Trends in Hip Arthroscopic Labral Repair: An American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Database Study

Ten-Year Outcomes in Patients Aged 40 Years and Older After Primary Arthroscopic Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement With Labral Repair

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic labral repair has been shown to result in favorable short- and midterm outcomes; however, the durability of outcomes specifically in older patients remains underreported.

PURPOSE

To (1) report prospectively collected hip preservation rates and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum 10-year follow-up in patients aged ≥40 years after primary hip arthroscopy with labral repair and (2) perform a matched analysis comparing patients aged ≥40 years with patients aged <40 years.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed on all patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy between February 2008 and December 2011. Patients aged ≥40 years who underwent labral repair were included. Preoperative and minimum 10-year follow-up scores were collected for multiple PROMs. Propensity score matching was utilized to compare these patients with a cohort of patients <40 years.

RESULTS

Of the 113 hips eligible, 91 hips (80.5%) on 85 patients (6 bilateral) had a minimum 10-year follow-up. There were 58 women (68%) and 27 men (32%) with a mean age and body mass index of 47.8 years and 25.8, respectively. The hip preservation rate for patients aged ≥40 years was 78%, with 20 patients requiring arthroplasty during the study period. There was significant improvement in all PROMs from baseline to minimum 10-year follow-up with high rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State clinical outcome thresholds. In total, 69 patients aged ≥40 years were propensity matched to 107 patients <40 years. Patients ≥40 tended to have a lower hip preservation rate (81.2% vs 91.6%; P = .06), while patients in the younger cohort had significantly higher rates of secondary hip arthroscopy (14% vs 3%; P = .02). Improvement in PROMs was comparable between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Patients ≥40 years who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with labral repair demonstrated a hip preservation rate of 78%, significant and durable improvement in PROMs, and high rates of satisfaction at a minimum 10-year follow-up. Matched analysis with patients <40 years revealed comparable improvement in patient-reported outcomes between the 2 groups, with a tendency to a higher level of arthroplasty in patients ≥40 years.

Hip Labral Repair versus Reconstruction: Meta-analysis

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the postoperative outcomes and complications of labral repair with those of labral reconstruction. An electronic search strategy was conducted from 1986 until August 2023 using the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20). The primary objectives included the postoperative clinical outcomes determined by the number of patients who reached minimal clinical important difference (MCID) on the visual analog scale (VAS), modified Harris hip score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Life (HOS-ADL), and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12). In addition, analysis of the rate of revision arthroscopy, the rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), the postoperative VAS, mHHS, HOS-SS, HOS-ADL, iHOT-12, nonarthritic hip score (NAHS), patient satisfaction, lower extremity function scale (LEFS), and the SF-12 (12-item shortform) was also performed. Any differences arising between the investigators were resolved by discussion. Seventeen studies were relevant to the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. A higher rate of patients who reached MCID in the mHHS (P=0.02) as well as a higher rate of revision arthroscopy was observed for labral repair (P=0.03). The remaining studied outcomes were comparable. Despite the greater predictability of success in the reconstruction group, conduct of additional studies will be required for evaluation of the benefits of such findings. In addition, labral reconstruction is more technically demanding than a labral repair.

High Survival Rate and Satisfaction at more than 11 years of follow-up of Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: Impact of Preoperative Functional Scores, Osteoarthritis, and Chondrolabral Junction Damage on Failure Long-Term 72.6% Survival in Hip Arthroscopy

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to investigate the survival and durability of clinical improvements following hip arthoscopy (HA) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) at a minimum of 10-year follow-up. The primary objective was to determine the long-term survival, defined as: lack of conversion to total hip replacement (THR) or subsequent hip joint preservation surgery (HJPS). The secondary objective was to determine which preoperative factors were predictive of failure.

METHODS

Data from patients who underwent HA for FAIS between March 2003 and May 2012 were collected and retrospectively reviewed. Patients who underwent evaluation at a minimum 10-year follow-up, assessed according to hip outcome score - activities of daily living (HOS-ADL) and sport-specific subscale (HOS-SSS), and non-arthritic hip score (NAHS) were included. Satisfaction ratings were collected. Statistical analysis assessed within-group differences and survival.

