Slightly reduced early subsidence with similar outcomes and complications rate in collared stems - A systematic review of randomized clinical trials.

Background: There is a growing trend towards using femoral stems with a medial calcar collar during total hip arthroplasty (THA). Purpose: Systematically review the literature comparing a femoral collared stem and femoral collarless stem on subsidence, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and revision rate. Study design: Systematic Review, Level of Evidence 1. Methods: A literature search of Pubmed and Medline was according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated collared and collarless stems, subsidence and PROs for adult patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) were included. Additional data collection included patient demographics, stem-calcar contact, canal-fill ratio (CFR), stem orientation, surgical approach, Dorr Type, complications, and revisions. Results: Five studies met inclusion criteria. 674 patients (704 hips) were included. Mean patient ages ranged 58.5-72.4 years old, and mean BMI ranged 26.6-29.8 kg/m2. Mean reported follow-up of the included clinical trials ranged 1-9.6 years. Two studies reported mean early subsidence at two weeks postoperatively, which was 0.36, 0.99 mm for collared stems and 0.52, 3.22 mm for collarless stems, proving to be statistically significant (P = 0.023), (P = 0.05). All studies demonstrated improved PROs at most recent follow-up. Revision rates ranged from 4 to 11.3 %, but these were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Implantation of collared stems compared to collarless may reduce early post-operative subsidence, while no substantial effect on aseptic loosening, thigh pain, proximal femoral fracture, and revision is seen. When measuring patient-reported outcomes, the collared femoral stem was not superior to the collarless femoral stem as both resulted in similar improvement preoperatively to postoperative state.

Editorial Commentary: Primary Treatment of Hip Labral, Osseous, Chondral, Capsular, and Extra-Articular Pathology Is Essential: Outcomes Following Revision Are Less Predictable.

Appropriate labral management is one of many procedures during hip arthroscopy that affects postoperative outcomes and revision rates. Both primary labral repair and reconstruction have been shown to have superior clinical and functional outcomes compared with labral debridement when treating unstable labral tears. Arthroscopic labral reconstruction is one of the most powerful techniques in the arsenal of complex hip-preservation surgeons, and although often reserved for the revision setting, when the native labrum is irreparable, a primary reconstruction may be indicated when the only alternatives are selective labral debridement or a suboptimal repair. Labral reconstruction, either in primary or revision procedures, is indicated when the existing labrum is deemed irreparable based on an intraoperative evaluation. Current indications for primary labral reconstruction, either in the primary or revision setting, include a calcified labrum, an irreparable mixed Seldes type 1 and 2 tear, or a hypoplastic labrum with less than 3 mm of viable tissue. Primary hip arthroscopy has been shown to have superior outcomes compared with revision hip arthroscopy, whether with labral repair or reconstruction. Finally, appropriate labral management is necessary but not always sufficient. Hip arthroscopy requires management of osseous deformities, with care taken to avoid under- and over-resection during both femoroplasty and acetabuloplasty; management of chondral injury; and management of the hip capsule with repair or plication. Consideration also must be given to potential extra-articular pain generators, such as abductor insufficiency, ischiofemoral impingement, lumbar spine disease, as well as deformities requiring open surgical correction such as acetabular dysplasia or pathologic femoral version. The primary goal is getting it right the first time.

Editorial Commentary: Concomitant Hip Arthroscopy and Periacetabular Osteotomy Treat Both the Cause and the Effects of Hip Dysplasia: The Best of Both Worlds.

In the management of true hip dysplasia, the bony deformity is nearly always accompanied by, and often causal of, intra-articular pathology. It is strongly recommended to conduct a comprehensive preoperative evaluation as well as arthroscopic evaluation and treatment of coexisting hip joint conditions prior to performing an open Bernese periacetabular osteotomy. The osteotomy improves coverage of the femoral head and corrects the abnormal joint mechanics and loading patterns, which result in cartilage damage and subsequent osteoarthritis. Arthroscopy allows treatment of the intra-articular pathology. Combining the hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy procedures into a single surgical intervention, performed by either a single surgeon or a collaborative surgical team, allows us to address both the cause and the effects of dysplasia. This once-controversial combined technique has become a standard practice in the field with widespread adoption.

A comprehensive review of hip arthroscopy techniques and outcomes.

