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

Arthroscopic Hip Capsular Reconstruction: A Step-by-Step Guide With Rectus Overlay

The hip capsule is the primary stabilizer of the hip joint. At the time of hip arthroscopy, the capsule is disrupted to obtain intra-articular access and proper joint visualization. With the number of patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroscopy continuing to increase, it is not uncommon for surgeons to encounter patients with iatrogenic capsular deficiency from prior hip arthroscopy. In cases where substantial capsular defects beyond the scope of capsular repair are visualized, reconstruction may be required to obtain satisfactory closure and restore hip stability. We present a step-by-step workflow for efficient hip capsular reconstruction with rectus overlay while allowing for facile incorporation of other revision procedures such as labral repair and femoral osteochondroplasty.

Adhesions After Hip Arthroscopy Are Associated With Revision But Show Poorly Defined Criteria for Diagnosis and Operative Management: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To evaluate the current body of evidence surrounding the diagnosis, management, and clinical outcomes of adhesions that developed after hip arthroscopy (HA).

METHODS

A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases was designed and conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Eligible studies included patients with confirmed adhesions after HA that reported one or more of the following: (1) diagnostic procedures and criteria used; (2) indications for and details surrounding surgical management; and (3) clinical outcomes after the operative management of adhesions (e.g., patient-reported outcome measures).

RESULTS

Nineteen studies involving a total of 4,145 patients (4,211 hips; 38% female sex) were included in this review. The quality of evidence was found to be fair for both comparative studies (mean, 17; range, 13-21) and noncomparative studies (mean, 10; range, 5-12) according to the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) instrument, with the level of evidence ranging from IIB to IV. Adhesions were often diagnosed intraoperatively at the time of revision surgery (10 of 19 studies, 53%), with only 3 studies specifying the criteria used to adjudicate adhesions. The most common indication for operative management (i.e., release or lysis of adhesions) was persistent pain (9 of 19, 47%), but this was often grossly stated for revision HA rather than being specific to adhesions. Patient-reported outcome measures were the most reported postoperative outcomes (9 of 19, 47%) and generally showed significant improvement from preoperative assessment across the short-term follow-up period (range, 24.5-38.1 months). There was a paucity of objective measures of clinical improvement (3 of 19, 16%) and of mid- and long-term follow-up (i.e., 5-7 years and ≥10 years, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the growing body of evidence suggesting that adhesions are highly contributory to revision HA, there is ambiguity in the diagnostic approach and indications for operative management of adhesions. Additionally, although the operative management of adhesions after HA has shown satisfactory clinical outcomes in the short term, there is a paucity of research elucidating the mid- to long-term outcomes, as well as minimal use of objective assessment of clinical improvement (e.g., biomechanics).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies.

Outcomes for Treatment of Capsulolabral Adhesions With a Capsular Spacer During Revision Hip Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

The presence of adhesions is a common source of pain and dysfunction after hip arthroscopic surgery and an indication for revision surgery. The placement of a capsular spacer in the capsulolabral recess after lysis of adhesions has been developed to treat and prevent the recurrence of adhesions.

PURPOSE

To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship at a minimum of 2 years after revision hip arthroscopic surgery with capsular spacer placement for capsular adhesions.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and June 2018, a total of 95 patients (99 hips) aged ≥18 years underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery for the treatment of capsular adhesions with the placement of a capsular spacer. Overall, 53 patients (56 hips) met the inclusion criteria and had a minimum 2-year follow-up, forming the cohort of this study. Exclusion criteria included confounding metabolic bone diseases (eg, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, Marfan syndrome), labral deficiency, or advanced osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade 2 or 3). Preoperative and postoperative outcome scores (modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS], Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living [HOS-ADL], Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale [HOS-SSS], 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12], and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]) were collected and compared in addition to the revision rate, conversion to total hip arthroplasty, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

The mean age of the cohort was 32 ± 11 years, with 32 female hips (57%) and a median number of previous hip arthroscopic procedures of 1 (range, 1-5). The arthroplasty- and revision-free survivorship rate at 2 years was 91%. Overall, 5 patients (6 hips; 11%) underwent revision surgery at a mean of 2.4 ± 1.4 years after capsular spacer placement, with symptomatic capsular defects being the most common finding. There were 4 patients (7%) who converted to total hip arthroplasty. For hips not requiring subsequent surgery (n = 46), there was a significant improvement in outcome scores except for the SF-12 Mental Component Summary, with rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference of 70%, 70%, and 65% for the mHHS, HOS-ADL, and HOS-SSS, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Capsular spacers, as part of a systematic approach including lysis of adhesions with early and consistent postoperative physical therapy including circumduction exercises, resulted in improved PROs as well as high arthroplasty- and revision-free survivorship (91%) at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Capsular spacers should be considered in revision hip arthroscopic procedures when an adequate labral volume remains but adhesions continue to be a concern.

