Christine E. Stake

Arthroscopic Capsular Plication and Labral Preservation in Borderline Hip Dysplasia Two-Year Clinical Outcomes of a Surgical Approach to a Challenging Problem

Background: The role of hip arthroscopy in the treatment of patients with dysplasia is unclear because of the spectrum of dysplasia that exists. Patients with borderline dysplasia are generally not candidates for periacetabular osteotomy because of the invasive nature of the procedure. However, arthroscopy in dysplasia has had mixed results and has the potential to exacerbate instability. Hypothesis: Patients with borderline dysplasia will demonstrate postoperative improvement, high satisfaction rates, and low reoperation rates after a surgical approach that includes arthroscopic labral repair augmented by capsular plication with inferior shift. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Between April 2008 and November 2010, patients less than 40 years old who underwent hip arthroscopy for symptomatic intra-articular hip disorders, with a lateral center-edge (CE) angle ≥18° and ≤25°, were included in this study. Patients with Tönnis grade 2 or greater, severe hip dysplasia (CE ≤17°), and Legg-Calve-Perthes disease were excluded. Patient-reported outcome scores, including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score–Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), Hip Outcome Score–Activity of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were obtained in all patients preoperatively and at 1, 2, and 3 years postoperatively. Revision surgery and complications were recorded for each group. Results: A total of 26 patients met the criteria to be included in the study. Of these, 22 (85%) patients were available for follow-up. The mean (± standard deviation) length of follow-up for this cohort was 27.5 ± 5.5 months (range, 17-39 months) and the average age was 20 years (range, 14-39 years). The mean lateral CE angle was 22.2° (range, 18°-25°) and the mean Tönnis angle was 5.8° (range, 0°-17°). There was significant improvement in all patient-reported outcome scores (mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and HOS-ADL) (P < .0001). There was a significant improvement in VAS scores from 5.8 to 2.9 (P < .0001). Overall patient satisfaction was 8.4 out of 10. Seventeen patients had good/excellent results (77%). Two patients required revision arthroscopy. Conclusion: Patients with borderline dysplasia have often fallen into a gray area between arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy, and viable treatment options have remained scarce. The current study demonstrates favorable results at 2-year follow-up for an arthroscopic approach that includes labral repair augmented by capsular plication with inferior shift.

Arthroscopic Labral Reconstruction Is Superior to Segmental Resection for Irreparable Labral Tears in the Hip A Matched-Pair Controlled Study With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Background: The acetabular labrum is an important structure that plays a significant role in proper biomechanical function of the hip joint. When the labrum is significantly deficient, arthroscopic reconstruction could provide a potential solution for the nonfunctional labrum. Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic labral reconstruction (RECON) with those of arthroscopic segmental labral resection (RESEC) in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) of the hip. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Between April 2010 and March 2011, all prospectively gathered data for patients with FAI who underwent arthroscopic acetabular labral reconstruction or segmental resection with a minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed. Eleven cases in the RECON group were matched to 22 cases in the RESEC group according to the preoperative Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS) and sex. The patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) used included the NAHS, the Hip Outcome Score (HOS), and the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). Statistical analyses were performed to compare the change in PROs in both groups. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between groups regarding the preoperative NAHS (P = .697), any of the other preoperative PROs, or demographic and radiographic data. The mean change in the NAHS was 24.8 ± 16.0 in the RECON group and 12.5 ± 16.0 in the RESEC group. The mean change in the HOS–activities of daily living (HOS-ADL) was 21.7 ± 16.5 in the RECON group and 9.5 ± 15.5 in the RESEC group. Comparison of the amount of change between groups showed greater improvement in the NAHS and HOS-ADL for the RECON group (P = .046 and .045, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean changes in the rest of the PROs, although there were trends in all in favor of the RECON group. All PROs in both groups showed a statistically significant improvement at follow-up compared with preoperative levels. Conclusion: Arthroscopic labral reconstruction is an effective and safe procedure that provides good short-term clinical outcomes in hips with insufficient and nonfunctional labra in the setting of FAI.