RESULTS

95 patients with an average follow-up of 11.8 years were included. Mean age was 39.5 ± 11.0 years. Overall THR conversion rate was 24.2%, with a mean time of 3.4 ± 3.2 years. 3.2% required HJPS revision at a mean 3.2 ± 3 years. Survivorship was 72.6% at ten years. 28 patients (73.6% and 75.6%) achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for HOS-ADL and HOS-SSS, while 33 (84.6%) for NAHS. Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) was achieved by 42 (61.7%), 43 (65.1%) and 44 (64.7%) patients respectively. Comparative analysis between patients who preserved their hip and those who underwent HJPS revision or THR highlighted that Tönnis ≥ 2, chondrolabral junction damage, and lower preoperative scores are associated with failure.

CONCLUSION

HA for FAIS demonstrated durable results, with an accepatable THR conversion rate and sustained clinical benefits. 91.3% of the patients who preserved their hip were satisfied. Tönnis 2, MRA signs of chondrolabral junction damage and lower preoperative functional status are strongly associated with failure.

Decreased Hip Labral Width Measured on Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is Associated With Greater Revision Rate After Primary Arthroscopic Labral Repair for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome at 5-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To examine the associations between hip labral width and patient-reported outcomes, clinical threshold achievement rates, and rate of reoperation among patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) who underwent hip arthroscopy and labral repair at minimum 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

Patients were identified from a prospective database who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for treatment of labral tears and FAIS. Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS) were recorded preoperatively and at 5-year follow-up. Achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) was determined using previously established values. Labral width magnetic resonance imaging measurements were performed by 2 independent readers at standardized "clockface" locations. Patients were stratified into 3 groups at each position: lower-width (<½ SD below mean), middle-width (within ½ SD of mean), and upper-width (>½ SD above mean). Multivariable regression was used to evaluate associations of labral width with patient-reported outcomes and reoperation rate.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients (age: 41.0 ± 12.0 years; 68.5% female) were included. Inter-rater reliability for labral width measurements was high at all positions (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.94-0.96). There were no significant intergroup differences in mHHS/NAHS improvement (P > .05) or in achievement rates of MCID/SCB/PASS at each clockface position (P > .05). Eleven patients (15.1%) underwent arthroscopic revision and 4 patients (5.5%) converted to total hip arthroplasty. Multivariable analysis found lower-width groups at 11:30 (odds ratio 1.75, P = .02) and 3:00 (odds ratio 1.59, P = .04) positions to have increased odds of revision within 5 years; however, labral width was not associated with 5-year improvement in mHHS/NAHS, achievement of MCID/PASS/SCB, or conversion to total hip arthroplasty (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Hip labral width <½ SD below the mean measured on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging at 11:30- and 3:00-clockface positions was associated with increased odds of reoperation after arthroscopic labral repair and treatment of FAIS. Labral width was not associated with 5-year improvement of mHHS, NAHS, achievement of clinical thresholds, or conversion to arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Variation in the Cost of Hip Arthroscopy for Labral Pathological Conditions: A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite growing interest in delivering high-value orthopaedic care, the costs associated with hip arthroscopy remain poorly understood. By employing time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC), we aimed to characterize the cost composition of hip arthroscopy for labral pathological conditions and to identify factors that drive variation in cost.

METHODS

Using TDABC, we measured the costs of 890 outpatient hip arthroscopy procedures for labral pathological conditions across 5 surgeons at 4 surgery centers from 2015 to 2022. All patients were ≥18 years old and were treated by surgeons who each performed ≥20 surgeries during the study period. Costs were normalized to protect the confidentiality of internal hospital cost data. Descriptive analyses and multivariable linear regression were performed to identify factors underlying cost variation.

