Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty improves mental health in patients with single compartment knee osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if preoperative mental health status improves following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) in patients with single compartment knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A total of 163 patients underwent UKA [115 (71%) medial, 48 (29%) lateral] (mean age = 65 ± 11) completed preoperative and minimum 2-year postoperative veterans RAND 12 item health survey (VR-12) mental component score (MCS). VR-12 MCS was the primary outcome measure. Secondary measures included VR-12 physical component summary score (PCS), knee osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) and KOOS patient acceptable symptom state at the final follow-up. RESULTS: The median VR-12 MCS improved from 50.5 [interquartile range (IQR): 43.7-56.8] to 55.0 [IQR: 52.3-57.0] (p < 0.001) at a mean follow-up of 9.5 ± 4 years (range 2-19 years) following UKA. Preoperative VR-12 MCS was significantly correlated with patients postoperative VR-12 PCS (ρ = 0.294, p < 0.01), KOOS pain (ρ = 0.201, p = 0.012), KOOS ADL (ρ = 0.243, p = 0.002) and KOOS quality of life (ρ = 0.233, p < 0.01). Sixty-three (39%) patients improved from low VR-12 MCS (<50) to normal VR-12 MCS (≥50). One hundred forty-two (87%) achieved a normal VR-12 MCS score (≥50) postoperatively. CONCLUSION: At a mean of 10-year follow-up, patients who underwent UKA for single compartment osteoarthritic knee pain demonstrated significant improvement in mental health scores. UKA resulted in normal mental health in a majority of patients (87%). The resultant improved mental health scores were associated with improved patient pain and activities of daily living. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III retrospective cohort study.

Fixed-Bearing Lateral Unicompartment Knee Arthroplasty in Degenerative ACL-Deficient and ACL-Intact Knees: A Matched Pair Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient knees are no longer considered a contra-indication for unicompartment knee arthroplasty (UKA). The purpose of this study was to determine if patients who had an ACL-deficient knee who underwent lateral UKAs had similar mean 10-year outcomes compared to ACL-intact lateral UKA knees. METHODS: Patients who underwent a lateral UKA with ACL deficiency by a single surgeon between 2004 and 2016, were identified. Preoperative magnetic resonance images (MRI) were utilized to identify a torn or absent ACL in all knees. The absence of an ACL was confirmed during arthroscopy prior to UKA. Patients were matched 1:2 based on age and sex with patients who underwent lateral UKA where the ACL was intact. The primary patient-reported outcome variable was survival without conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Secondary outcomes included Veterans Rand (VR)-12, the Lysholm score, the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Activities of Daily Living subscale, and Sport subscale. A power analysis showed that 14 patients were needed to identify differences of 10 points on the KOOS score with a power of 80%(p=0.05). RESULTS: The cohort of ACL-deficient lateral UKA patients included 4 men and 12 women (43 to 82 years of age). The matched control group included 32 patients. The mean age of both groups was 67 years (range, 43 to 85). There were two patients in the ACL-deficient group who failed. At 10 years, survivorship in the ACL-deficient group was 85%, while survival in the ACL-intact group was 100% (P = 0.035). At an average follow-up of 11 years (range, 4 to 19.6), there was no difference in outcome scores between ACL-deficient and ACL-intact patients. CONCLUSION: Fixed-bearing lateral UKA in the ACL-deficient knee resulted in lower survival compared to patients who had an intact ACL. Patient-reported outcomes were similar in both groups. The ACL-deficient patient who wishes to undergo lateral UKA should be counseled on the lower survival.

Arthroscopic Labral Reconstruction With a Modified Inferior Capsular Shift Allows Return to Sport and Excellent Outcomes in Contact and Noncontact Athletes With Anterior Shoulder Instability at Minimum 5-Year Follow-up.

