Teamwork in hip preservation: the ISHA 2019 Annual Scientific Meeting.

Hip preservation surgery is now an established part of orthopedic surgery and sports medicine. This report describes the key findings of the 11th Annual Scientific Meeting of International Society for Hip Arthroscopy-the International Hip Preservation Society-in Madrid, Spain from 16 to 19 October 2019. Lectures, seminars and debates explored the most up-to-date and expert views on a wide variety of subjects, including: diagnostic problems in groin pain, buttock pain and low back pain; surgical techniques in acetabular dysplasia, hip instability, femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, labral repair and reconstruction, cartilage defects, adolescent hips and gluteus medius and hamstring tears; and new ideas about femoral torsion, hip-spine syndrome, hip capsule surgery, impact of particular sports on hip injuries, registries, robotics and training for hip preservation specialists. Surgeons, sports physicians, radiologists and physiotherapists looking after young people with hip problems have an increasingly sophisticated armoury of ideas and techniques with which to help their patients. The concept of hip preservation has developed incredibly fast over the last decade; now it is clear that the best results can only be achieved by a multidisciplinary team working together. The 2020s will be the decade of 'Teamwork in Hip Preservation'.

Midterm Outcomes of Iliopsoas Fractional Lengthening for Internal Snapping as a Part of Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement and Labral Tear: A Matched Control Study.

PURPOSE: To report minimum 5-year outcomes and rate of painful snapping resolution for patients who underwent iliopsoas fractional lengthening (IFL) as a part of hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and labral tear. In addition, to match this group to a group of patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAI and labral tear without internal snapping. METHODS: Patients were eligible for inclusion if they underwent hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAI and labral tear with concomitant IFL for painful snapping and had preoperative baseline scores for modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale, and visual analog scale for pain. The exclusion criteria for this study were preoperative Tönnis grade >0, active workers' compensation claims, or previous ipsilateral hip conditions. These patients were matched to a control group of patients who did not have snapping or undergo IFL but who otherwise satisfied the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: There were 57 eligible cases (80.3% follow-up). Mean follow-up time was 69.3 months (from 60.0 to 91.9). All patient-reported outcomes measures demonstrated statistically significant improvements between preoperative and latest follow-up scores for the following measures (P < .001): modified Harris Hip Score (from 64.3 to 84.9), Nonarthritic Hip Score (from 61.7 to 85.2), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (from 47.0 to 75.0), and visual analog scale (from 6.5 to 2.2). Mean satisfaction was 8.1 out of 10. Painful snapping was resolved in 80.7% of cases. Ten hips (17.5%) required secondary arthroscopy at a mean of 30.5 months. Three hips (5.3%) required total hip arthroplasty at a mean of 57.5 months. One case (1.8%) had minor postoperative complications. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in outcomes, complications, and secondary surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: IFL as part of hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAI and labral tears demonstrated similar favorable improvement, complication rates, and secondary surgeries, when compared with a control group that did not undergo IFL. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Patient-Reported Outcomes of Capsular Repair Versus Capsulotomy in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy: Minimum 5-Year Follow-up-A Matched Comparison Study.

PURPOSE: To elucidate whether capsular closure during hip arthroscopy affected patient outcomes over midterm follow-up. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2011, data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed on patients who underwent hip arthroscopy. Patients were then matched for age, gender, worker's compensation, body mass index, and acetabular coverage. The inclusion criteria were capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy, lateral-center edge angle ≥18°, and minimum 5-year follow-up. The exclusion criteria were previous hip surgery or conditions and Tönnis grade >1. Patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) included modified Harris hip score (mHHS), nonarthritic hip score, hip outcome score sport-specific subscale, and visual analog score for pain, which were collected preoperatively, at 3 months, and annually thereafter. Minimal clinical important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for both groups were analyzed. Patient satisfaction was noted as well as any complications, secondary surgery, and conversion to arthroplasty. RESULTS: Minimum 5-year follow-up was available for 82.5% (287 of 348) hips that met the inclusion criteria and were eligible for matching. Ultimately, 65 patients who underwent capsular repair could be matched in a 1:1 ratio to 65 patients with release. Both groups had significant improvements in all mean PROs. The repair group had significant improvement of mean PROs, visual analog score, and patient satisfaction at both 2-year and minimum 5-year follow-up. The unrepaired group had a significant decrease in mHHS (P = .001) and patient satisfaction (P = .01) between 2- and 5-year follow-up. Despite decreasing mHHS in the repair group between 2- and 5-year follow-up, both groups met the MCID and PASS criteria with no significant difference between them. More patients in the release group required conversion to hip arthroplasty (18.5% vs 10.8%). Subgroup analysis considering various perioperative factors confirmed this trend. Rate of revision arthroscopy was the same in both groups (15.4%). Complication rate was low (4.6% vs 6.4%) in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing hip arthroscopy and who have minimal or no arthritis have significant short-term improvement, whether the capsule is closed or left unrepaired. However, at midterm follow-up, patients who had unrepaired capsules had deterioration in mHHS as well as a higher rate of conversion to arthroplasty, even when controlling for various perioperative variables. Despite this, patients in both groups met the MCID and PASS criteria. This study suggests that routine capsular closure may lead to more consistently durable outcome in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy, but also that individual patient pathology may dictate capsular management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.