Effective Management Options for Treatment of Microinstability of the Hip: a Scoping Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the recent literature identifying and summarizing the research involving management of microinstability of the hip and highlight new and evolving techniques in its treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent updates in the understanding of capsular management hip arthroscopy will likely lead to less revision surgery and a decreased incidence of persistent post-operative pain. Repair of residual capsular defects has shown good outcomes with high patient satisfaction. Capsular plication remains the gold standard for hips with increased pain that show signs of capsular laxity/deficiency on exam or imaging. Capsular reconstruction has shown equivalent results to other revision hip arthroscopy procedures with low rates of complications. Ligamentum teres pathology, although rare, should be considered a source of pain, particularly in patients with laxity on exam. In cases where CAM over-resection has occurred, remplissage using allograft is an effective option for restoring the capsular suction seal and stability. Microinstability is increasingly being recognized as a source of post-operative hip pain. Patients with collagen disorders remain a challenging clinical entity with increased rates of complications and post-operative pain. CAM resection should be performed carefully and not disrupt the suction seal but be sufficient to not cause further impingement. Improved evidence including well-designed prospective studies with large sample sizes will determine the future management of this complex problem.

Graft Options for Hip Labral Reconstruction

➢

Arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction is a complex procedure which is growing in use as indications, techniques, and surgical expertise advance.

➢

Graft selection is an important component of labral reconstruction based on relative advantages and disadvantages of available types of autografts and allografts.

➢

The ideal graft should mimic the native acetabular labrum form and function while also being affordable, readily available, and associated with low morbidity.

➢

High rates of patient satisfaction and positive patient-reported outcomes have been reported after labral reconstruction using several graft types.

Effect of Anchor Density on Functional Outcomes After Arthroscopic Hip Labral Repair

BACKGROUND

While labral repair has been widely adopted as the first line treatment for labral injury during hip arthroscopy, there is no widespread consensus on the procedural technique, including the number of anchors that should be used to avoid recurrent instability and revision surgery.

PURPOSE

To determine if anchor density can predict patient-reported outcomes after arthroscopic labral repair in the hip.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients aged 18 to 50 years who underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery with labral repair between January 2011 and December 2016 were identified from a prospectively collected database. Exclusion criteria consisted of previous ipsilateral surgery, osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade >1), and severe cartilage defects (Outerbridge grade III/IV) or concomitant labral reconstruction, capsular reconstruction, or microfracture. Minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes (modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS], Hip Outcome Score [HOS]-Activities of Daily Living [ADL], HOS-Sport Specific Subscale [SSS], 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12]), rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for each score, revision surgery rate, and rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were compared based on anchor density (number of anchors per millimeter of labral tear).

RESULTS

A total of 634 hips (575 patients) with a mean age of 30.4 ± 9.5 years (range, 18.0-49.9 years) met inclusion criteria. The mean labral tear size was 31 ± 11 mm (range, 2-70 mm) with a median number of anchors used for labral repair of 3 (range, 1-7) and mean anchor density of 0.11 ± 0.08 anchors (range, 0.03-1.33) per millimeter of labral tear. Hips with a minimum 2-year follow-up (451/634 [71.1%]) had significant improvements on the mHHS, HOS-ADL, HOS-SSS, and SF-12 Physical Component Summary (P < .001 for all). There was no significant correlation detected between anchor density or number of anchors used and postoperative scores (correlation coefficient range, -0.05 to 0.17; P > .05 for all). The rate of revision surgery was 6.4% (28 patients), with 8 hips found to have labral tears and/or deficiency on revision. Additionally, 6 hips (1.3%) had to undergo THA at a mean of 3.6 ± 2.1 years (range, 2.0-5.5 years).

CONCLUSION

Anchor density did not have a correlation with postoperative outcomes, achieving the MCID or PASS, revision hip arthroscopic surgery, complications, or conversion to THA.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy for Graft Retear and Residual Cam Lesion in a Previously Labral Reconstructed Hip

Persistent pain after hip arthroscopy may be due to residual impingement, hip dysplasia, osteoarthritis progression, labral injury, or insufficient capsular closure. A patient's history, physical examination findings, and imaging studies should be used to determine whether revision hip arthroscopy is indicated. If surgical management is chosen, careful preoperative planning is essential. During revision hip arthroscopy, the presence and location of adhesions should be considered during interportal capsulotomy and T-capsulotomy creation and while applying traction sutures. The presence of a residual cam or pincer lesion and the adequacy of the labrum or labral graft should be assessed and properly addressed. If capsular redundancy is recognized, capsular plication may be performed. The purpose of this Technical Note is to describe an approach to revision hip arthroscopy for labral repair and residual cam lesion resection.

In search of labral restoration function with hip arthroscopy: outcomes of hip labral reconstruction versus labral repair: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients who underwent hip arthroscopy with labral repair versus labral reconstruction in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and labral tears.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed in May 2020 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and checklist. Articles were included in the analysis if they compared PROs between a labral repair and labral reconstruction cohort. For all PROs, the standardised mean difference (SMD) was calculated to compare the effect size of labral repair and labral reconstruction.

RESULTS

10 comparative studies, with 582 reconstruction cases and 631 repair cases, were included in this analysis. The mean age for the reconstruction and the repair groups ranged from 27.0 years to 52.6 years and 27.5 years to 47.0 years, respectively. The mean follow-up for the reconstruction and the repair groups ranged from 24.0 months to 66.0 months and 24.0 months to 71.0 months, respectively. The modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHS) was favourable in 8 reconstruction studies (range 80.4-95.0) and 9 repair studies (range 84.1-93.0). Average NAHS scores for the repair and reconstruction cohorts ranged from 77.9-88.6 and 73.9-92.4, respectively. Additionally, the effect sizes regarding NAHS and mHHS scores were large (SMD > 0.8) in both the reconstruction and repair groups for the majority of studies. Finally, reconstruction patients underwent a subsequent total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a slightly higher rate.