Transforming the orthopedic landscape, hip arthroscopy pioneers a minimally invasive surgical approach for diagnosing and addressing hip pathologies. With its origins dating back to Burman's 1931 cadaveric study, this groundbreaking technique gained clinical relevance in 1939 through Takagi's report. However, the 1980s marked the actual emergence of hip arthroscopy for treating a wide range of hip disorders. Now, a staple in modern orthopedics, hip arthroscopy empowers patients with previously undiagnosed and untreated hip conditions, enabling them to obtain relief and reclaim their lives. By employing a compact camera and specialized tools, surgeons expertly navigate the hip joint, performing procedures from excising loose bodies and mending labral tears to addressing femoroacetabular impingement and tackling other intricate issues. This innovative approach has dramatically elevated patients' quality of life, allowing them to embrace targeted treatments and resume daily activities without resorting to lifestyle alterations.

Acetabular Labral Reconstruction Does Not Demonstrate Superior Biomechanical Properties Compared to Labral Repair or Intact Native Labrum but Is Superior to Labral Excision: A Systematic Review of Cadaveric Studies.

PURPOSE: To systematically review and compare biomechanical properties of labral reconstruction to labral repair, intact native labrum, and labral excision in cadaveric studies. METHODS: A search of the PubMed and Embase databases was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and checklist. Cadaveric studies focused on hip biomechanics related to intact labrum, labral repair, labral reconstruction, labral augmentation, and labral excision were included. Investigated parameters included biomechanical data measures, such as distraction force, distance to suction seal rupture, peak negative pressure, contact area, and fluid efflux. Review articles, duplicates, technique reports, case reports, opinion articles, articles written in a language other than English, clinical studies focusing on patient-reported outcomes, studies performed in animals, and articles with no abstract available were also excluded. RESULTS: Fourteen cadaveric biomechanical studies were included that compared labral reconstruction to labral repair (4 studies), labral reconstruction to labral excision (4 studies); and evaluation of distractive force of the labrum (3 studies), the distance to suction seal rupture (3 studies), fluid dynamics (2 studies), displacement at peak force (1 study), and stability ratio (1 study). Data pooling was not performed because of methodological heterogenicity of the studies. Labral reconstruction did not outperform labral repair in restoring the hip suction seal or any other biomechanical property. Labral repair significantly prevented greater fluid efflux when compared to labral reconstruction. Labral repair and reconstruction improved the distractive stability of the hip fluid seal from the labral tear and labral excision stage, respectively. Furthermore, labral reconstruction demonstrated to have better biomechanical properties than labral excision. CONCLUSIONS: In cadaveric studies, labral repair or intact native labrum was biomechanically more superior than labral reconstruction; however, labral reconstruction can restore acetabular labral biomechanical properties and was biomechanically superior to labral excision. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In cadaveric models, labral repair outperforms segmental labral reconstruction in preserving the hip suction seal; nonetheless, segmental labral reconstruction biomechanically outperforms labral excision at time 0.

Dancers Show Significant Improvement in Outcomes and Favorable Return-to-Dance Rates After Primary Hip Arthroscopy With Femoral Head Cartilage Status Being a Predictor of Secondary Surgical Procedures at Mid-Term Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To report minimum 5-year follow-up patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) scores and return-to-dance rates in dancers who underwent primary hip arthroscopy and to identify predictors of secondary surgical procedures. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from patients who underwent hip arthroscopy between May 2010 and June 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if they participated in dance at any level 1 year prior to surgery and had preoperative and minimum 5-year follow-up scores consisting of the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, and visual analog scale pain score. The exclusion criteria were previous hip conditions, previous ipsilateral hip surgery, Tönnis grade greater than 1, or lateral center-edge angle less than 18°. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was reported. Dancers who discontinued dance for reasons other than pain in the operative hip were excluded from the return-to-dance analysis. A logistic regression model was used to identify predictors of secondary surgical procedures. RESULTS: Fifty-one hips (48 female dancers) were included. The average age and average follow-up period were 29.8 ± 17.2 years and 79.1 ± 23.2 months, respectively. Improvement in all PROM scores (P < .001) was reported. Achievement rates of the MCID for the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, and visual analog scale pain score were 83.3%, 85.7%, and 85.7%, respectively. Revision hip arthroscopy was performed in 5 dancers (9.8%). Conversion to total hip arthroplasty was performed in 4 dancers (7.8%). The return-to-dance rate was 78.6%, with 57.6% returning to the preinjury performance level or a higher level. Higher femoral head Outerbridge grade was identified as a predictor of secondary surgical procedures (P = .045; odds ratio, 6.752 [95% confidence interval, 1.043-43.688]). CONCLUSIONS: After primary hip arthroscopy, dancers experienced significant improvement in all PROM scores collected and achieved the MCID at a high rate at minimum 5-year follow-up. The return-to-dance rate in dancers who did not discontinue dance because of lifestyle transitions was 78.6%, with 57.6% returning to the preinjury performance level or a higher level. Higher femoral head Outerbridge grade was found to be a predictor of secondary surgical procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.