PURPOSE: To compare return to sport, functional outcomes, recurrence of instability, and osteoarthritis (OA) between collision/contact and limited/noncontact athletes following arthroscopic labral reconstruction with a modified inferior capsular shift for anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: Athletes underwent an arthroscopic labral reconstruction with a modified inferior capsular shift by the senior author between 1999 and 2018. Inclusion criteria were labral stripping from 12 (just beyond the biceps anchor) to 6 o'clock, less than 20% glenoid bone loss, active sports participation, and no previous surgery. Athletes were divided into collision/contact and limited/noncontact groups. Outcome measures, physical examination, and radiographic evaluation were collected at a minimum 5-year follow-up. Reoperations or any subjective laxity were considered failures. Radiographs were analyzed for OA using the Samilson-Prieto Radiological Classification. RESULTS: Ninety-two patients underwent arthroscopic labral reconstruction with a modified inferior capsular shift. Sixty-four met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-eight (age = 26.0 ± 8.0 years) participated in at least 1 collision/contact sport, and 26 (age = 38.0 ± 9.0 years) participated in limited/noncontact sports. Two (5%) collision/contact and 3 (12%) limited/noncontact athletes had traumatic reinjury requiring revision surgery. Of the remaining athletes (59/64), minimum 5-year follow-up was obtained on 54 (92%), with a mean follow-up of 12 ± 4 years (range 5-23 years). All athletes returned to their original sport at the same level. There was no significant difference between collision/contact and limited/noncontact athletes in timing of return to sports (5.2 ± 1.9 and 6.0 ± 3.1 months, respectively; P = .389). There were no significant differences between groups on any outcomes scores. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic labral reconstruction with a modified inferior capsular shift addressed anterior instability with return to sport for both collision/contact and limited/noncontact athletes with excellent functional and clinical outcomes, full shoulder range of motion, and a low prevalence of advanced OA at minimum 5-year follow-up. This modified technique resulted in a low failure rate in both limited/noncontact and collision/contact athletes.

Timing From Symptom Onset to Hip Arthroscopy Does Not Affect Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for the Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement in Adolescent Patients.

PURPOSE: To evaluate symptom duration and its relationship to patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship after hip arthroscopy in adolescents. METHODS: Patients ≤18 at time of primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) between January 2011 and September 2018 were included. Exclusion criteria consisted of history of previous ipsilateral hip surgery, presence of osteoarthritis or dysplasia on preoperative radiographs, previous hip fracture, or history of slipped capital femoral epiphysis or Legg-Calve-Perthes disease. Minimum 2-year PROs (modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score [HOS]-Activities of Daily Living, HOS-Sport Scale, Short Forms 12 [SF-12]), minimum clinically significant difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) rates, and revision surgery rates were compared based on symptom duration. RESULTS: Two-year minimal follow-up was obtained for 111 patients (134 hips) (80%), including 74 females and 37 males with a mean age of 16.4 ± 1.1 (range 13.0-18.0). The mean symptom duration was 17.2 ± 15.2 months (range 43 days to 6.0 years). Ten patients (11 hips), 6 females (7 hips) and 4 males, required revision surgery at an average of 2.3 ± 1.0 years (range 0.9-4.3 years). At a mean follow-up of 4.8 ± 2.2 years (range 2-10 years), there were statistically significant improvements in all PROs (P < .05 for all). Symptom duration showed no significant correlation to post-operative scores (correlation coefficient range -0.162 to -0.078, P > .05 for all). Symptom duration ≤12 months versus >12 months or as a continuous variable was not a predictor for requiring revision surgery or achieving MCID/PASS (95% confidence interval crosses 1 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In an adolescent cohort of symptomatic FAI patients who underwent hip arthroscopy, there is no difference in PRO measures when analyzing symptom duration by arbitrary time intervals or as a continuous variable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.

The Role of Severe Lateral Facet Patellar Osteoarthritis in Patient Selection for Success of a Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Mean Follow-Up of 10 Years.

BACKGROUND: Lateral facet patellar osteoarthritis (LFPOA) has been reported as a contraindication for medial unicompartmental (UKA). The purpose of this paper was to determine if severe LFPOA was related to lower survivorship and patient-reported outcomes following medial UKA. METHODS: A total of 170 medial UKAs were performed. Severe LFPOA was defined as Outerbridge grade 3 to 4 damage on the lateral facet cartilage surfaces of the patella as noted intraoperatively. There were 122 of 170 patients (72%) who had noLFPOA and 48 of 170 patients (28%) who had had severe LFPOA. A routine patelloplasty was performed in all patients. Patients completed the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) Mental Component Score (MCS) and Physical Component Score (PCS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Knee Society Score. RESULTS: There were 4 patients in the noLFPOA group who required total knee arthroplasty and 2 in the LFPOA group. There was no significant difference in mean survival time: noLFPOA = 17.2 years [95% confidence interval (CI): 17 to 18] and LFPOA = 18.0 years [95% CI: 17 to 19] (P = .94). At mean follow-up of 10 years, there were no significant differences in knee flexion or extension. Patello-femoral crepitus without pain was noted in 7 patients who had LFPOA and 21 patients who had noLFPOA. There were no significant differences in VR-12 MCS, PCS, KOOS subscales, or Knee Society Score between groups. Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) was achieved in 80% (90 of 112) for KOOS ADL in the noLFPOA group and 82% (36 of 44) in the LFPOA group (P = .68). PASS was achieved in 82% (92 of 112) for KOOS Sport in the noLFPOA group and 82% (36/44) in the LFPOA group (P = .87). CONCLUSION: At a mean of 10 years, patients who had LFPOA had equivalent survivorship and functional outcomes to patients who did not have LFPOA. These long-term results suggest that asymptomatic grade 3 or 4 LFPOA is not a contraindication to medial UKA.