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of FAIS and labral tears, patients who underwent hip arthroscopy may expect significant improvement in PROs at short-term follow-up with either labral repair or labral reconstruction. Although, not statistically significant, the repair group trended towards higher scores and exhibited a lower risk of conversion to THA.

Return to Sports and Minimum 2-Year Outcomes of Primary Arthroscopic Hip Labral Reconstruction for Irreparable Tears in High-Level Athletes With a Propensity-Matched Benchmarking Against a Labral Repair Control Group

BACKGROUND

Labral reconstruction has shown promise for the treatment of irreparable labral tears in high-level athletes. The literature is scarce regarding outcomes and timing of return to sports (RTS) in these patients.

PURPOSE

(1) To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores and RTS characteristics for high-level athletes undergoing primary labral reconstruction for irreparable labral tears and (2) to compare clinical results with a matched control group of athletes undergoing labral repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for high school, college, and professional athletes who underwent a primary arthroscopic labral reconstruction between January 2010 and June 2018. Minimum 2-year PROs were compared for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), as well as the visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, patient satisfaction, and RTS. The percentages of patients achieving the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the mHHS (PASS, >74 points; MCID, >8 points) and HOS-SSS (PASS, >75 points; MCID, >6 points) were also recorded. These patients were propensity score matched in a 1:3 ratio to other high-level athletes undergoing labral repair.

RESULTS

A total of 17 high-level athletes with primary arthroscopic labral reconstruction were included with a median follow-up time of 37.1 months (95% CI, 37.2-60.3 months). They demonstrated significant improvement from preoperatively to the latest follow-up for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS for pain (P < .05). Further, patients achieved PASS/MCID for mHHS at high rates (PASS, 84.2%; MCID, 68.4%). Athletes were able to return to sport-specific training at a median of 3.33 months (95% CI, 3.07-4.71 months) and RTS at a median of 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.08-11.98 months). Fourteen (82.4%) of reconstructions and 29 (82.8%) of repairs either returned to sport or decided not to do so for reasons unrelated to the hip. PROs, RTS rate, and PASS/MCID rates were similar between the labral reconstruction group and a control labral repair group (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Primary arthroscopic labral reconstruction for irreparable labral tears was associated with significant improvement in PROs and high rates of RTS in high-level athletes. These results were comparable with those of a control group of athletes undergoing labral repair.

Publication Trends and Hot Spots in Femoroacetabular Impingement Research: A 20-Year Bibliometric Analysis

BACKGROUND

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) has attracted increasing attention over the past few decades. We aim to evaluate FAI research and predict research hot spots quantitatively and qualitatively.

METHODS

The publications in FAI research between 2000 and 2019 were assimilated from the Web of Science Core Collection of Clarivate Analytics. The retrieved data were evaluated by the bibliometric method. Software CiteSpace 5.7.R1, VOSviewer 1.6.15, and the Online Analysis Platform of Literature Metrology (http://bibliometric.com/) were used to analyze and identify the hot spots and trends in this field.

RESULTS

A total of 2471 originals articles that fulfilled the study requirements were obtained. The number of manuscripts on FAI has experienced rapid growth, especially after 2009. The United States of America was the leading country for publication and to the collaboration network. FAI, osteoarthritis, hip arthroscopy, labral reconstruction, pathomorphology, outcome, rehabilitation, and joint cartilage are some of the high-frequency keywords in co-occurrence cluster analysis and cocited reference cluster analysis. Burst detection analysis of top keywords revealed that outcomes, instability, labral reconstruction, adolescent, and risk factor were newly emerged research hot spots.

CONCLUSION

The understanding of FAI has been improved significantly during the past two decades. Present studies focused on identifying the optimal method to treat labral pathology, outcome assessment of either surgeries or conservative managements, and predicting midterm and long-term outcomes. Together these studies exert critical implications for decision-making and management for FAI.

Arthroscopic Circumferential Acetabular Labral Reconstruction for Irreparable Labra in the Revision Setting: Patient-Reported Outcome Scores and Rate of Achieving the Minimal Clinically Important Difference at a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity in the literature reporting patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after revision hip arthroscopic surgery with circumferential labral reconstruction.

PURPOSE

To report minimum 2-year PRO scores and the rate of achieving the MCID in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery with circumferential labral reconstruction in the setting of irreparable labral tears.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery between February 2016 and November 2017. Patients were included if they had undergone circumferential labral reconstruction and had preoperative and postoperative scores for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey physical and mental components (SF-12 P and SF-12 M, respectively), Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey physical and mental components (VR-12 P and VR-12 M, respectively), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, fractures, hip dysplasia, or revision labral treatment different from circumferential labral reconstruction. The MCID was calculated. Secondary surgical procedures were documented.