RESULTS

The study sample consisted of 515 women (57.9%) and 375 men (42.1%), with a mean age (and standard deviation) of 37.1 ± 12.7 years. Most of the procedures were performed in patients who were White (90.6%) or not Hispanic (93.4%). The normalized total cost of hip arthroscopy per procedure ranged from 43.4 to 203.7 (mean, 100 ± 24.2). Of the 3 phases of the care cycle, the intraoperative phase was identified as the largest generator of cost (>90%). On average, supply costs accounted for 48.8% of total costs, whereas labor costs accounted for 51.2%. A 2.5-fold variation between the 10th and 90th percentiles for total cost was attributed to supplies, which was greater than the 1.8-fold variation attributed to labor. Variation in total costs was most effectively explained by the labral management method (partial R2 = 0.332), operating surgeon (partial R2 = 0.326), osteoplasty type (partial R2 = 0.087), and surgery center (partial R2 = 0.086). Male gender (p < 0.001) and younger age (p = 0.032) were also associated with significantly increased costs. Finally, data trends revealed a shift toward labral preservation techniques over debridement during the study period (with the rate of such techniques increasing from 77.8% to 93.2%; Ptrend = 0.0039) and a strong correlation between later operative year and increased supply costs, labor costs, and operative time (p < 0.001 for each).

CONCLUSIONS

By applying TDABC to outpatient hip arthroscopy, we identified wide patient-to-patient cost variation that was most effectively explained by the method of labral management, the operating surgeon, the osteoplasty type, and the surgery center. Given current procedural coding trends, declining reimbursements, and rising health-care costs, these insights may enable stakeholders to design bundled payment structures that better align reimbursements with costs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and Decision Analysis Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Capsular Management at the Time of Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome Varies With Geography and Surgeon Subspecialty Training: A Cross-Sectional, Multinational Surgeon Survey

PURPOSE

To perform a multinational survey and identify patterns in capsular management at the time of hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

An anonymous, nonvalidated survey was distributed by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine; Arthroscopy Association of North America; European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery & Arthroscopy; International Society for Hip Arthroscopy; and Turkish Society of Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, and Knee Surgery. The questions were broken down into 6 categories: demographic characteristics, capsulotomy preference, traction stitches, capsular closure, postoperative rehabilitation, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 157 surgeons. Surgeons who performed half or full T-type capsulotomies had 2.4 higher odds of using traction sutures for managing both the peripheral and central compartments during hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (P = .024). Surgeons who believed that there was sufficient literature regarding the importance of hip capsular closure had 1.9 higher odds of routinely performing complete closure of the capsule (P = .044). Additionally, surgeons who practiced in the United States had 8.1 higher odds of routinely closing the capsule relative to international surgeons (P < .001). Moreover, surgeons who received hip arthroscopy training in residency or fellowship had 2.4 higher odds of closing the capsule completely compared with surgeons who did not have exposure to hip arthroscopy during their training (P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

Geographic and surgeon-related variables correlate with capsular management preferences during hip arthroscopy. Surgeons who perform half or full T-capsulotomies more often use traction stitches for managing both the peripheral and central compartments. Surgeons performing routine capsular closure are more likely to believe that sufficient evidence is available to support the practice, with surgeons in the United States being more likely to perform routine capsular closure in comparison to their international colleagues.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As the field of hip preservation continues to evolve, capsular management will likely continue to play an important role in access, instrumentation, and postoperative outcomes.

Acetabular Labral Reconstruction Does Not Demonstrate Superior Biomechanical Properties Compared to Labral Repair or Intact Native Labrum but Is Superior to Labral Excision: A Systematic Review of Cadaveric Studies

PURPOSE

To systematically review and compare biomechanical properties of labral reconstruction to labral repair, intact native labrum, and labral excision in cadaveric studies.

METHODS

A search of the PubMed and Embase databases was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and checklist. Cadaveric studies focused on hip biomechanics related to intact labrum, labral repair, labral reconstruction, labral augmentation, and labral excision were included. Investigated parameters included biomechanical data measures, such as distraction force, distance to suction seal rupture, peak negative pressure, contact area, and fluid efflux. Review articles, duplicates, technique reports, case reports, opinion articles, articles written in a language other than English, clinical studies focusing on patient-reported outcomes, studies performed in animals, and articles with no abstract available were also excluded.