Arthroscopic Hip Capsular Reconstruction Using Iliotibial Band Allograft as a Salvage Option for Unrepairable Capsular Defects Demonstrates Good Survivorship and Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To describe patient outcomes 3 to 5 years after arthroscopic hip capsule reconstruction. METHODS: Between January 2007 and December 2016, patients aged 18 to 50 years who underwent arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction using an Iliotibial band allograft by the senior author and had minimum of 3-year follow-up were identified. Patients were excluded if they had previous open hip surgery, advanced osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade >2), significant acetabular dysplasia (lateral center edge angle <20°), avascular necrosis, or Legg-Calve-Perthes disease. Outcome scores including the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living scale, modified Harris Hip Score, HOS-Sports scale, SF-12, and Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were compared in addition to failure rate, revision rate, and patient satisfaction rate with the outcome (range, 1-10). All patients were assessed by the senior author pre- and postoperatively. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of the cohort was 32 ± 10 years, with 6 male and 33 female patients. The average number of previous hip arthroscopy surgeries was 2 ± 1. Six patients (15%) converted to total hip arthroplasty at an average of 2.1 years (range 7 months to 6 years) following capsular reconstruction. Four patients required revision hip arthroscopy after the arthroscopic capsular reconstruction. All arthroscopic revisions occurred in female patients with the primary intraoperative finding of capsulolabral adhesions at the time of revision. At mean follow-up of 4.3 years (range 3-6.8 years), the 29 patients who did not require subsequent surgery had significant improvements from preoperatively to postoperatively in HOS-Activities of Daily Living and HOS-Sport with 90% reaching minimal clinically important difference. All other scores showed significant improvement. Survival for patients not requiring total hip arthroplasty was 86% at 3 years, with a mean survival of 5.7 years (95% confidence interval 4.97-6.4). CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction with iliotibial band allograft is a successful treatment option for patients with symptomatic capsular defects, demonstrating improved patient-reported outcomes maintained at mean follow-up time of 4 years. This technique offers restoration of the anatomic structure and function of the capsular ligaments to improve pain and instability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, case series.

Reliability and Validity of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in Patients Undergoing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was developed to document outcomes from knee injury, including the impact of osteoarthritis on knee function. The purpose of this study is to determine the reliability and validity of the KOOS subscales for evaluating outcomes following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). METHODS: KOOS Pain, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Sport, Symptoms, and Quality of Life (QoL) scores collected from 172 patients who underwent UKA were used in the analysis. KOOS subscales were tested for reliability and validity of scores through a Rasch model analysis. RESULTS: KOOS Sport, KOOS ADL, and KOOS QoL had good evidence of reliability with acceptable person reliability, person separation, and item reliability. For overall scale functioning, KOOS Pain, Symptoms, and ADL all had 1 question that did not have an acceptable value for infit or outfit mean square value. Questions in KOOS Sport and QoL all had acceptable values. There was a positive, linear relationship between the Short-Form 12 Physical Component Summary and the KOOS subscales which indicated good evidence of convergent validity. These associations were also seen when the cohort was separated in medial and lateral UKA. CONCLUSION: Two of the 5 KOOS subscales (KOOS Sport and KOOS QoL) were considered adequate in measuring outcomes, as well as reliability. The KOOS ADL had borderline values; however, it had adequate infit and outfit values. The KOOS Pain and Symptom score performed poorly in this analysis. For documenting outcomes following UKA, this study supports the use of KOOS ADL, Sport, and QoL.