RESULTS

A total of 26 hips (26 patients; 61.5% female) were included. The mean age and body mass index were 33.2 ± 10.4 years and 25.5 ± 4.9, respectively. Significant improvements were reported for the mHHS (17.0 ± 19.5; P = .0002), NAHS (17.9 ± 16.7; P < .0001), HOS-SSS (21.7 ± 23.1; P = .0005), VAS (-2.2 ± 3.0; P = .006), iHOT-12 (25.8 ± 32.5; P = .0007), SF-12 P (8.5 ± 11.2; P = .001), and VR-12 P (8.9 ± 11.6; P = .001). Rates of meeting the MCID for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, iHOT-12, and VAS were 76.9%, 80.0%, 65.0%, 62.5%, and 69.2%, respectively. No case of re-revision arthroscopic surgery was documented, but 1 case of conversion to total hip arthroplasty was documented at 38.6 months.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of revision hip arthroscopic surgery and irreparable labral tears, circumferential labral reconstruction resulted in significant improvements in all PRO and VAS scores at a minimum 2-year follow-up with a high rate of achieving the MCID.

Clinical outcomes after revision hip arthroscopy in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) are inferior compared to primary procedures. Results from the Danish Hip Arthroscopy Registry (DHAR)

PURPOSE

As many as 10% of primary hip arthroscopies end up with a revision arthroscopy procedure when treating patients suffering from femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). In general, revision procedures are indicated because of residual impingement, but only a few studies present outcome data from revision hip arthroscopy after failed FAIS surgical treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes after revision hip arthroscopy in a FAIS cohort and compare outcomes with a primary FAIS hip arthroscopy cohort and describe potential causes of failure after the primary hip arthroscopy. It was hypothesized that subjective outcomes improve after revision hip arthroscopy although outcomes were expected to be inferior to primary hip arthroscopic outcomes.

METHODS

Three-hundred and thirty-one arthroscopic revision hip FAIS patients were included from the Danish Hip Arthroscopy Registry (DHAR). Patient-related outcome measures (PROM's), Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Scores (HAGOS), Hip Sports Activity Scale (HSAS), EQ-5D and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) pain, were assessed in the study cohort prior to the primary procedure and at revision and at follow-up one year after the revision procedure. These data were compared with 4154 primary hip arthroscopic FAIS patients.

RESULTS

One-year after revision surgery, mean follow-up (in months ± SD): 12.3 ± 1.6, significant improvements (p < 0.05) in all PROMs was demonstrated, but FAIS patients in the primary hip arthroscopic cohort demonstrated significantly higher outcomes, in all PROMs, when compared at one-year follow-up. Scar tissue, residual osseous impingement and insufficient healing of the labral repair were reported as the main reasons for revision surgery. The conversion to total hip arthroplasty was low (6.4%).

CONCLUSION

Revision hip arthroscopy in FAIS patients improves subjective outcomes significantly, although they are poorer than after primary FAIS hip arthroscopy. Main reasons for revision arthroscopy was scar tissue, residual femoroacetabular impingement and insufficient healing of labral repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Pain Scores and Activity Tolerance in the Early Postoperative Period After Hip Arthroscopy

Background:

Despite the rapid growth in the use of hip arthroscopy, standardized data on postoperative pain scores and activity level are lacking.

Purpose:

To quantify narcotic consumption and use of the stationary bicycle in the early postoperative period after hip arthroscopy.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

In this prospective case series, patients undergoing a primary hip arthroscopy procedure by a single surgeon were asked to fill out a daily survey for 9 days postoperatively. Patients were asked to report their pain level each day on a visual analog scale from 1 to 10, along with the amount of narcotic pain pills they used during those postoperative days (PODs). Narcotic usage was converted to a morphine-equivalent dosage (MED) for each patient. Patients were also instructed to cycle daily starting on the night of surgery for a minimum of 3 minutes twice per day and were asked to rate their pain as a percentage of their preoperative pain level and the number of minutes spent cycling on a stationary bicycle per day.

Results:

A total of 212 patients were enrolled in this study. Pain levels (POD1, 5.5; POD4, 3.8; POD9, 2.9; P < .0001) and the percentage of preoperative pain (POD1, 51.6%; POD4, 31.8%; POD9, 29.5%; P < .01) significantly decreased over the study period. The amount of narcotics used per day (reported in MED) also significantly decreased (POD1, 27.3; POD4, 22.3; POD9, 8.5; P < .0001). By POD4, 41% of patients had discontinued all narcotics, and by POD9, 65% of patients were completely off narcotic medication. Patients were able to significantly increase the number of minutes spent cycling each day (POD1, 7.6 minutes; POD4, 13.8 minutes; POD9, 19.0 minutes; P < .0001). Patients who received a preoperative narcotic prescription for the affected hip were significantly more likely to require an additional postoperative narcotic prescription (P < .001).

Conclusion:

Patients can expect a rapid decrease in narcotic consumption along with a high degree of activity tolerance in the early postoperative period after hip arthroscopy.

Acetabular Labral Reconstruction with Iliotibial Band Autograft: Outcome and Survivorship at a Minimum 10-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Labral reconstruction has been shown to result in improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at mid-term follow-up in patients with a deficient labrum. The purpose of this study was to determine survivorship and PROs at a minimum 10-year follow-up.