RESULTS

Fourteen cadaveric biomechanical studies were included that compared labral reconstruction to labral repair (4 studies), labral reconstruction to labral excision (4 studies); and evaluation of distractive force of the labrum (3 studies), the distance to suction seal rupture (3 studies), fluid dynamics (2 studies), displacement at peak force (1 study), and stability ratio (1 study). Data pooling was not performed because of methodological heterogenicity of the studies. Labral reconstruction did not outperform labral repair in restoring the hip suction seal or any other biomechanical property. Labral repair significantly prevented greater fluid efflux when compared to labral reconstruction. Labral repair and reconstruction improved the distractive stability of the hip fluid seal from the labral tear and labral excision stage, respectively. Furthermore, labral reconstruction demonstrated to have better biomechanical properties than labral excision.

CONCLUSIONS

In cadaveric studies, labral repair or intact native labrum was biomechanically more superior than labral reconstruction; however, labral reconstruction can restore acetabular labral biomechanical properties and was biomechanically superior to labral excision.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In cadaveric models, labral repair outperforms segmental labral reconstruction in preserving the hip suction seal; nonetheless, segmental labral reconstruction biomechanically outperforms labral excision at time 0.

Increased 90-Day Readmissions and Complications Following Hip Arthroscopy in Centers With Low Surgical Volume in New York State

PURPOSE

To (1) classify surgical centers in New York State by volume of hip arthroscopies performed, (2) calculate rates of readmissions and complications by center volume, and (3) identify socioeconomic predictive factors for readmissions and complications following hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent hip arthroscopy at New York State health care facilities from 2010 to 2020 were retrospectively identified using the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database. Hip arthroscopic procedures were identified using the following Current Procedural Terminology codes. Surgical center volumes were classified into 3 categories: low (<85th percentile), medium (85th-95th percentile), and high (>95th percentile). Incidence of readmissions and complications within 90 days was abstracted from SPARCS. Neighborhood socioeconomic status was quantified using the U.S. Area Deprivation Index. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether center volume and other socioeconomic variables were independent predictors of outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 50,252 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy were identified in SPARCS from 2010 to 2020. Of these patients, 13,861 (27.6%) underwent surgery at low-volume centers, 11,757 (23.4%) at medium-volume centers, and 24,634 (49.0%) at high-volume centers. Minorities, publicly insured patients, and patients from lower socioeconomic status neighborhoods made up a larger proportion of cases seen by low-volume centers versus high-volume centers (P < .001). Patients in the low-volume group experienced significantly greater 90-day rates of readmissions (P < .001) and all-cause complications (P < .001) than the other groups. Furthermore, high-volume centers were independently associated with lower odds of readmission (odds ratio 0.57, P < .001) and all-cause complications (odds ratio 0.73, P < .001) versus low-volume centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-volume surgical centers are associated with increased readmission and complication rates following hip arthroscopy, independent of other socioeconomic factors such as age, sex, race, insurance status, and neighborhood socioeconomic status.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.

Hip Arthroscopy Trends: Increasing Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs, Lower Surgeon Reimbursement, and Cost Reduction With Utilization of Ambulatory Surgery Centers

PURPOSE

To (1) report on trends in immediate procedure reimbursement, patient out-of-pocket expenditures, and surgeon reimbursement in hip arthroscopy (2) compare trends in ambulatory surgery centers (ASC) versus outpatient hospitals (OH) utilization; (3) quantify the cost differences (if any) associated with ASC versus OH settings; and 4) determine the factors that predict ASC utilization for hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

The cohort for this descriptive epidemiology study was any patient over 18 years identified in the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims Encounter database who underwent an outpatient hip arthroscopy, identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes, in the United States from 2013 to 2017. Immediate procedure reimbursement, patient out-of-pocket expenditure, and surgeon reimbursement were calculated, and a multivariable model was used to determine the influence of specific factors on these outcome variables. Statistically significant P values were less than .05, and significant standardized differences were more than 0.1.