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

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

Arthroscopic Ligamentum Teres Reconstruction

The ligamentum teres (LT) has been studied since the 19th century, and its anatomy and biomechanical function have been well described. Recent advancements in hip arthroscopy have caused increased awareness of LT pathology. Previous reports have estimated the incidence of LT tears during hip arthroscopy to be 4% to 51%, and LT tears have been estimated to be the third most common reason for hip pain in athletes. Biomechanical studies have shown the LTs role in stability of the hip. Despite the growing body of literature on LT anatomy and function, its role as a causative factor in hip pain and hip instability has yet to be clearly defined, and the treatment of LT tears remains controversial. However, in certain cases where hip subluxation and overt instability are related to a traumatic full-thickness tear of the LT, reconstruction of the ligamentum has been suggested. We describe a technique for arthroscopic LT reconstruction using either a semitendinosus autograft or allograft in the supine position.

Arthroscopic Acetabuloplasty and Labral Refixation Without Labral Detachment

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

Disaster Training for Prehospital Providers

Objective. To survey prehospital providers to determine 1) the quantity andformat of training recalled over the past year in chemical, biological, radiological/nuclear (CBRN), andother mass casualty events (MCEs); 2) preferred educational formats; 3) self-assessed preparedness for various CBRN/MCEs; and4) perceived likelihood of occurrence for CBRN/MCEs. Methods. A survey, consisting of 11 questions, was distributed to 1,010 prehospital providers in a system where no formal CBRN/mass casualty training was given. Results. Surveys were completed by 640 (63%) prehospital providers. Twenty-two percent (22%) of prehospital providers recalled no training within the past year for CBRN or other MCEs, 19% reported 1–5 hours, 15% reported 6–10 hours, 24% reported 11–39 hours, and7% reported receiving greater than 40 hours. Lectures anddrills were the most common formats for prior education. On a five-point scale (1: “Never Helpful” through 5: “Always Helpful”) regarding the helpfulness of training methods, median scores were the following: drills–5, lectures–4, self-study packets–3, Web-based learning–3, andother–4. On another five-point scale (1: “Totally Unprepared” through 5: “Strongly Prepared”), prehospital providers felt most prepared for MCEs–4, followed by chemical–4, biological–3, andradiation/nuclear–3. Over half (61%) felt MCEs were “Somewhat Likely” or “Very Likely” to occur, whereas chemical (42%), biological (38%), or radiation/nuclear (33%) rated lower. Conclusion. The amount of training in the past year reported for CBRN events varied greatly, with almost a quarter recalling no education. Drills andlectures were the most used andpreferred formats for disaster training. Prehospital providers felt least prepared for a radiological;/nuclear event. Future studies should focus on the consistency andquality of education provided.

Concomitant Hip Arthroscopy and Periacetabular Osteotomy

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

Arthroscopic hip surgery with a microfracture procedure of the hip: clinical outcomes with two-year follow-up:

Background Outcome studies assessing a cohort of patients receiving microfracture in the hip have focused on second look arthroscopy and return to sport, which have shown favourable results in the absence of osteoarthritis. Few studies exist focusing on clinical outcomes after microfracture in the hip using patient reported outcome (PRO) scores. The purpose of this study is to evaluate two-year clinical outcomes of a series of patients treated with microfracture during arthroscopic hip surgery using PRO scores. Methods During the study period, all workers’ compensation (WC) and non-WC patients treated with microfracture during arthroscopic hip surgery were included. Four PRO scores, pain scores and satisfaction were used to assess clinical outcomes. Any revision surgeries or conversions to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were noted. Location of microfracture procedure, lesion size and additional variables assessed survivorship. Results Thirty-seven cases met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, of which 30 patients (30/37, 81%) were available for minimum two-year follow-up. Twenty-six patients were classified as survivors. Preoperative scores for patients with WC status were lower than non-WC patients and statistically significant (p<0.5) for three of the PROs. However, changes in all four PRO measurements demonstrated statistically significant improvements from preoperative to two-year follow-up for both compensation groups (p<0.05). The amount of change in PRO scores for both compensation groups was similar and not statistically significant. Two patients required THA and two patients required revision arthroscopy. Conclusion Our study demonstrates statistically significant clinical improvement in PROs after receiving microfracture during arthroscopic hip surgery at minimum two-year follow-up.

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

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

Does Obesity Affect Outcomes in Hip Arthroscopy? A Matched-Pair Controlled Study With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

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