Mackenzie M. Herzog

Return to Play After Hip Arthroscopy With Microfracture in Elite Athletes

PURPOSEnThe purpose of this study was to compare elite athletes who underwent hip arthroscopy with and without microfracture with respect to their ability to return to sport at the professional level.nnnMETHODSnAll elite male athletes who underwent hip arthroscopy between 1999 and 2010 were identified. Inclusion criteria were hip arthroscopy with treatment of labrum, femoroacetabular impingement, cartilage, ligamentum teres, capsule, and/or loose body removal. Exclusion criteria were diffuse degenerative joint disease, previous surgery, plans to retire, labral reconstruction, soft tissue release, and concomitant lower extremity injury. Thirty-nine athletes underwent hip arthroscopy with microfracture and were assigned to the microfracture treatment group. Eighty-one elite athletes (94 hips) underwent hip arthroscopy without microfracture and were assigned to the control group. Sports played included hockey, soccer, football, baseball, tennis, and golf.nnnRESULTSnSeventy-seven percent (30 of 39) of athletes in the microfracture treatment group and 84% (79 of 94) in the control group returned to play. There was no statistical difference in rate of return to play between groups (odds ratioxa0= 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.633 to 4.049). Those players who did return were followed for an average of 3 years (range, 2 to 12). Athletes in the microfracture treatment group who returned have averaged 3 seasons thus far, and 73% are still playing. We found no significant difference in the microfracture group in age, time from injury to surgery, number of seasons played preoperatively, or size of lesion for return versus no return. We also found no increased risk of not returning because of contact sport, multiple lesions, or lesion on weightbearing surface.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThere was no detectable statistically significant difference in return to play rate after hip arthroscopy with microfracture and hip arthroscopy without microfracture. Professional athletes who underwent hip arthroscopy with microfracture procedure were able to return to the same high level of competition after surgery at a high rate.nnnLEVEL OF EVIDENCEnLevel III, retrospective comparative study.

Performance outcomes in professional hockey players following arthroscopic treatment of FAI and microfracture of the hip.

PurposePrevious studies report professional athletes return to play following arthroscopic microfracture of the hip for chondral defects. Our hypothesis is that professional hockey players undergoing arthroscopic microfracture for chondral defects of the hip achieve the same performance they had pre-injury and compared to matched controls.MethodsSeventeen professional hockey players underwent arthroscopic microfracture for an Outerbridge grade IV chondral lesion. Concomitant procedures for labral pathology or FAI were included. Performance data for the full season preceding and following index procedure were analysed, in addition to two matched control players per subject. Data were collected at two points, 2xa0years apart.ResultsEighty-two per cent (14/17) of players who underwent arthroscopic microfracture returned to play. The year prior to injury for the 14 players who returned was compared to the average of their individual controls. There was no statistical difference between the groups for age, number of seasons in the league, games played, time on ice, points, save percentage, and shots against goal. Post-operatively, there was no statistical difference between the treatment and control groups regarding performance measures. There was a trend towards a decrease in games played and points post-operatively compared with controls. The treatment group decreased 11 games played, while the controls decreased five games. The treatment group also decreased 14 points, while the controls decreased three points for the season.ConclusionsProfessional hockey players with a discrete, full-thickness chondral defect of the hip are able to return to elite performance level following an arthroscopic microfracture procedure when compared to pre-injury outcomes and controls.Level of evidenceIII.

Relationship Between Femoral Anteversion and Findings in Hips With Femoroacetabular Impingement

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between femoral neck version and pre- and intraoperative findings in hips with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). The authors retrospectively reviewed prospectively collected data on 188 patients (204 hips) who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAI and labral pathology. Femoral version was measured on magnetic resonance imaging by a fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologist. The study group comprised 100 men and 88 women with a mean age of 35 years (range, 18 to 62 years). Mean femoral version was 9° (range, -10° to 27°). No relationship was found between femoral version and patient demographics (ie, age, sex, weight, height, and body mass index). A significant correlation was found between version and degrees of external rotation (r=-0.208; P=.027) and internal rotation (r=0.231; P=.002) on physical examination. Patients with femoral version less than 5° had significantly increased external rotation (P=.027). Intraoperative findings demonstrated that femoral version greater than 15° was related to larger labral tears that averaged approximately 38 mm in size, whereas patients with anteversion less than 5° had tear sizes measuring 30 mm and patients with angles between 5° and 15° had tear sizes averaging 34 mm (P=.008). Hips with femoral version greater than 15° were 2.2 times more likely (95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 4.1) to have labral tears that extended beyond the 3 oclock position, denoting more anterior tears. Hips in which a psoas release was performed had higher version angles (8° vs 11°; P=.023).