METHODS

A retrospective evaluation of a prospectively collected single-surgeon database included 91 hips (89 patients) that underwent arthroscopic labral reconstruction with iliotibial band autograft between 2006 and 2008. The primary PRO was the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-activities of daily living (ADL). The modified Harris hip score (mHHS), HOS-sports, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and patient satisfaction (on a scale of 1 to 10) were also collected at a 10-year minimum follow-up. Survivorship analysis curves were evaluated.

RESULTS

Eighty-two hips were evaluated at a 10-year minimum follow-up. Overall survivorship, with revision hip arthroscopy or total hip arthroplasty (THA) as the end point, was 70% at 5 years and 61% at 10 years, and the mean survival time was 9 years (95% confidence interval = 7.6 to 10 years). For the patients who did not undergo subsequent surgery, on average the mHHS increased from 60 preoperatively to 82 at the 10-year follow-up (p = 0.001), the HOS-ADL improved from 69 to 90 (p = 0.004), the HOS-sports improved from 43 to 76 (p = 0.001), and the median patient satisfaction was 10 of 10. Eighty percent of the patients achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the HOS-ADL, and 87% obtained a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS).

CONCLUSIONS

Following arthroscopic labral reconstruction with iliotibial band autograft, 9% of the hips underwent revision arthroscopy and 27% underwent THA. At 10 years, the survival rate, with revision hip arthroscopy or THA as the end point, was 61%; however, for those with >2 mm of joint space, the current indication for labral reconstruction, the 10-year survival rate was 90%. Excellent PROs and patient satisfaction were reported by those who did not require revision or THA. With appropriate patient selection and prevention of postoperative adhesions, labral reconstruction results in excellent outcomes and high patient satisfaction that is sustained at a minimum 10-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Indications and Outcomes of Secondary Hip Procedures After Failed Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

(1) To identify present indications for secondary procedures in patients with failed hip arthroscopy and (2) to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of the secondary procedures, including revision arthroscopy, periacetabular osteotomy (PAO), and total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

Study groups included patients who had a secondary procedure after failed previous hip arthroscopy whereas the control groups were patients who had a primary procedure but did not require a secondary procedure. Indications and procedures at the time of the secondary operation were documented for each study. Average PROs were recorded, and standardized mean difference was calculated to estimate effect size.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies reporting on patients undergoing a secondary procedure after a previous hip arthroscopy were included. The 3 main secondary procedure groups were revision hip arthroscopy, secondary PAO, and secondary THA. Regarding the revision arthroscopy group, the most common indications were labral tears, cam deformity, and pincer deformity. In addition, the most common procedures were femoroplasty, acetabuloplasty, capsular release, and labral reconstruction. The most common indications for the secondary PAO and THA groups were dysplasia and osteoarthritis respectively. Five of the revision arthroscopy studies found that revision patients had worse outcomes than the primary arthroscopy group. One PAO study found that the previous arthroscopy group had slightly worse outcomes, and 2 studies found no differences in PROs. Two THA studies reported worse outcomes for the prior arthroscopy group, and 2 studies reported no differences in outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common indications for revision hip arthroscopy were labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement. Patients undergoing a revision hip arthroscopy demonstrated good postoperative outcomes but to an overall lesser extent than their primary counterparts. The secondary PAO and THA groups also had favorable PROs, but the studies were inconclusive in determining superior outcomes between the primary and secondary groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Systematic review of Level II-IV investigations.

Outcomes of Revision Hip Arthroscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While the indications for primary hip arthroscopic surgery in treating femoroacetabular abnormalities continue to be defined, the indications and outcomes for revision hip arthroscopic surgery remain ambiguous. However, revision hip arthroscopic surgery is performed in 5% to 14% of patients after their index procedure. While patient-reported outcomes (PROs) generally improve after revision procedures, the extent of their improvement is not well defined.

PURPOSE

To determine the outcomes and efficacy of revision hip arthroscopic surgery in patients who remain symptomatic after their index procedure.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis and systematic review.

METHODS

The terms "hip arthroscopy,""revisions,""outcomes," and "femoroacetabular impingement" were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. After screening, 15 studies were included for review. In addition to hip-specific metrics, functional outcome measures were included. Pooled estimates and 95% CIs were calculated using inverse variance methods.

RESULTS

A total of 4765 hips in 4316 patients were identified. The most common indication for revision surgery was inadequate bony resection during the index procedure. Meta-analysis showed that all PROs improved significantly from baseline to final follow-up after revision hip arthroscopic surgery. Notably, the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) increased a mean of 17.20 points after revision hip arthroscopic surgery, the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) improved by 13.98, and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain decreased by 3.16. However, when compared with primary hip arthroscopic surgery, the mean PRO scores after revision hip arthroscopic surgery were lower. After revision hip arthroscopic surgery, the rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty ranged from 0% to 14.3%, and the rates of further arthroscopic revision ranged from 2% to 14%.

CONCLUSION

Inadequate bony resection represents the most common indication for revision hip arthroscopic surgery. PROs improve significantly after revision hip arthroscopic surgery but remain lower than those of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery.