The Lawrence D. Dorr Surgical Techniques & Technologies Award: Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) in Medial and Lateral Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Does the Status of the ACL Impact Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine if there is a difference in the percentage of patients who reach Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) when comparing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient and ACL-intact knees following fixed-bearing medial and lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). METHODS: A consecutive series of 215 knees that underwent UKA (medial = 158, lateral = 57) were included in the study. The Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score functional score [KOOS activities of daily living (ADL)] and KOOS Sport were used as the primary outcome variables. A KOOS ADL PASS of 87.5 and KOOS Sport PASS of 43.8 were previously described for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Failure was defined as conversion to TKA. RESULTS: There were 157 in the ACL-intact group and 58 in the ACL-deficient group. Conversion to TKA was 3.7%. The failure rate in the ACL-deficient group was 5% (3/58) and 3% (5/157) in the ACL-intact group (P = .447). The mean survival for the entire group was 18.1 years (95% confidence interval 17.6-18.6). At 10 years, the survival was 94.3% (standard error = 0.028) in the ACL-deficient group and 97.6% (standard error = 0.014) in the ACL-intact group. At a mean 10 ± 3.5 years, with 93% follow-up, 83% in the ACL-deficient group and 80% in the ACL-intact group reached PASS for KOOS ADL (P = .218). For KOOS Sport, 85% of the ACL-deficient group compared to 81% in the ACL-intact group (P = .374) reached PASS. CONCLUSION: The ACL-deficient cohort results were not significantly different compared to ACL-intact knees in both medial and lateral compartment UKA. Fixed-bearing medial and lateral UKA resulted in low failure rate and excellent long-term outcomes.

An algorithm for successfully managing anterior shoulder instability.

ABSTRACT: The most common form of shoulder instability involves the anterior glenohumeral joint. Often it is associated with labral and bony injuries with subsequent recurrent instability. To determine optimal management, clinicians should perform a detailed history and physical examination, including appropriate diagnostic imaging to assess for concomitant humeral and glenoid bony deficiencies and other soft-tissue pathologies. Early surgical intervention may reduce risk of recurrence, particularly in young, active athletes. This article highlights the relevant anatomy, pathoanatomy, diagnostic examination including radiologic imaging, management, and prevention of complications for anterior shoulder instability. Minimizing recurrence is key to restoring function for patients to safely return to recreational and sporting activities, and to perform activities of daily living.

Relevance of the Tibial Slope on Functional Outcomes in ACL-Deficient and ACL Intact Fixed-Bearing Medial Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Excessive posterior tibial slope in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been implicated in early failure. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between preoperative posterior tibial slope and postoperative slope of the implant (PSI) on outcomes in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) intact and ACL-deficient knees after fixed-bearing medial UKA. METHODS: Patients who underwent a medial UKA between 2002 and 2017 with a minimum 3-year follow-up were included. Preoperative posterior tibial slope and postoperative PSI were measured. Outcomes measures included Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) subscales, Lysholm, and VR-12. Failure was defined as conversion to total knee arthroplasty. RESULTS: Of 241 knees undergoing UKA, 131 patients (70 women, 61 men; average age of 65 ± 10 years (average BMI of 27.9 ± 4) were included. For all patients, survivorship was 98% at 5 years and 96% at 10 years with a mean survival time for UKA was 15.2 years [95% CI: 14.6-15.7]. No failure had a PSI >7°. There were no superficial or deep infections. There were no significant differences in outcome scores between the ACL intact and the ACL-deficient group; therefore, the data were combined for analysis. At mean 8-year follow-up, KOOS pain scores were better in patients with PSI ≤7° (87 ± 16) than those with PSI >7° (81 ± 15). 76% of patients with PSI ≤7° reached the Patient Acceptable Symptom State for KOOS pain; whereas, 59% of patients with PSI >7° reached PASS for KOOS pain (P = .015). CONCLUSION: Patients with postoperative posterior slope of the tibial implant >7° had significantly worse postoperative pain, without conversion to TKA, and with maintenance of high function. In ACL deficient and intact knees, nonrobotically-assisted, fixed-bearing medial UKA had a 96% survivorship at 10 years.

Survey results from an international hip course: comparison between experts and non-experts on hip arthroscopy clinical practice and post-operative rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical practices between expert and non-expert arthroscopy hip surgeons. METHODS: Registered orthopedic surgeons completed anonymous surveys during a hip arthroscopy meeting. The survey included 60 questions on physician's level of expertise, surgical anesthesia, procedures performed, hospital stay, pain control, rehabilitation and socioeconomic parameters, and the results are presented. Comparisons were made between hip arthroscopy experts (> 500 cases performed) and non-experts (≤ 500 cases performed) on aspects of patient care. RESULTS: Forty-eight (74%) surgeons responded. Forty-four questionnaires were filled out completely. There were no significant differences in recommendations between 15 (34%) hip arthroscopy experts and 29 (66%) non-experts on hip capsular management and cartilage repair techniques, use of antithrombotic prophylaxis and opioid analgesics, time of rehabilitation initiation and patient compliance factors, use of hip brace and CPM, and patient evaluation to return to sports following surgery. Surgical expertise was significantly associated with the performance of hip labral reconstruction (p = 0.016), subspine decompression (p = 0.039) and recommendation of a longer period of restricted weight bearing following the performance of microfractures (p = 0.011). There were no significant differences in clinical practice between surgeons who performed hip arthroscopy exclusively versus those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Hip arthroscopy is a relatively new field, and clinical practice may vary among physicians based on the surgical expertise. In this study, hip arthroscopy experts agree with non-experts on most aspects of patient care. Surgical expertise was associated with performance of advanced techniques and recommendation of longer period of restricted weight bearing following performance of microfractures. This study highlights different care patterns that need to be investigated to determine which treatment results in improved patient care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