Allograft Use in Arthroscopic Labral Reconstruction of the Hip With Front-to-Back Fixation Technique: Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

PURPOSEnTo present minimum 2-year outcomes in patients who underwent a modified technique for arthroscopic labral reconstruction using iliotibial band allograft tissue and a front-to-back fixation.nnnMETHODSnFrom April 2011 to July 2012, all consecutive arthroscopic labral reconstruction patients were included in this Institutional Review Board-approved, prospective case series study. Inclusion criteria were arthroscopic iliotibial band allograft labral reconstruction performed by a single surgeon, age ≥16 years at the time of arthroscopy, and a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Patients completed subjective questionnaires both preoperatively and postoperatively, including Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS), the Lower Extremity Function Score (LEFS), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain scores, and patient satisfaction. A modified front-to-back fixation technique for labral reconstruction was used.nnnRESULTSnOne hundred fifty-two hips (142 patients) met the inclusion criteria for this study; 131 hips (86.2%) had complete follow-up at a minimum of 2 years, and 21 hips (13.8%) were lost to follow-up or had incomplete data during the study period. Seventy hips had concomitant procedures performed; 27 microfracture, 30 chondroplasty, 26 psoas release, 5 os acetabuli resection, and 3 Ganz osteotomy. Overall, 18 hips (13.7%) required revision procedures at a mean of 17 months (range, 1 to 37 months) after the labral reconstruction. In the remaining 113 hips, there was significant improvement in all outcome measures from preoperative to most recent follow-up (P < .0001). The mean MHHS improved by 34 points (P < .0001), and the mean LEFS improved by 27 points (P < .0001). The mean VAS pain score improved by 3 points at rest (P < .0001), 4 points with average pain with daily activities (P < .0001), and 5 points with sport (P < .0001). Patients reported an overall satisfaction of 9 (range, 1 to 10).nnnCONCLUSIONSnArthroscopic iliotibial band allograft labral reconstruction of the hip shows promising outcomes at minimum 2-year follow-up.nnnLEVEL OF EVIDENCEnLevel IV, therapeutic case series.

Arthroscopic Labral Reconstruction of the Hip Using Iliotibial Band Allograft and Front-to-Back Fixation Technique

Labral repair has been shown to be an effective treatment option with excellent early outcomes; however, in cases of severe labral damage or when the labral tissue is too large or diminutive, labral repair may be less effective. The purpose of this article is to present a modified technique for hip labral reconstruction using iliotibial band allograft tissue and a front-to-back fixation technique. The described technique is modified from the original report of a technique for arthroscopic labral reconstruction. The front-to-back technique allows the surgeon to make a graft that is longer than necessary and cut excess graft after front-to-back fixation, resulting in the correct graft size and a reproducible procedure. Allograft tissue offers several advantages, including the ability to control graft thickness and length, as well as the ability to eliminate donor-site morbidity. This procedure adds to the available techniques for treatment of labral pathology by providing a labral reconstruction technique using allograft tissue.

Bilateral Hip Arthroscopy: Direct Comparison of Primary Acetabular Labral Repair and Primary Acetabular Labral Reconstruction

PURPOSEnDirectly compare primary acetabular labral repair versus primary acetabular labral reconstruction using a self-controlled cohort study design.nnnMETHODSnPatients who underwent primary labral repair in one hip and primary labral reconstruction using iliotibial band allograft in the other hip by a single surgeon between August 2009 and November 2014 were identified. One patient with inflammatory arthritis was excluded. Patient-reported outcome data included change in Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), average pain using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), and patient satisfaction (1: very dissatisfied, 10: very satisfied). Failure was defined as subsequent intra-articular hip surgery. Data were analyzed using McNemars and Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests.nnnRESULTSnOverall, 29 patients (58 hips) were included in the analysis. There were 23 females and 6 males. The average age at time of surgery was 32.6xa0years (range: 14.9-51.6xa0years). Follow-up was obtained from all 29 patients (100%) at a mean of 56xa0months (rangexa0= 27-85xa0months) postoperative for repaired hips and 40xa0months (rangexa0= 22-61xa0months) postoperative for reconstructed hips. No labral reconstruction hips failed, and 9 (31%) labral repair hips failed (P < .01). Among those that did not fail treatment, there was no difference in MHHS change (32.2 ± 15.4 vs 29.6 ± 15.4; Pxa0= .63), LEFS change (26.6 ± 16.5 vs 23.9 ± 17.8; Pxa0= .61), VAS pain change (-3.2 ± 2.4 vsxa0-3.6 ± 2.1; Pxa0= .47), or satisfaction (8.6 ± 2.0 vs 8.7 ± 2.4; Pxa0= .59) between the repair and reconstruction groups, respectively.nnnCONCLUSIONSnIn this cohort of patients, hips that underwent primary labral repair were more likely to fail treatment than hips that underwent labral reconstruction (31% vs 0%, respectively). Among hips that did not fail treatment, patient-reported outcome scores were similar between groups. Excellent clinical results can be obtained with both forms of labral-preserving treatment but were more predictably observed with primary labral reconstruction in this cohort. LEVELxa0OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Revision Arthroscopic Acetabular Labral Treatment: Repair or Reconstruct?