RESULTS

The cohort included 20,335 patients. An increasing trend in ASC utilization was observed (P = .001), and ASC utilization for hip arthroscopy was 32.4% in 2017. Patient out-of-pocket expenditures for femoroacetabular impingement surgery increased 24.3% over the study period (P = .003), which was higher than the rate for immediate procedure reimbursement (4.2%; P = .007). ASCs were associated with $3,310 (28.8%; P = .001) reduction in immediate procedure reimbursement and $47 (6.2%; P = .001) reduction in patient out-of-pocket expenditure per hip arthroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

ASCs provide a significant cost difference for hip arthroscopy. Although there is an increasing trend toward ASC utilization, it remains relatively low at 32.4% in 2017. Thus, there are opportunities for expanded ASC utilization, which is associated with significant immediate procedure reimbursement difference of $3,310 and patient out-of-pocket expenditure difference of $47 per hip arthroscopy case, ultimately benefiting healthcare systems, surgeons, and patients alike.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative trial.

Low Rates of 5-Year Secondary Surgery and Postoperative Complications After Primary Hip Arthroscopy in More Than 30,000 Patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate 90-day complications, 5-year secondary surgery rates, and risk factors for secondary surgery following primary hip arthroscopy performed for femoroacetabular impingement and/or labral tears using a large national dataset.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted using the PearlDiver Mariner151 database. Patients with International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, diagnosis codes for femoroacetabular impingement and/or labral tear undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with femoroplasty, acetabuloplasty, and/or labral repair between 2015 and 2021 were identified. Those with concomitant International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes for infection, neoplasm, or fracture were excluded, as were patients with a history of previous hip arthroscopy or total hip arthroplasty, or age ≥70 years. Rates of complications within 90 days of surgery were assessed. Five-year rates of secondary surgery-revision hip arthroscopy or conversion to total hip arthroplasty-were determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis, and risk factors for secondary surgery were identified by multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 31,623 patients underwent primary hip arthroscopy from October 2015 to April 2021, with annual volumes ranging from 5,340 to 6,343 surgeries per year. Femoroplasty was the most frequent surgical procedure (performed in 81.1% of surgical encounters), followed by labral repair (72.6%) and acetabuloplasty (33.0%). Ninety-day postoperative complication rates were low, with 1.28% of patients experiencing any complication. The 5-year secondary surgery rate was 4.9% (N = 915 patients). Multivariate logistic regression identified age <20 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.50; P < .001), female sex (OR 1.33; P < .001), class I obesity (body mass index 30-34.9: OR 1.30; P = .04), and class II/III obesity (body mass index ≥35.0: OR 1.29; P = .02) as independent predictors of secondary surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of primary hip arthroscopy, 90-day adverse events were low at 1.28%, and the 5-year secondary surgery rate was 4.9%. Age younger than 20 years, female sex, and obesity were risk factors for secondary surgery, suggesting the need for increased surveillance in these patient groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Outcomes After Concomitant Hip Arthroscopy and Periacetabular Osteotomy: A Systematic Review

Background

Despite several studies' reports on outcomes of concomitant hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO), there is a paucity of aggregate data in the literature.

Purpose

To evaluate outcomes and survivorship after concomitant hip arthroscopy and PAO.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

The PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched in April 2022 using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The following keywords were used: (hip OR femoroacetabular impingement) AND (arthroscopy OR arthroscopic) AND (periacetabular osteotomy or rotational osteotomy) AND (outcomes OR follow-up). Of 270 articles initially identified, 10 studies were ultimately included. The following information was recorded for each study if available: publication information; study design; study period; patient characteristics; follow-up time; indications for hip arthroscopy; patient-reported outcomes (PROs); rates of secondary hip preservation surgeries; and rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). Survivorship was defined as nonconversion to THA.

Results

The study periods for the 10 included articles ranged from 2001 to 2018. Three studies were level 3 evidence, and 7 studies were level 4 evidence. This review included 553 hips with a mean follow-up of 1 to 12.8 years. All 10 studies listed dysplasia as an indication for surgery. Of 9 studies that reported PRO scores, 7 reported significant improvement after surgery. Studies with a <5-year follow-up reported conversion to THA rates of 0% to 3.4% and overall secondary surgery rates of 0% to 10.3%. Similarly, studies with >5-year follow-up reported conversion to THA rates of 0% to 3% and overall secondary surgery rates of 0% to 10%.