No Difference in Patient-Reported Outcomes for Periacetabular Osteotomy and Hip Arthroscopy With Capsular Plication in the Setting of Borderline Hip Dysplasia: A Propensity-Matched Multicenter Study With Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To compare minimum 5-year patient-reported outcome measures after hip arthroscopy (HA) and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for borderline hip dysplasia. METHODS: Hips with a lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) between 18° and less than 25° that underwent either PAO or HA were selected from 2 institutions. The exclusion criteria were as follows: LCEA less than 18°, Tönnis osteoarthritis grade greater than 1, prior hip surgical procedures, active inflammatory disease, Workers' Compensation, and concomitant surgery. Patients underwent propensity matching based on age, sex, body mass index, and Tönnis osteoarthritis grade. Patient-reported outcome measures included the modified Harris Hip Score, as well as calculation of the minimal clinically important difference, patient acceptable symptom state, and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold. Preoperative radiographic predictors included comparison of the Femoro-epiphyseal Acetabular Roof index and ligamentum teres lesions. RESULTS: A total of 28 PAO patients underwent propensity matching to 49 HA patients. The 2 groups were similar in terms of mean age, sex, preoperative body mass index, and LCEA. The PAO group had a longer mean follow-up period (95.8 months vs 81.3 months, P = .001). The mean Femoro-epiphyseal Acetabular Roof index was significantly lower preoperatively in the HA group (P < .001). The 2 groups showed similar and significant improvements in the mean modified Harris Hip Score from preoperatively to latest follow-up (P < .001). The relative risk of subsequent surgery in the PAO group was 3.49 (P = .024), mostly attributed to hardware removal (25%). The revision rate was 3.6% in the PAO group and 8.2% in the HA group (P = .65). One patient in the PAO group required revision HA for intra-articular adhesions. Three of the patients requiring revision in the HA group underwent PAO because of persistent pain, and one underwent revision HA alone. Conversion to total hip arthroplasty was required in 1 patient in the HA group and no patients in the PAO group. CONCLUSIONS: Both PAO and HA with capsular plication provide borderline hip dysplasia patients with clinically significant improvements and low revision rates at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective, comparative therapeutic trial.

TEMPORARY REMOVAL: Favorable and Durable Outcomes at 10-Year Follow Up After Endoscopic Gluteus Medius Repair With Concomitant Hip Arthroscopy.

The publisher regrets that this article has been temporarily removed. A replacement will appear as soon as possible in which the reason for the removal of the article will be specified, or the article will be reinstated. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.