Return to Sport and Athletic Function in an Active Population After Primary Arthroscopic Labral Reconstruction of the Hip

Background:

Labral reconstruction has been advocated as an alternative to debridement for the treatment of irreparable labral tears, showing favorable short-term results. However, literature is scarce regarding outcomes and return to sport in the nonelite athletic population.

Purpose:

To report minimum 1-year clinical outcomes and the rate of return to sport in athletic patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and irreparable labral tears.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed for patients who underwent an arthroscopic labral reconstruction between August 2012 and December 2017. Patients were included if they identified as an athlete (high school, college, recreational, or amateur); had follow-up on the following patient-reported outcomes (PROs): modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score–Sport Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS); and completed a return-to-sport survey at 1 year postoperatively. Patients were excluded if they underwent any previous ipsilateral hip surgery, had dysplasia, or had prior hip conditions. The proportions of patients who achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for mHHS and HOS-SSS were calculated. Statistical significance was set at P = .05.

Results:

There were 32 (14 females) athletes who underwent primary arthroscopic labral reconstruction during the study period. The mean age and body mass index of the group were 40.3 years (range, 15.5-58.7 years) and 27.9 kg/m² (range, 19.6-40.1 kg/m²), respectively. The mean follow-up was 26.4 months (range, 12-64.2 months). All patients demonstrated significant improvement in mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS (P < .001) at latest follow-up. Additionally, 84.4% achieved MCID and 81.3% achieved PASS for mHHS, and 87.5% achieved MCID and 75% achieved PASS for HOS-SSS. VAS pain scores decreased from 4.4 to 1.8, and the satisfaction with surgery was 7.9 out of 10. The rate of return to sport was 78%.

Conclusion:

At minimum 1-year follow-up, primary arthroscopic labral reconstruction, in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and irreparable labral tears, was associated with significant improvement in PROs in athletic populations. Return to sport within 1 year of surgery was 78%.

Physical Activity Following Hip Arthroscopy in Young and Middle-Aged Adults: A Systematic Review

Background

Hip arthroscopy is a common surgical intervention for young and middle-aged adults with hip-related pain and dysfunction, who have high expectations for returning to physical activity following surgery. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the impact of hip arthroscopy on physical activity post-arthroscopy.

Methods

A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken in identifying studies from January 1st 1990 to December 5th 2019. The search included English language articles reporting physical activity as an outcome following hip arthroscopy in adults aged 18-50 years. Quality assessment, data extraction and synthesis of included studies were undertaken.

Results

Full text articles (n = 234) were assessed for eligibility following screening of titles and abstracts (n = 2086), yielding 120 studies for inclusion. The majority (86%) of the studies were level 4 evidence. One study reported objective activity data. The most frequently occurring patient-reported outcome measure was the Hip Outcome Score-sport-specific subscale (HOS-SS, 84% of studies). Post--arthroscopy improvement was indicated by large effect sizes for patient-reported outcome measures (standard paired difference [95% confidence interval] −1.35[−1.61 to −1.09] at more than 2 years post-arthroscopy); however, the majority of outcome scores for the HOS-SS did not meet the defined level for a patient-acceptable symptom state.

Conclusion

The current level of available information regarding physical activity for post arthroscopy patients is limited in scope. Outcomes have focused on patients’ perceived difficulties with sport-related activities with a paucity of information on the type, quality and quantity of activity undertaken.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level 2 through to Level 4 studies

Iliotibial band autograft: what size is the graft? A mathematical and cadaveric model : ITB single and double strand size

BACKGROUND

The iliotibial band (ITB) is used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in skeletally immature patients as well as several other orthopedic reconstructions. The purpose of this study is to determine the size of the ITB as an autograft option in ACL reconstruction surgery or other orthopedic soft tissue reconstructions.

METHODS

Five adult cadavers resulting in nine ITB were used. Thickness and width of the ITB were determined. Using ITB width of 15-60 mm, single and doubled graft sizes were determined using standard surgical graft size technique. Geometric calculations based on average graft thickness were used to mathematically confirm the graft size of the ITB.

RESULTS

The ITB is less than 1 mm in thickness in males and females. Cadaveric measurements were less than 1 mm larger than mathematical measurements, in majority of measurements. ITB autograft can be harvested to a maximum 9 mm single-stranded graft or > 12 mm doubled graft. A minimum of 50 mm of ITB width is required to make a 8 mm graft.

CONCLUSIONS

ITB is a versatile graft that can be used for a graft size up to 9 mm single strand and over 12 mm double strand. A minimum of 50 mm width of ITB is required to obtain a 8 mm-diameter autograft. To ensure appropriate graft size, surgeons should consider harvesting the maximum amount of ITB when performing ACL reconstructions in skeletally immature patients.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Surgeons have a quick reference for the width of ITB they should harvest based on the size of graft they require for a successful surgery.