PURPOSEnTo compare the outcome of labral repair versus labral reconstruction in patients presenting to a single surgeon for revision hip arthroscopy following previous labral treatment.nnnMETHODSnPatients who underwent revision labral repair or labral reconstruction using iliotibial band allograft, after previous labral debridement or repair, between 2009 and 2013 were identified. Hips that underwent revision labral reconstruction were further stratified into 2 graft groups (freeze-dried vs frozen allograft). Exclusion criteria were age <16xa0years, previous open hip surgery, or previous labral reconstruction. Failure was defined by subsequent intra-articular hip surgery.nnnRESULTSn113 hips (15 repair, 98 reconstruction) met the inclusion criteria. Patients who underwent revision labral repair were younger than patients who underwent revision labral reconstruction (27.8xa0years vs 34.6xa0years; Pxa0= .02). Follow-up was obtained from 14 (93%) labral repairs at an average of 4.7xa0years postoperation (range: 2.0-6.0xa0years) and 90 (92%) labral reconstructions at an average of 2.4xa0years postoperation (range: 2.0-4.0xa0years). Seven of 14 (50%) labral repair hips failed compared with 11/90 (12%) labral reconstruction hips (P < .01). Six of 61 (10%) frozen allografts failed compared with 5/29 (17%) freeze-dried allografts (Pxa0=xa0.32). Patients who underwent revision labral repair were 4.1 (95% confidence interval 1.9, 8.8) times more likely to fail than patients who underwent revision labral reconstruction.nnnCONCLUSIONSnPatients who underwent revision labral repair following previous repair or debridement were 2.6 times more likely to fail than patients who underwent revision labral reconstruction, controlling for calendar time. In addition, revision labral reconstruction with frozen allograft had lower propensity of failure than freeze-dried allograft. However, there was no statistically significant difference in patient-reported outcome scores between the 2 groups. Based on these results, complete labral reconstruction with longer, nonsegmental graft led to a lower failure rate in this study population and can be considered for treatment of patients presenting for revision labral treatment.nnnLEVEL OF EVIDENCEnLevel III, retrospective comparative study.

Simultaneous acetabular labrum and ligamentum teres reconstruction: a case report

Abstract This study aims to present the surgical technique for reconstructing both the acetabular labrum and the ligamentum teres and to describe the early outcomes of this procedure in a 15-year-old male with recurrent hip instability. A 15-year-old patient with recurrent left hip dislocation, hip joint instability and failed non-operative intervention presented following two left hip dislocations. A labral reconstruction was performed utilizing an iliotibial band allograft tissue with a concomitant ligamentum teres reconstruction using a tibialis anterior allograft. The patient was assessed pre- and postoperatively using modified Harris Hip Score, Lower Extremity Functional Scale and Visual Analogue Scale for pain and satisfaction. The patient reported improvement on all measures, including hip stability 14u2009months following surgery. The patient has not reported any episodes or subjective feelings of instability, has not required further surgical procedures in the hip and has returned to full sports participation. This case report demonstrates a technique for and early outcomes of simultaneous arthroscopic ligamentum teres and acetabular labrum reconstruction in a patient with recurrent hip instability. Short-term outcomes suggest improved hip stability, reduced pain, high patient satisfaction and return to pre-injury activities at 14u2009months postoperative in this single case report.

Hip Pain After a Femoral Fracture: It Is Not Always Related to the Implant

The source of continued hip pain following fixation of traumatic femoral shaft fracture is not always clear. Intra-articular hip pathology is often overlooked when evaluating the etiology of residual pain. The purpose of this study was to describe cases of intra-articular hip pathology following traumatic femoral shaft fracture. This was a retrospective case series of patients presenting to a private practice orthopedic clinic from 2012 to 2015. Three patients presented with symptomatic intra-articular hip pathology following traumatic ipsilateral femoral shaft fracture. Patients who underwent hip arthroscopy with allograft labral reconstruction were identified retrospectively. Validated, subjective outcome scores administered included the Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and VAS scale for patient satisfaction. Three patients were identified with residual, disabling groin pain after femoral shaft fracture fixation following a traumatic motor vehicle accident. All 3 patients were found to have a symptomatic ipsilateral labral tear. In 2 of the patients, an indentation on the lateral femoral head was appreciated, which was hypothesized to be caused by a subluxation event. All 3 patients were treated with arthroscopic hip surgery. At final follow-up, all 3 patients showed significant improvement in MHHS, VAS pain scores, level of satisfaction, and LEFS. Residual pain following ipsilateral femoral shaft fracture is not always related to implant. Intra-articular hip pathology should be considered in patients with lingering hip pain. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(6):e1080-e1084.].