Defining Thresholds and Predictors for Achieving the Patient Acceptable Symptom State for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Revision Hip Arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND: The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) after primary hip arthroscopy has been determined; nonetheless, the PASS still needs to be defined for revision hip arthroscopy. PURPOSE: To define minimum 2-year follow-up PASS thresholds for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) after revision hip arthroscopy, and to identify predictors of achieving the PASS. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between April 2017 and July 2020. Patients were included if they had baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up scores for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS for pain, and iHOT-12. PASS was calculated using the anchor-based method. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the thresholds for the PASS. A multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors for achieving the PASS. RESULTS: A total of 318 patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy met the inclusion criteria. Of those patients, 292 (91.8%) had baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up. Of this group, 68 patients (72.1% female and 27.9% male; mean age, 32.9 years) answered the PASS anchor question. Achievement PASS rates were 58.8%, 41.2%, 52.9%, 60.3%, and 52.9% for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS, and iHOT-12, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) values for the PASS for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS, and iHOT-12 were 0.912, 0.888, 0.857, 0.903, and 0.871, respectively, indicating excellent discrimination. The PASS for the mHHS was 76 (sensitivity, 0.809; specificity, 0.905), for the NAHS was 86.3 (sensitivity, 0.660; specificity, 1), for the HOS-SSS was 64.3 (sensitivity, 0.745; specificity, 0.905), for the VAS was 3 (sensitivity, 0.830; specificity, 0.905), and for the iHOT-12 was 64.3 (sensitivity, 0.745; specificity, 0.905). Body mass index (BMI) was identified as a significant predictor of achieving PASS for the NAHS (OR, 0.967; 95% CI, 0.940-0.996; P = .027), as patients with a BMI ≤25.4 had 1.03 times higher odds ratio of achieving PASS for the NAHS. CONCLUSION: After revision hip arthroscopy, the minimum 2-year follow-up PASS thresholds for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, VAS for pain, and iHOT-12 were 76, 86.3, 64.3, 3, and 64.3, respectively. The odds ratio of achieving PASS for the NAHS was 1.03 times higher for patients with a BMI ≤25.4.

Endoscopic Tendon Compression Bridge Technique for Repair of Partial-Thickness Gluteus Medius Tears With Concomitant Arthroscopy for Labral Tears: Minimum 2-Year Outcomes With Benchmark Control Group.

BACKGROUND: The transtendinous technique has been used to treat partial-thickness gluteus medius tears in the setting of concomitant arthroscopy for labral tears. The tendon compression bridge technique for gluteus medius repair has been developed as an alternative method, providing several advantages; however, comparative studies between the 2 techniques are lacking in the literature. PURPOSE: (1) To evaluate the short-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of the tendon compression bridge technique and (2) to compare these findings with short-term PROs of the transtendinous technique. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on patients who were followed for a minimum of 2 years after an endoscopic tendon compression bridge procedure for gluteus medius repair in the setting of concomitant hip arthroscopy for labral tears. The following PROs were collected preoperatively and postoperatively: modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, visual analog scale score for pain, and the International Hip Outcome Tool. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Patient Acceptable Symptom State, minimal clinically important difference, and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold. Patients were propensity matched 1:1 to a cohort that underwent gluteus medius repair using the endoscopic transtendinous technique with concomitant hip arthroscopy. RESULTS: A total of 48 hips (48 patients) that met inclusion criteria (age, 53.3 ± 9.8 years; 92% female; body mass index, 26.7 ± 4.6), with a mean follow-up of 38.5 ± 15.7 months, were matched to 48 hips (46 patients) that underwent gluteus medius repair using the transtendinous technique. Both groups demonstrated significant improvement from preoperative scores to latest follow-up (P < .05). Mean magnitude of improvement and latest follow-up scores were not significantly different between the tendon compression bridge group and the transtendinous group, and the groups demonstrated similar favorable rates of achieving Minimal Clinically Important Difference (79% vs 79%, respectively), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (73% vs 73%, respectively), and Maximum Outcome Improvement Satisfaction threshold (65% vs 58%, respectively) for modified Harris Hip Score (P > .05). Patient satisfaction between groups was similar (8.1 ± 2.2 vs 7.7 ± 2.7, respectively) (P = .475). CONCLUSION: At minimum 2-year follow-up, the endoscopic tendon compression bridge technique for partial-thickness gluteus medius tears, when performed with concomitant hip arthroscopy, was associated with significant improvement in functional outcomes. These postoperative results were comparable with those of a matched cohort that underwent the endoscopic transtendinous technique for partial-thickness gluteus medius tears, suggesting that the tendon compression bridge technique for gluteus medius repair is an effective treatment option for partial-thickness gluteus medius tears.

Periacetabular osteotomy with intraoperative computer-assisted modalities: a systematic review.