First 100 segmental labral reconstructions compared to the most recent 100: the role of surgeon experience in decreasing conversion to total hip arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if conversion to total hip arthroplasty and patient-reported outcomes were similar in the first 100 patients who underwent segmental labral reconstruction with iliotibial band autograft compared to the most recent 100 patients. METHODS: Patients who underwent hip segmental labral reconstruction with autologous iliotibial band were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively with a minimum 2-year follow-up. The first consecutive 100 patients (Group 1) and the most recent 100 patients (Group 2) were retrospectively compared. Conversion to total hip arthroplasty, necessity of a revision hip arthroscopy, and patient-reported outcome scores were compared. RESULTS: Overall follow-up rate (> 2 years) was 94% (Group 1 vs. Group 2, 91% vs. 96%, n.s.). Mean age of Group 1 (37 ± 12) was significantly higher than that of Group 2 (34 ± 12) (p = 0.03). In Group 2, 69 surgeries out of 100 were revision hip arthroscopies, which was significantly higher rate than Group 1 (48/100) (p = 0.003). Group 1 had significantly higher rate of conversion to THA [23% (23/100) vs. 5% (5/100), p = 0.001]. Revision hip arthroscopy was performed in 11/76 (15%) in Group 1 and in 8/95 (9%) in Group 2 (n.s.). Patient-reported outcomes scores were similar between two groups (all n.s.). Higher age and joint space ≤ 2 mm were significant risk factors of total hip arthroplasty conversion. CONCLUSION: This study showed that, with experience, fewer conversions to total hip arthroplasty were seen; however, revision rate and outcomes were similar. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Editorial Commentary: Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy-Am I Better, Improved, or Who Knows?

Patient-reported outcomes are critical in the evaluation of the success of hip arthroscopy. Many different outcome scores are currently being used; however, that is a totally different subject. Most scores range from 0 to 100 or use some type of scale. The question becomes, Is a good outcome a score of 70 or 90? In many cases, it depends on the patient and his or her personal experiences. One way we gauge whether the patient is better is to use summary scores, which provide us with general goals for improvement. These include the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit. While these are being defined, they can be used to help gauge patients' progress and provide improved treatment of patients.