Limitations of arthroscopy for managing coxa profunda

Coxa profunda is a complex entity that can result in femoro-acetabular impingement (FAI). A meticulous evaluation of the type of acetabular overcoverage is essential to determine which treatment is best suited to each individual patient. Focal overcoverage with no posterior impingement can be treated by arthroscopic recontouring of the disproportionate acetabular wall. Any femoral deformities should be managed during the same procedure. General overcoverage, with predominant postero-inferior impingement, requires open surgery to obtain access to the entire acetabular rim. Rim resection should be sparing, to avoid removing an excessive proportion of the joint surface, yet sufficient to eliminate the impingement. In the event of protrusio acetabuli, which is the extreme form of coxa profunda, reverse peri-acetabular osteotomy should be considered, particularly if the acetabular roof angle is reversed. In some patients, chiefly those with coxa vara, valgus femoral osteotomy should be considered as a means of redirecting the loads towards the acetabular roof, thereby diminishing the forces that tend to drive the femoral head deeper into the socket.

The CU PAO: A Minimally Invasive, 2-Incision, Interlocking Periacetabular Osteotomy: Technique and Early Results

BACKGROUND

The aims of this study were to describe a novel minimally invasive, interlocking periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for the treatment of hip dysplasia that was developed at our institution and to report on its safety, complications, and early clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This was a prospective longitudinal study of the first 200 consecutive hips that underwent the CU (University of Colorado) PAO, an interlocking osteotomy combining the benefits of the Birmingham interlocking pelvic osteotomy (BIPO) and the Ganz PAO. The technique provides direct visualization of the sciatic nerve during the ischial osteotomy and allows for immediate weight-bearing postoperatively. Demographic characteristics, intraoperative and perioperative parameters, and functional outcomes were documented. All patients underwent hip arthroscopy 3 to 10 days prior to the PAO to address concomitant intra-articular pathology. Mechanical deep venous thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis was used for 2 weeks postoperatively. Results were stratified to compare the first 100 and the second 100 cases.

RESULTS

A total of 161 patients (200 hips) underwent primary PAO; mean follow-up was 20 months (range, 3 to 33 months). The mean patient age at the time of surgery was 29.4 years (range, 13 to 55 years). Females accounted for 89% of the patients included in this study. The average length of stay was 4 days. A concomitant proximal femoral derotational osteotomy was performed in 19 hips. The lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) improved from a mean of 18.8° preoperatively to 31.5° postoperatively (p < 0.001). The mean Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS) improved from 56.0 preoperatively to 89.4 at the 24-month follow-up (p < 0.0001). Paresthesias in the distribution of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve were common (65% at 2 weeks postoperatively) but resolved in 85% of the patients within the first 6 months. There were no sciatic nerve-related complications, deep infections, or DVTs.

CONCLUSIONS

The CU PAO enables corrective realignment of symptomatic acetabular dysplasia with direct visualization of the sciatic nerve, early weight-bearing, cosmetic incisions, and good short-term outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Primary labral reconstruction in patients with femoroacetabular impingement, irreparable labral tears and severe acetabular chondral defects decreases the risk of conversion to total hip arthroplasty: a pair-matched study

In the presence of severe acetabular cartilage defects, the benefits of labral reconstruction (RECON) versus labral resection (RESEC) have not been determined. Prospectively collected data between October 2008 and December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were hip arthroscopy, acetabular Outerbridge grade III/IV, irreparable labral tears that underwent RECON or RESEC, and minimum 2-year postoperative measures for the modified Harris Hip Score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, International Hip Outcome Tool, Patient Satisfaction and Visual Analogue Scale for pain. Exclusion criteria included Tönnis grade >1, previous hip conditions or previous ipsilateral hip surgeries. A 1:1 matched-pair analysis was performed based on age ±5 years, sex, body mass index ±5 kg/m², Tönnis grade, acetabular microfracture, femoral Outerbridge grade (0 or I compared with II, III or IV). Relative risk (RR) and conversion rate to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were calculated. A total of 38 RECON hips were successfully matched. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs). THA conversion was 5.3% and 21.1% for the RECON and RESEC groups, respectively (P = 0.04). RECON was four times less likely to require THA conversion than the RESEC group (RR=4.0; 95% CI 0.91-17.63). In the setting of primary arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement, irreparable labral tears and acetabular chondral lesions of Outerbridge III/IV, patients that underwent RECON and RESEC experienced significant improvement in PROs at minimum 2-year follow-up, and these functional scores were comparable when groups were matched. However, RR and rate to THA conversion were significantly higher in the RESEC group.

Minimum 5-Year Outcomes of Arthroscopic Hip Labral Reconstruction With Nested Matched-Pair Benchmarking Against a Labral Repair Control Group

BACKGROUND

Labral reconstruction has demonstrated short-term benefit for the treatment of irreparable labral tears. Nonetheless, there is a scarcity of evidence for midterm outcomes of this treatment.

HYPOTHESES

Arthroscopic segmental reconstruction in the setting of irreparable labral tears would show improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and high patient satisfaction at minimum 5-year follow-up. Second, primary labral reconstruction (PLRECON) would result in similar improvement in PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up when compared with a matched-pair primary labral repair (PLREPAIR) control group.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data from February 2008 to April 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if they underwent hip arthroscopy for segmental labral reconstruction in the setting of irreparable labral tear and femoroacetabular impingement, with minimum 5-year follow-up for modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, patient satisfaction, and visual analog scale for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis osteoarthritis grade >1, prior hip conditions, or workers' compensation claims. PLRECON cases were matched in a 1:3 ratio to a PLREPAIR control group based on age ±5 years, sex, and body mass index ±5 kg/m².