The role of intraoperative computer-assisted modalities for periacetabular osteotomy (PAO), as well as the perioperative and post-operative outcomes for these techniques, remains poorly defined. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the techniques and outcomes of intraoperative computer-assisted modalities for PAO. Three databases (PubMed, CINAHL/EBSCOHost and Cochrane) were searched for clinical studies reporting on computer-assisted modalities for PAO. Exclusion criteria included small case series (<10 patients), non-English language and studies that did not provide a description of the computer-assisted technique. Data extraction included computer-assisted modalities utilized, surgical techniques, demographics, radiographic findings, perioperative outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), complications and subsequent surgeries. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 208 patients with average ages ranging from 26 to 38 years. Intraoperative navigation was utilized in seven studies, patient-specific guides in one study and both modalities in one study. Three studies reported significantly less intraoperative radiation exposure (P < 0.01) in computer-assisted versus conventional PAOs. Similar surgical times and estimated blood loss (P > 0.05) were commonly observed between the computer-assisted and conventional groups. The average post-operative lateral center edge angles in patients undergoing computer-assisted PAOs ranged from 27.8° to 37.4°, with six studies reporting similar values (P > 0.05) compared to conventional PAOs. Improved PROs were observed in all six studies that reported preoperative and post-operative values of patients undergoing computer-assisted PAOs. Computer-assisted modalities for PAO include navigated tracking of the free acetabular fragment and surgical instruments, as well as patient-specific cutting guides and rotating templates. Compared to conventional techniques, decreased intraoperative radiation exposure and similar operative lengths were observed with computer-assisted PAOs, although these results should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneous operative techniques and surgical settings.

Defining the Percent Thresholds for Achieving the Maximum Outcome Improvement of the Modified Harris Hip Score, the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, the Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale, the Visual Analog Scale for Pain, and the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 in Revision Hip Arthroscopy at Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To determine the respective percent thresholds for achieving the maximal outcome improvement (MOI) for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), the Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (HOS-SSS), the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) that were associated with satisfaction following revision hip arthroscopy, and to identify predictors for achieving the MOI. METHODS: An anchor question was provided to patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between April 2017 and July 2020. Patients were included for the final analysis if they answered the anchor question and had minimum 2-year follow-up. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the thresholds for the percentage of the MOI predictive of satisfaction. A P-value of < .05 was considered significant. RESULTS: In total, 318 patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy. Of those patients, 292 (91.8%) had minimum 2-year follow-up. Of this cohort, 68 answered the anchor question, with 49 (72.1%) female and 19 (27.9%) male patients. The mean age, and body mass index time were 32.9 ± 13 years and 25.4 ± 5.1, respectively. It was determined that 42.1%, 50%, 48.1%, 50%, and 50% of MOI were the thresholds for maximal predictability of satisfaction for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SS, VAS for pain, and the iHOT-12, respectively. The presence of unaddressed subspine impingement was a significant predictor for achieving the MOI threshold for the VAS (odds ratio 1.40; 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.95; P = 0.0273). CONCLUSIONS: Following revision hip arthroscopy, the percent thresholds for achieving the MOI at a minimum 2-year follow-up for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SS, VAS for pain, and iHOT-12 were 42.1%, 50%, 48.1%, 50%, and 50.9%, respectively. Addressing residual subspine impingement was identified as significant positive predictor for achieving the MOI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case-series.