Midterm Outcomes Following Repair of Capsulotomy Versus Nonrepair in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement With Labral Repair.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the midterm outcomes and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) rate in patients who had repair of the capsulotomy versus nonrepair following arthroscopic hip labral repair and correction of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). METHODS: All patients undergoing primary arthroscopic hip labral repair and correction of FAI between 2005 and 2012 were eligible for this study. Exclusion criteria were age < 18 years, lateral center-edge angle < 25°, previous hip procedures, femoral avascular necrosis, radiographic joint space ≤ 2 mm, or microfracture at arthroscopy. Patients who did not have the capsulotomy repaired were matched 1:2 with patients who had the capsulotomy repaired. Patients were matched by age, gender, and intraoperative procedures. The primary outcome score was the Hip Outcome Score Daily Living (HOS-ADL). RESULTS: Forty-two patients (18 female patients, 24 male patients) without repair of the capsulotomy were matched with 84 patients with repaired capsulotomy. The average age for both groups was 38 ± 15 years. Patients in the nonrepair group were 6.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-52) times more likely to undergo THA compared with the repair group. There was no difference in revision rate between the 2 groups. The mean follow-up time was 7.3 ± 2.7 years and 6.4 ± 2.3 years for the nonrepair and repair group, respectively (P = .107). Patients in the repair group had significantly higher HOS-ADL (P = .01) and modified Harris hip score (mHHS; P = .007). The percentage of patients who reached minimum clinically important difference was significantly higher in the repair group for HOS-ADL (P = .002) and HOS-Sport (P = .036) compared with the nonrepair group. However, there was no difference in the percentage of patients who reached minimal important change for the mHHS (P = .060). Following hip arthroscopy, the average alpha angle was 41.6° ± 6° in the nonrepair group and 40.8° ± 3° in the repair group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who undergo arthroscopic FAI correction and hip labral repair with repair of the capsulotomy had higher HOS-ADL and mHHS scores at midterm follow-up compared with patients with nonrepair, and the percentage of patients who reached the minimum clinically important difference was significantly higher in the repair group for HOS-ADL and HOS-Sport compared with the nonrepair group. In addition, a lower rate of conversion to THA was seen in the repair group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Early Outcomes After Arthroscopic Hip Capsular Reconstruction Using Iliotibial Band Allograft Versus Dermal Allograft.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes between 2 groups of patients who underwent arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction with the same surgical technique with an iliotibial band (ITB) allograft versus dermal allograft tissue. METHODS: From March 2013 to October 2015, patients who were 18 years of age or older and who underwent revision arthroscopic hip surgery with capsular reconstruction by the senior author were identified. Patients who were younger than 18 years old, had a lateral center-edge angle <20° or Tonnis osteoarthritis grade 2 or 3, or refused to participate were excluded. Patients were assigned to 2 groups based on whether an ITB (ITB group) or a dermal allograft (dermal group) was used to reconstruct the capsule. The ITB graft was used initially, then the dermal graft was used when it was available. The dimensions were based on the intraoperative measurement of the capsular defect, and the thickness was 3 mm. Other treatments included labral debridement, repair, or reconstruction; treatment of residual femoroacetabular impingement; and treatment of cartilage damage. Clinical outcome scores including the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activity of Daily Living scale (primary outcome measure), modified Harris Hip Score, HOS-Sports scale, SF-12, and Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were compared between the groups in addition to the failure rate (conversion to total hip arthroplasty, revision hip arthroscopy) and patient satisfaction rate with the outcome (range, 1-10). RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (9 men and 27 women) met the inclusion criteria. Each group consisted of 18 patients (18 hips) with a mean age of 30.9 ± 9.4 years in the ITB group and a mean age of 29.8 ± 9.4 years in the dermal group (P = .718). There were no differences in patient demographics, physical examination findings, or imaging characteristics. The procedure failed for 8 patients (4 in the ITB group and 4 in the dermal group), and another surgery was required (P = 1.0). Additional surgeries included 3 total hip arthroplasties, 1 periarticular osteotomy, and 4 revision arthroscopies. The mean follow-up time was 25 months (range, 18-38 months) in both groups (P = .881). At follow-up, the HOS-Activity of Daily Living scale, SF-12, modified Harris Hip Score, and HOS-Sports scale measures were significantly higher in the ITB group than in the dermal group (P < .05). A greater percentage of patients reached minimum clinically important difference in the ITB group for Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and HOS scales with the minimum clinically important difference for HOS-Sports scale being significantly higher in the ITB group (P = .04). Patient satisfaction scores were 8 and 6 in the ITB and dermal groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: At a mean follow-up time of 25 months, hip capsular reconstruction with an ITB allograft results in improved clinical outcomes compared with the dermal allograft. A similar failure rate was noted in both groups, but a greater percentage of patients in the ITB group achieved clinical improvement.

Predicting Severe Cartilage Damage in the Hip: A Model Using Patient-Specific Data From 2,396 Hip Arthroscopies.

PURPOSE: To determine patient-specific factors that can be used to predict the presence of severe articular cartilage damage in the hip in patients without osteoarthritis. METHODS: The prevalence of severe (Outerbridge grade III or IV) cartilage damage to the acetabulum and femoral head was prospectively recorded at hip arthroscopy. Patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery between 2006 and 2016 performed by a single surgeon were included. Patients were excluded if they underwent previous hip surgery, had poor-quality radiographs, were younger than 16 years at the time of surgery, or had a minimal joint space of 2 mm or less. The relation between severe cartilage damage and preoperative patient characteristics was examined using multivariable logistic regression analysis with restricted cubic splines. RESULTS: Of the 2,396 hips presenting for hip arthroscopy, 995 (41%) had severe cartilage damage to the acetabulum and 257 (11%) had severe cartilage damage to the femoral head. Older age was a significant risk factor for severe cartilage damage both to the acetabulum (χ2 = 69.5, P < .001) and to the femoral head (χ2 = 53.9, P < .001). An age of 45 years was associated with a 1.96 (95% confidence interval, 1.54-2.49) increase in the odds of severe acetabular cartilage damage and a 3.94 (95% confidence interval, 2.61-5.94) increase in the odds of severe femoral head cartilage damage relative to an age of 20 years. Male sex was associated with severe cartilage damage to the acetabulum (χ2 = 66.7, P < .001), and a lower center-edge angle was a significant risk factor for severe cartilage damage to the femoral head (χ2 = 78.5, P < .001). Predictive nomograms were established for severe cartilage lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The primary risk factors for severe hip cartilage damage were older age for both the femoral head and acetabulum; a lower center-edge angle and larger Tönnis angle for the femoral head; and male sex, body mass index, alpha angle, and joint space for the acetabulum. The likelihood of cartilage damage to the hip can be estimated clinically using a prediction nomogram. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, cross-sectional study.