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients were eligible for the study, of which 23 (82.14%) had minimum 5-year follow-up. The authors found significant improvement from preoperative to latest follow-up in all outcome measures recorded: 17.8-point increase in modified Harris Hip Score (P = .002), 22-point increase in Nonarthritic Hip Score (P < .001), 25.4-point increase in Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (P = .003), and a 2.9-point decrease in visual analog scale pain ratings (P < .001). Mean patient satisfaction was 7.1 out of 10. In the nested matched-pair analysis, 17 patients who underwent PLRECON were matched to a control group of 51 patients who underwent PLREPAIR. PLRECON demonstrated comparable survivorship and comparable improvements in all PROs with the exception of patient satisfaction (6.7 vs 8.5, P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Hip arthroscopy with segmental labral reconstruction resulted in significant improvement in PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up. PLRECON reached comparable functional outcomes when compared with a benchmark PLREPAIR control group but demonstrated lower patient satisfaction at latest follow-up.

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.

Hip labral reconstruction: consensus study on indications, graft type and technique among high-volume surgeons

To survey high-volume hip arthroscopists regarding their current indications for labral reconstruction, graft preference and technique. In May 2018, a cross-sectional based survey was conducted on high-volume hip arthroscopists. A high-volume surgeon was defined as an orthopaedist who had case experience ranging from 50 to 5000 hip arthroscopies performed annually. The survey included their current indications for labral reconstruction, graft preference and technique. Twelve high-volume surgeons successfully completed the questionnaire. The mean arthroscopic procedures performed by the surgeons annually was 188.7 (range 60–350). Four surgeons (33.3%) performed <5 labral reconstruction cases per year, three (25.0%) 5–10 cases per year, two (16.7%) 11–15 cases per year and three (25.0%) over 20 cases per year. Of the 12 surgeons, 11 (91.6%) would reconstruct in certain primary settings and 100% would reconstruct in revision settings. In the primary setting, the main indications for reconstruction were poor quality labral tissue, calcified labrum and hypoplastic labrum. None of the surgeons recommended labral reconstruction for reparable labral tears in primary cases. In primary cases of irreparable labra, 58.3% of the surgeons favoured reconstruction over debridement. In revisions, 100% of the surgeon favoured reconstruction over debridement; 91.7% chose an allograft option versus an autograft alternative. Amongst high-volume arthroscopists, labral reconstruction was considered a valuable technique to restore labral function. Labral reconstruction was more often advocated in revision than in primary settings. Allograft was the preferred choice for reconstruction. Excision of the labral tissue prior to reconstruction was favoured over augmentation. Fewer surgeons performed circumferential reconstruction than segmental reconstruction.

Editorial Commentary: Acetabular Labral Repair-Is A Knotless Anchor Better?

Knotless anchors have an important role in arthroscopic acetabular labral repair. Different anchors show 2 primary failure modes: suture breakage and suture pullout from the anchor ("eyelet failure"). Knotless anchors show minimal displacement at physiological loads and should perform well for arthroscopic labral repair. Surgeons should consider the suture-passing device size and use a device that creates as small of a labral hole as possible.

Arthroscopic labral reconstruction using fascia lata allograft: shuttle technique and minimum two-year results

The purpose of this study was to describe the shuttle technique of acetabular labral reconstruction using allograft fascia lata and report minimum two-year clinical outcomes in a prospective patient cohort. We present a shuttle technique to introduce and fixate the allograft, by which the need to fix the free end of the graft from inside the joint is avoided. Between October 2010 and March 2014, 693 hip arthroscopic surgeries were performed by the senior author. Of these 693 patients, 34 patients underwent a labral reconstruction procedure using allograft fascia lata and the shuttle technique and met inclusion criteria. Outcome measures were collected at minimum two years postoperatively. 91.2% (31) of reconstruction patients were available for follow-up at minimum two years after surgery with 12.9% (4) of these patients converting to total hip arthroplasty at average time 27.9 months post-surgery. For the remaining reconstruction patients, mean mHHS increased from 64.0 preoperatively to 84.6 postoperatively (P = 0.0015), SF-12 Physical from 38.9 to 49.0 (P = 0.0004), SF-12 Mental from 49.5 to 55.6 (P = 0.0095), iHOT-12 from 36.4 to 68.1 (P = 0.0017), HOS-ADL from 62.6 to 81.6 (P = 0.0032) and HOS-SS from 32.9 to 65.7 (P < 0.0001). Arthroscopic acetabular labral reconstruction using fascia lata allograft and a shuttle technique appears to be an effective procedure for the treatment of labral pathology through minimum two-year follow-up. While it is difficult to discern the direct influence of the labral reconstructive procedure given the treatment of often concomitant intra-articular pathology, this patient cohort has fared similarly to other cohorts of labral reconstruction patients. No major adverse events are reported.

Editorial Commentary: Hip Labral Revision Reconstruction in a Fellowship Training Center: A Report From the Mountains

Hip labral reconstruction has proven to be a successful technique in restoring normal labrum function. However, sometimes revision surgery is required. A recent, well-designed prospective study provides significant support for revision labral reconstruction, showing how it leads to improved hip mechanics and reduction in pain. The success of the study design and this report is a testament to an educational institution dedicated to fellowship training.