Orthobiologics as an adjunct in treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: cell-based therapies facilitate improved postoperative outcomes in the setting of acetabular chondral lesions-a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To evaluate studies utilizing orthobiologics in the management of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) to (1) assess the indications for usage, and (2) analyze patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) following treatment. It was hypothesized that orthobiologics would (1) be utilized for symptomatic FAIS in the setting of labral or chondral pathology, and (2) improve PROM at most recent follow-up. METHODS: The Pubmed, Ovid Medline, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched for clinical studies evaluating orthobiologics [hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), or cell-based therapy (CBT) for treatment of FAIS. Exclusion criteria included orthobiologics used in conjunction with cartilage transfer or scaffolding procedures and a primary indication other than FAIS. Data collection included patient demographics, indications, and baseline and most recent PROM. RESULTS: Eleven studies (one level I, four level II, four level III, and two level IV evidence) met inclusion criteria, consisting of 440 patients with mean ages ranging from 32.8 to 47 years. All 11 studies demonstrated an improvement in PROM from baseline to most-recent follow-up. Four studies administered PRP either intraoperatively or the day after surgery as an adjunct to labral repair. CBT was used intraoperatively in the setting of acetabular chondral lesions (three studies) and labral repair (one study). When comparing to a control group at most recent follow-up, three PRP cohorts demonstrated similar PROM (n.s.), while one PRP group exhibited worse visual analog pain scores (2.5 vs. 3.4, p = 0.005) and modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHS) (82.6 vs. 78.7, p = 0.049). The four CBT studies reported favorable results compared to a control group, with a significantly higher mHHS at most recent follow-up or mean improvement from baseline in Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (p < 0.05). Three studies reported on HA, which was utilized exclusively in the nonoperative setting. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative PRP and CBT have been commonly reported in the setting of hip arthroscopy for labral repairs and acetabular chondral lesions, respectively. The CBT cohorts demonstrated more favorable PROM at most recent follow-up when compared to a control group, though these results should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity of orthobiologic preparations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Utility of 3D Planning Software in Understanding Residual Proximal Femoral Deformity for Planning of Revision Hip Arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND: During the early evolution of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) treatment, undercorrection of femoral deformity was a leading cause of hip arthroscopy failures. As the pendulum has swung, overresection of femoral deformity has increased in prevalence as a cause of persistent hip pain after arthroscopy. Computed tomography (CT) scans are increasingly being used in hip arthroscopy for preoperative planning purposes and may allow for improved 3-dimensional (3D) assessment of complex femoral deformities after previous femoroplasty. PURPOSE: To assess whether CT scans provide additional utility over standard radiographs in understanding proximal femoral morphology in patients being evaluated for revision hip arthroscopy after previous femoroplasty in the setting of FAI. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Preoperative CT scans and standard radiographs were obtained in 80 patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy for FAI. The anteroposterior and Dunn radiographic views were used to assess patients for residual proximal femoral deformity and were compared with the CT scan views using a commercially available software program. Determinations of underresection were made using alpha angle, while overresection was determined according to a previously described technique. Chi-square tests were performed to determine statistical significance between radiographic and CT classifications of overresection, underresection, and concomitant over- and underresection. A kappa value was calculated to determine the agreement between measurements on the radiographs and CT scans. RESULTS: There were 30 patients (37.5%) for whom the CT scans revealed information about femoral morphology that was not detected on the radiographs. The kappa value of agreement was 0.28 between CT and radiographic measurements. Underresected cams were detected in 30 patients (37.5%) on CT scans versus 17 patients (21.3%) on radiographs (P = .024). Overresected cams were detected in 31 patients (38.8%) on CT scans versus 14 patients (17.5%) on radiographs (P = .0049). Concomitant areas of under- and overresection were detected in 12 patients (15.0%) on CT scans versus 3 patients (3.8%) on radiographs (P = .027). CONCLUSION: CT scans with 3D planning software may be more sensitive than traditional radiographic views at detecting aberrant proximal femoral anatomy in the setting of failed FAI surgery. The use of 3D planning software may be considered as an adjunctive tool to better understand complex deformity in the proximal femur for the planning of revision hip arthroscopy.

Fixation of the Proximal Hamstring Tendon Using an All-Suture Tensionable Knotless Technique.

Proximal hamstring injuries are a common sports and recreational injury among the active patient population. Surgical fixation of the tendons of the hamstring muscle complex, as opposed to conservative treatment alone, has shown improved patient outcomes, prompting the evolution of the suture anchors utilized in these repairs. Previous studies investigating the biomechanical properties of hamstring repair anchors have focused on double-row knotless techniques, in which the fixation of the overall construct relies on each individual anchor to maintain fixation. While these constructs have demonstrated biomechanical strength and clinical durability, each suture anchor represents a potential point of failure for the entire construct due to the crossed stitch anchor configuration. To address this limitation, recent tensionable knotless all-suture anchor designs have been implemented with success due to their smaller size and biomechanical strength. The aim of this technical note is, thus, to describe a technique for proximal hamstring repair using a tensionable knotless all-suture anchor construct that has 5 independent mattress sutures and, in doing so, employs the biomechanical strength of knotless fixation but eliminates the potential single point of failure seen with current knotless suture anchor designs.