Postoperative alpha angle not associated with patient-centered midterm outcomes following hip arthroscopy for FAI.

PURPOSE: The most commonly used parameter for defining cam-type femoroacetabular impingement(FAI) has been the alpha angle. The purpose of this study was to determine if patient-reported outcomes 5 years following hip arthroscopy for FAI were associated with postoperative alpha angle. We hypothesized that patient-reported outcomes would not be influenced by postoperative alpha angle in patients with FAI. METHODS: 230 patients had primary hip arthroscopy for FAI and chondrolabral dysfunction. The median age was 40 years (range 18-69). All patients had preoperative and 1 day postoperative alpha angles recorded. At minimum 5 years following arthroscopy, all patients completed an online questionnaire that included the modified Harris Hip score(MHHS), WOMAC, HOS ADL, HOS Sport, SF12 and patient satisfaction. This study was IRB approved. Patients were grouped into two, based on their postoperative alpha angle: <55° (n = 158) and ≥ 55° (n = 56). RESULTS: The median preoperative alpha angle was 72° (range 50°-105°) and the median postoperative alpha angle was 45° (range 30°-100°). The postoperative alpha angle did not correlate with any outcome measure. The median preoperative alpha angle in the < 55° group was 71° and in ≥ 55° group the median was 74° (p = 0.044). The median follow-up was 5.1 years (range 5-7). The median mHHS was 85 (range 47-100) in the < 55° and 85 (range 54-100) in the ≥ 55° group (n.s); WOMAC was 5 (range 0-73) in the < 55° and 4.5 (range 1-57) in the ≥ 55° group(n.s); HOS ADL was 95 (range 31-100) in the < 55° and 96 (range 50-100) in the ≥ 55° group (n.s); HOS Sport was 88 (range 0-100) in the < 55° and 88 (range 13-100) in the ≥ 55° group (n.s) Median patient satisfaction was 9 (range 1-10) in both groups. CONCLUSION: This study shows no statistically significant differences between the investigated patient-reported outcome scores at a 5 years postoperatively in relation to a correction of the alpha angle to 55°. While alpha angle has been shown to be an excellent preoperative diagnostic tool, the postoperative angle does not correlate with midterm outcomes or the development of osteoarthritis based on patient symptoms. The amount of osteoplasty should be based on dynamic examination at arthroscopy, and not by alpha angle. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III Case-control, retrospective comparative study.

