 years, P < .0001) and had a significantly higher body mass index (26.8 kg/m(2)v 22.9 kg/m(2), P < .0001) compared with group B. In addition, female patients were more likely than male patients to undergo capsular repair (136 female patients v 32 male patients, P < .0001). Patients in group A also showed greater chondral damage by acetabular labrum articular disruption classification (P = .0081) and reduced preoperative PROs (HOS-ADL of 60.5 v 66.0, P = .087; HOS-SSS of 37.0 v 46.4, P = .0002; NAHS of 54.6 v 62.2, P < .0001; mHHS of 58.7 v 64.4, P = .0009; and visual analog scale score of 6.3 v 5.84, P = .028). All PROs showed statistically significant improvements for both groups at a minimum follow-up of 2 years (HOS-ADL, 60.5 to 82.2 in group A and 66 to 86.1 in group B; HOS-SSS, 36.9 to 67.3 and 46.4 to 71.2, respectively; NAHS, 54.6 to 79 and 62.2 to 82.8, respectively; visual analog scale score, 6.3 to 3.1 and 5.8 to 2.9, respectively; and mHHS, 58.7 to 81 and 64.4 to 83.8, respectively; P < .0001 for all differences). Furthermore, group B showed greater overall improvements than group A for the HOS-ADL (P = .03) and NAHS (P = .03) on uncorrected univariate analysis, but significance was lost once we controlled for confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic capsular repair, used in conjunction with arthroscopic hip preservation surgery, appears to be safe and did not negatively influence clinical outcomes in this study. When confounding variables were controlled for, the use of capsular repair did not show clinically relevant superiority over the use of unrepaired capsulotomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

A matched-pair controlled study of microfracture of the hip with average 2-year follow-up: do full-thickness chondral defects portend an inferior prognosis in hip arthroscopy?

PURPOSE: This study compared 2-year clinical outcomes in hip arthroscopy patients treated with microfracture to a matched control group without full-thickness chondral damage. METHODS: During the study period between June 2008 and July 2011, data were collected on all patients treated with hip arthroscopy who underwent microfracture. All patients were assessed pre- and postoperatively with 4 patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Pain was estimated on the visual analog scale (VAS), and satisfaction was measured on a scale from 0 to 10. A matched-pair group of patients who did not undergo microfracture was selected in a 1:2 ratio. Matching criteria were age within 5 years, sex, surgical procedures, and radiographic findings. RESULTS: Average follow-up for the study was 26.66 months (17.29 to 48.89 months). Forty-nine hips were included in the microfracture group and 98 hips were in entered in the nonmicrofracture group, with no significant difference in PRO scores preoperatively between the groups. Both groups had statistically significant postoperative improvement in all scores, and the average amount of change from preoperative to postoperative scores between the 2 groups was not statistically significantly different for any of the PRO scores. Most importantly, there was no statistically significant difference in postoperative PRO scores between the microfracture and control groups. Patient satisfaction was 6.9 for the microfracture group and 7.84 for the nonmicrofracture group, which was statistically significant (P < .05). When comparing patients who received acetabular microfracture to those who received femoral microfracture, both groups had similar preoperative and postoperative PRO scores, with no significant difference in the magnitude of change (delta) at final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that patients undergoing microfracture during hip arthroscopy did not show a statistically significant difference in PRO scores when compared with a matched-pair control group at an average of 2 years of follow-up. Both groups showed significant improvement in all PRO scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, matched case-control study.

What are the current indications for use of radiofrequency devices in hip arthroscopy? A systematic review.

The role of radiofrequency energy (RFE) devices has been minimally studied in hip arthroscopy. The purpose of this study was to determine the role of RFE devices in hip arthroscopy through a systematic review of the literature. We searched the PubMed database using the following Medical Subject Heading terms: hip arthroscopy, hip radiofrequency, thermal capsulorrhaphy, thermal chondroplasty and radiofrequency debridement. Two authors independently reviewed the literature and included articles based on predetermined inclusion criteria. We excluded review, technique and experimental articles. After title and abstract review, we selected 293 articles for full-text review. Ten articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. For the included articles, a total of 305 hips underwent arthroscopy with concomitant RFE treatment at a mean age of 25.7 years. Eight articles presented patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments, one study did not report an outcome instrument but utilized an evaluation of postoperative range of motion (ROM) and 1 year magnetic resonance image (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) imaging. The remaining article measured only the ROM pre- and postoperatively. Only one of the articles reviewed reported complications. Current evidence on the safety and indications for use of RFE devices in hip arthroscopy is insufficient. The literature shows mixed results regarding its use in hip arthroscopy. Although the use of thermal energy is not without risk, if used judiciously and appropriate precautions are taken to avoid damage to adjacent tissues, those devices can be useful for the treatment of certain intra-articular hip pathologies arthroscopically.

Arthroscopic decompression of central acetabular impingement with notchplasty.

Acetabular notch osteophytes are often encountered during routine diagnostic arthroscopy of the hip. It has been our observation that when notch osteophytes are present, there is often corresponding chondral damage to the anterosuperior femoral head and ligamentum teres degeneration. We propose that removal of the notch osteophyte and decompression of the articulating surface offer an effective method of delaying the progression of arthritis. This article describes in detail the technique used to perform arthroscopic acetabular notchplasty, and a companion video, demonstrating the procedure, is included. Our experience suggests that decompression of the acetabular notch can remove offending structural abnormalities that can potentially cause further chondral damage and may hasten the progression of arthritis.