Ten-Year Survivorship, Outcomes, and Sports Participation in Athletes After Primary Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Hip arthroscopy is an effective treatment tool for athletes with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome. However, long-term data are scarce. PURPOSE: To assess survivorship, minimum 10-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and sports participation after primary hip arthroscopy for FAI syndrome in athletes and to perform a propensity-matched comparison between patients undergoing labral debridement and labral repair. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Athletes who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAI syndrome between February 2008 and December 2010 were eligible. Exclusion criteria were other ipsilateral hip condition, Tönnis grade ≥2, or no baseline PROMs. Survivorship was defined as no conversion to total hip arthroplasty. The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), maximum outcome improvement (MOI) satisfaction threshold, and sports participation were reported. A propensity-matched comparison between labral debridement and labral repair was performed. Two additional propensity-matched subanalyses were performed for capsular management and cartilage damage. RESULTS: In total, 189 hips (177 patients) were included. The mean ± SD follow-up was 127.2 ± 6.0 months. Survivorship was 85.7%. Significant improvement in all PROMs was reported (P < .001). A total of 46 athletes with labral repair were propensity matched to 46 athletes with labral debridement. This subanalysis demonstrated significant and comparable improvement in all PROMs at minimum 10-year follow-up (P < .001). For the labral repair group, the PASS achievement rates were 88.9% for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and 80% for the Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS); the MCID achievement rates were 80.6% for the mHHS and 84% for HOS-SSS; and for the MOI satisfaction threshold, rates were 77.8%, 80.6%, and 55.6% for the mHHS, Nonarthritic Hip Score, and visual analog scale, respectively. For the labral debridement group, the PASS achievement rates were 85.3% for the mHHS and 70.4% for the HOS-SSS; the MCID achievement rates were 81.8% for the mHHS and 74.1% for HOS-SSS; and for the MOI satisfaction threshold, rates were 72.7%, 81.8%, and 66.7% for the mHHS, Nonarthritic Hip Score, and visual analog scale. Total hip arthroplasty conversions occurred significantly sooner with labral debridement than labral repair (P = .048). Age was identified as a significant predictor of achieving the PASS. CONCLUSION: Primary hip arthroscopy for FAI syndrome in athletes results in 85.7% survivorship and sustained PROM improvement at a minimum 10-year follow-up. A significant time delay to total hip arthroplasty conversion at 10-year follow-up was reported with labral repair over debridement, although this should be interpreted with caution, as the total number of conversions was small.

Borderline Dysplasia After Primary Hip Arthroscopy with Capsular Plication and Labral Preservation: Ten-Year Survivorship and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The arthroscopic management of borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) is controversial, and long-term follow-up data are scarce. The purpose of this study was to report prospectively collected survivorship and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum 10-year follow-up following primary hip arthroscopy with capsular plication and labral preservation in patients with BHD. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on all patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy between September 2008 and September 2011. Patients with BHD (defined by a lateral center-edge angle [LCEA] between 18° and 25°) were included. Preoperative and minimum 10-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris hip score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were collected. Exclusion criteria were prior ipsilateral hip surgery, Workers' Compensation status, Tönnis grade of >1, previous hip conditions, or LCEA of <18°. Survivorship was defined as no conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). The risk factors for THA conversion were analyzed. The achievement rate for the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was reported. A propensity-matched comparison with a control group without BHD was performed. RESULTS: Forty-five (80%) of 56 eligible hips were included in this study: 38 hips (84%) of female patients and 7 hips (16%) of male patients. The mean patient age was 31.0 ± 12.9 years, and the mean patient body mass index (BMI) was 24.5 ± 5.4 kg/m 2 . The 10-year survivorship was 82.2%, and there was significant improvement in all PROMs and VAS pain from baseline to the minimum 10-year follow-up (p < 0.001). The odds of undergoing conversion to THA were 4.4 times higher for patients with a BMI of ≥23 kg/m 2 and 7.1 times higher for patients who were ≥42 years of age. The MCID was achieved at high rates for the mHHS (79%), NAHS (79%), HOS-SSS (70%), and VAS pain (76%). The minimum 10-year survivorship, PROMs, and MCID achievement rates for the BHD group were comparable with those for the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BHD who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with capsular plication and labral preservation demonstrated an overall survivorship of 82.2% and significant improvement in all PROMs and achieved the MCID at high rates at a minimum 10-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Survivorship, Outcomes, and Risk Factors for Conversion to Total Hip Arthroplasty After Revision Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in Obese Patients: Results at a Minimum 5-Year Follow-up.