Positive FABER distance test is associated with higher alpha angle in symptomatic patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of the flexion abduction external rotation (FABER) distance test (FDT) for the diagnosis of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) as defined by alpha angle. METHODS: For this study, 603 patients with symptomatic, unilateral femoroacetabular impingement were included. Patients with symptoms of hip instability, bilateral symptoms, bilateral surgery, or bilateral alpha angles over 55 were excluded from the analysis. A positive FDT was defined as a difference of 4 cm or more between hips. A pathological cam was defined as an alpha angle of 78° or greater. RESULTS: The average age was 36.4 ± 12 years, with 344 males and 259 females. Faber distance of the injured hip was correlated with age at surgery (rho = 0.148; p < 0.001). Alpha angle on the injured hip was positively correlated with injured hip FABER distance (rho = 0.276; p < 0.001). The average alpha angle in patients with a positive FABER distance test was 74° (SD = 11°) compared to 68° (SD = 8°) in patients with a negative distance test (p = 0.001). The sensitivity of the FDT to diagnose pathological cam was 0.848 (0.79-0.89) with a negative predictive value of 86% (81-90%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the FABER distance test is correlated with the alpha angle and is a good diagnostic exam for pathological cam-type FAI as defined by and alpha angle equal to or greater than 78°. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: FABER distance test is a simple test that can be used as a screening test to decide if FAI should be suspected and further testing is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Labral Preservation: Outcomes Following Labrum Augmentation Versus Labrum Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between patients with previous surgeries who underwent hip labral augmentation versus labral reconstruction surgery. METHODS: From 2006 to 2014, all patients with previous labral procedures who underwent subsequent labral augmentation by the senior surgeon were included. Patients with joint space ≤2 mm and lateral center edge angle <20° and who refused to participate in follow-up were excluded. Patients who underwent labral augmentation, preserving macroscopically healthy native labral tissue and adding iliotibial band graft to increase labral volume, were compared with a matching group (1:2) of patients who underwent labral reconstruction where damaged or absent native labral tissue was replaced by the graft. Hip Outcome Score-Activity of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), HOS for Sports (HOS-Sport), Short Form-12, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and patient satisfaction with outcome. Nonparametric statistics were used to compare groups. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients (12 males, 21 females) who underwent labral augmentation (LA group) were compared with 66 (24 males, 42 females) labral reconstruction patients (LR group). The average age was 29 ± 10 years in both groups. Six patients (18%) required revision arthroscopy in the LA group, and 9 patients (14%) in the LR group (P = .563). One patient (3%) in the LA group required a total hip arthroplasty, and 3 patients in the LR group (4.5%) had a total hip arthroplasty (P = .99). Of the remaining 26 patients in the LA group and 53 patients in the LR group, minimum 2-year follow-up was available for 21 (81%) and 51 (96%), respectively. Postoperatively the HOS-ADL, HOS-Sport, mHHS, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were significantly higher in the LA group (P < .05). The percentage of patients who reached minimum clinically important difference was significantly higher in the LA group for HOS-ADL (P = .002) and HOS-Sport (P = .008); however, there was no difference for the mHHS (P = .795). Patient satisfaction was 10 and 8 in the LA group and LR group, respectively (P = .585). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with previous procedures, the labral augmentation technique with preservation of macroscopically healthy native labral fibers resulted in significantly better outcomes compared with the segmental labral reconstruction procedure where damaged or previously removed labrum was replaced by a graft. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative case series.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy After Labral Reconstruction Using Iliotibial Band Autograft: Surgical Findings and Comparison of Outcomes With Labral Reconstructions Not Requiring Revision.

PURPOSE: To determine the causes of revision hip arthroscopy in patients who underwent labral reconstruction and to compare outcomes of these patients with patients who did not require a revision following reconstruction. METHODS: Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy after previous labral reconstruction from 2006 to 2014 were included. Patients with less than 2-year follow-up, preoperative joint space of ≤2 mm, or who underwent other reconstructive procedures at the time of labral reconstruction were excluded. Each patient was matched by year of surgery, age, gender, and the number of previous surgeries with 2 patients that underwent labral reconstruction but did not require a revision following the reconstruction. Preoperatively and at a minimum 2-year follow-up, outcome scores were collected including the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and HOS-Sports Scale, modified Harris Hip Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC), the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Summary, and the patient satisfaction outcome were collected. Differences between the preoperative and the postoperative outcomes score of each patient in the 2 groups was assessed using the paired t test. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the 2 groups. RESULTS: From 347 patients who underwent iliotibial band autograft labrum reconstruction from 2006 to 2014, 28 hips (8%) in 26 patients (18 females and 8 males) had revision arthroscopy after labral reconstruction. The mean age was 32 years (range: 16-64). The mean number of hip surgeries prior to the labral reconstruction was 1.9 ± 1.2. The average time from the last labral reconstruction procedure to revision labral reconstruction was 27 months (range: 5-59). Procedures performed at revision included lysis of adhesions (100%), additional femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) correction (50%), ligamentum teres debridement (50%), psoas release (29%), labral augmentation or reconstruction (14%), and others. Following revision surgery after previous labral reconstruction, 4 patients (14%) underwent total hip arthroplasty and 2 (7%) patients required a subsequent revision arthroscopy (age 67 and 23) at 15 months and 16 months. The average follow-up time was 3.6 years ± 1 year after revision following labral reconstruction and after labral reconstruction in the nonrevision group. No significant difference was detected in the outcome scores and postoperative satisfaction between the 2 groups. The HOS-ADL improved 16 points in the nonrevision group and 19 points in the revision group. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent revision surgery after labral reconstruction were mostly female, with 2 or more surgeries prior to reconstruction, and 14% required THA and 7% had recurrent scarring. In those who did not fail, outcomes significantly improved and were similar with patients who did not need revision. Adhesions and residual FAI were the most common findings during revision labral reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.