Conclusion

Patients who underwent concomitant hip arthroscopy and PAO reported favorable outcomes, with 7 of the 9 studies that provided PRO scores indicating significant preoperative to postoperative improvement.

Minimum 10-year Survivorship and Clinical Outcomes Following Primary Hip Arthroscopy with Acetabular Microfracture

PURPOSE

To report minimum 10-year follow-up survivorship, defined as non-conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), and patient-reported outcome scores (PROS) after primary hip arthroscopy with acetabular microfracture in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and acetabular chondral lesions, respectively.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed on all patients who underwent a primary hip arthroscopy and received an acetabular microfracture between June 2009 and January 2011. Patients with a minimum 10-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were included. If available, the minimum 10-year follow-up for the Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale was reported. The demographics, intraoperative findings, surgical procedures, PROS, rate of achieving the minimal clinical important difference (MCID), and secondary surgeries were analyzed and reported.

RESULTS

Twenty-two hips (20 patients) were included in the study, and the mean follow-up time was 124.5 ± 2.2 months. There were 17 hips (77.3%) from males and 5 hips (22.7%) from females. The average patient age at the time of surgery was 42.3 years ± 9.6. All patients on average experienced statistically significant improvement (P < .05) between preoperative and minimum 10-year follow-up scores for all PROs. In total, 77.3% of the patients did not require conversion to THA. Additionally, 83.3% of the patients achieved the MCID for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS for pain.

CONCLUSION

At a minimum 10-year follow-up, survivorship of 77.3% was reported for patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with acetabular microfracture for the treatment of FAIS and focal/full-thickness acetabular cartilage lesions. Further, in the patients that did not require THA conversion, significant improvement in all PROS was demonstrated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case-series study.

Editorial Commentary: Surgeons Planning Hip Labral Arthroscopic Repair Should Have a Backup Plan of Labral Reconstruction or Augmentation Based on Intraoperative Labral Degeneration, Hypoplasia, or Ossification

The arena of hip arthroscopy has seen leaps in practices over the past decade, evolving from surgical debridement of the labrum to improvements in techniques which now allow repair, augmentation, and circumferential reconstruction. But as the operating theater continues to change its act, so too must the preoperative choreography. Recent advancements in the understanding of preoperative risk factors for failure of primary labral repair have identified the diminutive or hypoplastic labra on prescreening magnetic resonance imaging as a negative predictor of success. While this quantitative assessment predicts the anatomical coverage of the labrum, we are still limited in our ability to qualify the latter's tissue substance preoperatively. Ossified or degenerative labra may not have the inherent functional capacity to restore the suction seal of the hip in a primary repair setting. If the applause from the audience fails to reach a significant threshold, we must rethink our act, and that begins with the choreography. The next step in hip arthroscopy is determining if a primary augmentation or reconstruction, in lieu of primary repair, warrants further consideration. Until we develop reliable methods of quantifying and qualifying the labral tissue, both preoperatively and optimally, we should establish backup for surprises encountered while on the "stage."

Duration of Care and Operative Time Are the Primary Drivers of Total Charges After Ambulatory Hip Arthroscopy: A Machine Learning Analysis

PURPOSE

To develop a machine learning algorithm to predict total charges after ambulatory hip arthroscopy and create a risk-adjusted payment model based on patient comorbidities.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the New York State Ambulatory Surgery and Services database was performed to identify patients who underwent elective hip arthroscopy between 2015 and 2016. Features included in initial models consisted of patient characteristics, medical comorbidities, and procedure-specific variables. Models were generated to predict total charges using 5 algorithms. Model performance was assessed by the root-mean-square error, root-mean-square logarithmic error, and coefficient of determination. Global variable importance and partial dependence curves were constructed to show the impact of each input feature on total charges. For performance benchmarking, the best candidate model was compared with a multivariate linear regression using the same input features.