Background: There is a paucity of literature reporting outcomes after revision hip arthroscopic surgery in obese patients. Purpose: To report the minimum 5-year survivorship, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), clinical benefit, and risk factors for conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) in obese patients after revision hip arthroscopic surgery. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery by a single surgeon between April 2010 and August 2016. Inclusion criteria were a body mass index ≥30 and baseline and minimum 5-year postoperative values for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1 and hip dysplasia. Survivorship was defined as no conversion to THA. Clinical benefit was measured using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Survivors and nonsurvivors underwent further bivariate and regression analyses to determine the predictors of conversion to THA. Results: Included were 24 hips in 24 patients. The mean patient age was 39.3 ± 12.7 years, and the mean follow-up was 83.9 ± 26.5 months. The survivorship rate was 75.0%, and patients demonstrated a significant improvement in all PROs (P < .01). At 5-year follow-up, the MCID for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS was achieved by 70.6%, 94.1%, 92.9%, and 64.7%, respectively, of the patients. Older age, higher grade ligamentum teres tears, and acetabuloplasty were significant on bivariate analysis for conversion to THA, and increased age was identified as a significant variable for conversion to THA on regression analysis (odds ratio, 1.297 [95% CI, 1.045-1.609]; P = .018), with a 29.7% greater risk for every additional year of age at the time of revision. Conclusion: In this study, 25.0% of obese patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery required conversion to THA. The study patients who did not need conversion to THA had a significant improvement in all PROs, with >90% achieving MCID for one or more outcome measures. Older age was identified as a significant predictor of conversion to THA.

Editorial Commentary: Evaluate for the Beighton Score and Additional Radiographic Signs of Instability Prior to Proceeding With Hip Arthroscopy in Patients With Combined Borderline Hip Dysplasia and Excessive Femoral Anteversion.

Femoral version abnormalities have been increasingly recognized as a key factor in the pathogenesis of nonarthritic hip pain. Excessive femoral anteversion (EFA), defined as femoral anteversion greater than 20°, has been postulated to create unstable alignment of the hip, which is exacerbated in patients with concomitant borderline hip dysplasia (BHD). The optimal treatment algorithm for hip pain in EFA-BHD patients remains debated, with some surgeons advocating against arthroscopic procedures in isolation owing to the combined instability due to the femoral and acetabular abnormalities. When determining the treatment approach for an EFA-BHD patient, clinicians should discern whether the patient is presenting with symptoms due to femoroacetabular impingement versus hip instability. When addressing symptomatic hip instability, clinicians are encouraged to evaluate for the Beighton score and additional radiographic factors (other than the lateral center-edge angle) suggestive of instability, such as a Tönnis angle greater than 10°, coxa valga, and deficient anterior or posterior acetabular wall coverage. Because the combination of these additional instability findings with EFA-BHD may portend an inferior outcome after arthroscopic treatment in isolation, an open procedure such as periacetabular osteotomy can be a more reliable treatment option for symptomatic hip instability in this cohort.

Inflation-Adjusted Medicare Reimbursement for Hip Arthroscopy Fell by 21.1% on Average Between 2011 and 2022.

Purpose: To examine Medicare reimbursement for hip arthroscopy from 2011 to 2022. Methods: The seven most common procedures performed with hip arthroscopy by a single surgeon were gathered. The Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was utilized to access financial data of the associated Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. The reimbursement data for each CPT were gathered from the Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool. With the consumer price index database and inflation calculator, reimbursement values were adjusted for inflation to 2022 U.S. dollars. Results: Following an adjustment for inflation, it was found that reimbursement rate for hip arthroscopy procedures on average was 21.1% lower between 2011 and 2022. The average reimbursement per CPT code for the included codes was $899.21 in 2022 compared to inflation adjusted $1,141.45 in 2011, a difference of $242.24. Conclusions: From 2011 to 2022, the average inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement has steadily declined for the most common hip arthroscopy procedures. As Medicare is one of the largest insurance payers, these results have substantial financial and clinical implications for orthopaedic surgeons, policy makers, and patients. Level of Evidence: Level IV, economic analysis.