Garret Garofolo

Correlation of Obesity With Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications After Hip Arthroscopy

PURPOSE This study aimed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes and complications after hip arthroscopy in an obese population compared with a matched nonobese control group with a minimum 2-year follow-up, using the Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS) and Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS). METHODS Data were analyzed from 21 consecutive obese patients (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30) and 18 nonobese patients (BMI < 25) who underwent hip arthroscopy between 2009 and 2012 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Data collected included MHHS, NAHS, traction and intraoperative times, and postoperative complications. RESULTS Traction times were similar between obese and nonobese patients at 48 and 45 minutes (P = .51), respectively. Operative times were also similar at 54 and 51 minutes (P = .79), respectively. Each group had a statistically significant improvement in MHHS from baseline to final follow-up: 45 to 79 (P < .001) in the obese group and 49 to 81 (P < .001) in the nonobese cohort. Similarly, the NAHS showed significant improvement in each group from baseline to final follow-up: 43 to 75 (P < .001) in the obese cohort and 45 to 83 (P < .001) in the nonobese group. There was no difference between groups in MHHS or NAHS data. There were 8 complications in the obese group, most commonly deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and worsened pain, whereas the nonobese cohort had one complication (an instance of heterotopic ossification [HO]). Overall, obese patients had 11.1 times the risk of a complication developing than did nonobese patients (95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 99.7). CONCLUSIONS Hip arthroscopy in the obese patient population leads to improved short- to mid-term patient-reported outcomes similar to those seen in nonobese patients. Obese patients, however, are at a significantly increased risk of postoperative complications such as DVTs and worsened hip pain. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Hip arthroscopy outcomes, complications, and traction safety in patients with prior lower-extremity arthroplasty

PurposeGiven the potential for injury due to joint-distraction techniques during hip arthroscopy, this study investigated the outcomes and safety of traction during hip arthroscopy in a series of patients with a prior lower-extremity arthroplasty.MethodsNine patients with a prior hip or knee arthroplasty (Group 1) and a matched cohort of nine additional patients with no prior hip surgery (Group 2) who underwent hip arthroscopy with traction between 2011 and 2013 were evaluated. Collected data included traction and operative times, Modified Harris Hip Scores (MHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Scores (NAHS), and postoperative complications.ResultsBoth operative (p = 1) and traction (p = 0.11) times were similar in each group. Each group had a significant improvement in MHHS from baseline to final follow-up: from 39 to 73 (p < 0.001) in Group 1 and from 49 to 75 (p = 0.03) in Group 2. Similarly, the NAHS showed significant improvement in each group from baseline to final follow-up: from 41 to 71 (p < 0.001) in Group 1 and from 48 to 74 (p = 0.02) in Group 2. There was no difference between groups in MHHS or NAHS. There was one postoperative complication in Group 1 (a recurrent labral tear) and no complications from an existing arthroplasty or in Group 2.ConclusionsHip arthroscopy in patients with a lower-extremity arthroplasty yields improved short-term clinical outcomes without increased complications. The use of traction during hip arthroscopy is safe in this population.

Iliopsoas Syndrome in Dancers

Background: Coxa saltans refers to a constellation of diagnoses that cause snapping of the hip and is a major cause of anterior hip pain in dancers. When the internal type is accompanied by weakness or pain, it is referred to as iliopsoas syndrome. Iliopsoas syndrome is the result of repetitive active hip flexion in abduction and can be confused with other hip pathology, most commonly of labral etiology. Purpose: To report the incidence, clinical findings, treatment protocol, and results of treatment for iliopsoas syndrome in a population of dancers. Study Design: Retrospective case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A retrospective database review of 653 consecutive patients evaluated for musculoskeletal complaints over a 3-year period was completed. The diagnosis of iliopsoas syndrome was made based on anterior hip or groin pain, weakness with resisted hip flexion in abduction, or symptomatic clicking or snapping with a positive iliopsoas test. Patients identified with iliopsoas syndrome were further stratified according to age at time of onset, insidious versus acute onset, duration of symptoms, side of injury, presence of rest pain, pain with activities of daily living, and associated lower back pain. All patients diagnosed with iliopsoas syndrome underwent physical therapy, including hip flexor stretching and strengthening, pelvic mobilization, and modification of dance technique or exposure as required. Results: A total of 49 dancers were diagnosed and treated for iliopsoas syndrome. Within this injured population of 653 patients, the incidence in female dancers was 9.2%, significantly higher than that in male dancers (3.2%). The mean age at the time of injury was 24.6 years. The incidence of iliopsoas syndrome in dancers younger than 18 years was 12.8%, compared with 7% in dancers older than 18 years. Student dancers had the highest incidence (14%), followed by amateur dancers (7.5%), while professional dancers had the lowest incidence (4.6%). All patients responded to conservative treatment, and no patients required corticosteroid injections or surgical intervention. Conclusion: This is the largest series reported to date of iliopsoas syndrome in the dance population, treated noninvasively. This study supports that conservative treatment with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication, activity modification, and a physical therapy regimen specific to the iliopsoas should be the primary treatment for patients with iliopsoas syndrome. Clinical Relevance: This study supports current literature and conservative treatment of iliopsoas syndrome diagnosis. Furthermore, this study gives specific information regarding incidence of iliopsoas syndrome in dance populations and provides a test for diagnosis and an algorithm for treatment.

Revision of Failed Hip Resurfacing and Large Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty Using Dual-Mobility Components.

Revision of metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hip resurfacing is associated with high complication rates. The authors propose dual-mobility components as a surgical option and present short- to mid-term results of MoM hips revised with dual-mobility components. Eighteen consecutive hips that underwent revision of MoM THA or hip resurfacing using dual-mobility components were identified. At final follow-up (mean, 17.5 months), the visual analog scale, modified Harris Hip Score, and SF-12 scores had all improved (P<.05, P<.01, and P<.05, respectively). There were no dislocations or other complications. Revision of failed MoM THA or hip resurfacing using a dual-mobility device is an effective strategy.

The biceps tendon: from proximal to distal: AAOS exhibit selection.

The function of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHB) in shoulder glenohumeral biomechanics is unclear. However, there is agreement that the biceps can develop tendinopathy resulting in pain over the anterior aspect of the shoulder, specifically in the bicipital groove1,2. With recent advancements in arthroscopy and more detailed imaging, selection of appropriate management for proximal biceps disorders is important. Compared with this proximal component, the anatomy, epidemiology, and underlying pathophysiology of the distal component of the biceps tendon are less well understood. Although distal biceps rupture has a low annual incidence, approximately 1.2 per 100,000 persons3, it can lead to substantial morbidity. The emerging understanding of the clinical importance of distal biceps ruptures and the effectiveness of distal biceps repair are the focal points for the increased attention to this topic. Patients are unique individuals who may be best suited for a specific treatment depending on their age, activity level, and goals. The ideal repair would be one that is anatomic, permits early motion, and has low surgical morbidity and minimal complications. Our review provides an overview of the anatomic, biomechanical, and clinical literature that fully encompasses the biceps brachii from origin to insertion with an emphasis on treatment indications, surgical approaches, fixation techniques, and clinical outcomes. ### Anatomy The LHB arises from the superior glenoid labrum and supraglenoid tubercle. This proximal, intra-articular portion of the biceps tendon has an asymmetric network of sensory sympathetic nerve fibers, predominantly near its origin, and is a primary pain generator in the anterior aspect of the shoulder4. The reflection pulley—composed of fibers from the superior glenohumeral ligament, coracohumeral ligament, and superior aspect of the subscapularis tendon—functions to stabilize the biceps tendon as it advances through the bicipital groove5 (Fig. 1). As the LHB enters …

Does Anteromedial Portal Drilling Improve Footprint Placement in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BackgroundConsiderable debate remains over which anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction technique can best restore knee stability. Traditionally, femoral tunnel drilling has been done through a previously drilled tibial tunnel; however, potential nonanatomic tunnel placement can produce a vertical graft, which although it would restore sagittal stability, it would not control rotational stability. To address this, some suggest that the femoral tunnel be created independently of the tibial tunnel through the use of an anteromedial (AM) portal, but whether this results in a more anatomic footprint or in stability comparable to that of the intact contralateral knee still remains controversial.Questions/purposes(1) Does the AM technique achieve footprints closer to anatomic than the transtibial (TT) technique? (2) Does the AM technique result in stability equivalent to that of the intact contralateral knee? (3) Are there differences in patient-reported outcomes between the two techniques?MethodsTwenty male patients who underwent a bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft were recruited for this study, 10 in the TT group and 10 in the AM group. Patients in each group were randomly selected from four surgeons at our institution with both groups demonstrating similar demographics. The type of procedure chosen for each patient was based on the preferred technique of the surgeon. Some surgeons exclusively used the TT technique, whereas other surgeons specifically used the AM technique. Surgeons had no input on which patients were chosen to participate in this study. Mean postoperative time was 13 ± 2.8 and 15 ± 3.2 months for the TT and AM groups, respectively. Patients were identified retrospectively as having either the TT or AM Technique from our institutional database. At followup, clinical outcome scores were gathered as well as the footprint placement and knee stability assessed. To assess the footprint placement and knee stability, three-dimensional surface models of the femur, tibia, and ACL were created from MRI scans. The femoral and tibial footprints of the ACL reconstruction as compared with the intact contralateral ACL were determined. In addition, the AP displacement and rotational displacement of the femur were determined. Lastly, as a secondary measurement of stability, KT-1000 measurements were obtained at the followup visit. An a priori sample size calculation indicated that with 2n = 20 patients, we could detect a difference of 1 mm with 80% power at p < 0.05. A Welch two-sample t-test (p < 0.05) was performed to determine differences in the footprint measurements, AP displacement, rotational displacement, and KT-1000 measurements between the TT and AM groups. We further used the confidence interval approach with 90% confidence intervals on the pairwise mean group differences using a Games-Howell post hoc test to assess equivalence between the TT and AM groups for the previously mentioned measures.ResultsThe AM and TT techniques were the same in terms of footprint except in the distal-proximal location of the femur. The TT for the femoral footprint (DP%D) was 9% ± 6%, whereas the AM was −1% ± 13% (p = 0.04). The TT technique resulted in a more proximal footprint and therefore a more vertical graft compared with intact ACL. The AP displacement and rotation between groups were the same and clinical outcomes did not demonstrate a difference.ConclusionsAlthough the AM portal drilling may place the femoral footprint in a more anatomic position, clinical stability and outcomes may be similar as long as attempts are made at creating an anatomic position of the graft.Level of EvidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.

Alterations in Glenohumeral Forces Following Rotator Cuff Injury and Repair

Objectives: Rotator cuff repair is associated with an unusually high incidence of osteoarthritic changes and cartilage damage in the glenohumeral joint. Such degeneration may be secondary to improper tensioning of muscular stabilizers during surgical intervention; however, existing studies have not specifically examined changes in joint congruity following rotator cuff repair. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess for changes in glenohumeral contact forces following the repair of rotator cuff injury. Methods: Transduction mapping was performed on the glenohumeral joint of ten fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulder specimens. A calibrated pressure-mapping sensor was introduced through the rotator interval and secured along the concavity of the glenoid labrum. Following a baseline force measurements, analysis of force intensity and total glenohumeral contact area was performed in each specimen for 6 simulated injury and treatment conditions: A) A 1 cm supraspinatus lesion; B) 2-suture repair of the 1 cm lesion; C) removal of the 2-suture repair; D) a 2 cm supraspinatus lesion; E) 3-suture repair of the 2 cm lesion and; F) removal of the 3-suture repair. All repairs were performed via bone tunnels in the standard method described. Data were recorded over 60s intervals at a rate of 4 frames per second and included raw force, area, and force per unit area. Values for lesion, repair, and post-repair conditions were expressed as a proportion of initial baseline measurements. Means and standard deviations were then calculated for each condition and compared via Student’s t-tests. Results: For baseline measurements, the mean intact glenohumeral force was 38.55 ± 24.79 N and the mean contact area was 313 ± 84.09 mm2. In comparison to baseline values, 3-suture repair yielded a significant increase in both total glenohumeral force (mean proportion: 2.16 ± 3.26; p=0.046) as well as proportion of force per unit area (1.73 ± 1.86 N/mm2; p=0.024). Both the 2 cm lesion and the 2-suture repair removal yielded significant decreases in contact area when compared to baseline, with the former exhibiting a proportion of 0.76 ± 0.19 (p=0.040) and the latter yielding a proportion of 0.60 ± 0.29 (p=0.004). No other conditions exhibited significant changes from baseline measurements. Conclusion: Rotator cuff injury leads to alterations in glenohumeral forces, with significant increases in articular contact-pressures following repair of larger supraspinatus lesions. These findings offer a possible explanation for the high rate of degenerative changes demonstrated following rotator cuff repair. Further study is warranted to determine how current treatment methods might be improved to result in glenohumeral contact pressures resembling those experienced prior to injury.

Changes in Driving Performance Following Shoulder Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND With this study, we sought to quantify perioperative changes in driving performance among patients who underwent anatomic or reverse shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS Using a driving simulator, 30 patients (20 anatomic and 10 reverse total shoulder arthroplasties) were tested preoperatively and at 2 weeks (PO2), 6 weeks (PO6), and 12 weeks (PO12) postoperatively. The total number of collisions, centerline crossings, and off-road excursions (when the vehicle traversed the lateral road edge), and scores on a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) were recorded at each driving trial. RESULTS The mean number of collisions increased from 5.9 preoperatively to 7.4 at PO2 and subsequently decreased to 5.6 at PO6 and 4.0 at PO12 (p = 0.0149). In addition, the number of centerline crossings decreased from 21.4 preoperatively to 16.3 at PO12 (p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis of the data demonstrated that increased VAS for pain scores, older age, and less driving experience had a negative impact on driving performance. CONCLUSIONS Driving performance returned to preoperative levels at 6 weeks after shoulder arthroplasty. By 12 weeks postoperatively, patients demonstrated improved driving performance compared with preoperative performance. On the basis of our findings, clinicians can suggest a window of 6 to 12 weeks postoperatively for the gradual return to driving. However, for patients of older age, with less driving experience, or with greater pain, a return to driving at closer to 12 weeks postoperatively should be recommended. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.