RESULTS

A total of 5,121 patients were included. The median cost after hip arthroscopy was $19,720 (interquartile range, $12,399-$26,439). The gradient-boosted ensemble model showed the best performance (root-mean-square error, $3,800 [95% confidence interval, $3,700-$3,900]; logarithmic root-mean-square error, 0.249 [95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.26]; R² = 0.73). Major cost drivers included total hours in facility less than 12 or more than 15, longer procedure time, performance of a labral repair, age younger than 30 years, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (ECI) of 1 or greater, African American race, residence in extreme urban and rural areas, and higher household and neighborhood income.

CONCLUSIONS

The gradient-boosted ensemble model effectively predicted total charges after hip arthroscopy. Few modifiable variables were identified other than anesthesia type; nonmodifiable drivers of total charges included duration of care less than 12 hours or more than 15 hours, operating room time more than 100 minutes, age younger than 30 years, performance of a labral repair, and ECI greater than 0. Stratification of patients based on the ECI highlighted the increased financial risk borne by physicians via flat reimbursement schedules given variable degrees of comorbidities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Can Non-Contrast 3T MRI scans predict the type of labral procedure in hip arthroscopy?

PURPOSE

The study proposed a simple classification system that aimed at predicting the labral procedure during hip arthroscopy using images from unenhanced 3T MRI scans.

PATENTS AND METHODS

Forty patients undergoing hip arthroscopy had their MRI scans reviewed pre-operatively by one of two senior radiologists and classified into: type 1: stable labrum with intra-substance degeneration (no labral repair required), type 2: unstable labrum, no intra-substance degeneration (labral repair required), or type 3: unstable labrum with intra-substance degeneration (Labral repair not feasible). Hip arthroscopy is carried out by one of two surgeons and classified accordingly while blinded to the radiologists' assessment.

RESULTS

The pre-operative radiological classification managed to predict the labral procedure in 29 cases out of 40 (72.5%). The gamma value was 0.83, and the kappa value was 0.46 denoting moderate agreement. The inter-class correlation coefficient was 0.52 indicating moderate reliability.

CONCLUSION

The proposed classification showed a moderate agreement between the radiological findings and arthroscopic findings. As we cannot accurately correlate the MRI findings with the type of surgical management, the surgeon should be prepared for all scenarios of labral procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV (case series).

Minimum 2-Year Outcomes Following Arthroscopic Hip Labral Reconstruction in Adolescents and Young Adults

BACKGROUND

Labral repair is generally preferred when facing labral tears. When an irreparable labral tear in the context of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is present, arthroscopic labral reconstruction has been proven to be a valid option for labral restoration. However, data on this procedure for the adolescent population is scarce. The purpose of the present study was to report minimum 2-year follow-up patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on adolescents and young adults following arthroscopic acetabular labral reconstruction.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed on adolescents and young adults who underwent hip arthroscopy between March 2009 and June 2018. Inclusion criteria were labral reconstruction, baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up PROMs. Patients were excluded if they were unwilling to participate in the study, had Tönnis grade >1, or dysplasia.

RESULTS

Twenty-three hips (22 patients) that underwent labral reconstruction were included. Ten hips (10 patients) underwent primary labral reconstruction, and 13 hips (12 patients) underwent revision reconstruction. The mean age was 19.3 years and 56.5% of patients were males. All patients improved significantly at minimum 2 years for all PROMs (P<0.001) with high satisfaction. Patients in both groups demonstrated improvement for all PROMs, patient satisfaction, and a rate of achieving the minimal clinically important difference.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic labral reconstruction in adolescents and young adults demonstrated significant improvement and high patient satisfaction at minimum 2-year follow-up in the setting of irreparable labral tear. Favorable outcomes, high patient satisfaction, and high achievement rate for the minimal clinically important difference were obtained following labral reconstruction in this population the primary and revision scenarios.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case-series.

Labral Tear Management in Patients Aged 40 Years and Older Undergoing Primary Hip Arthroscopy: A Propensity-Matched Case-Control Study With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Previous literature has suggested that primary acetabular labral reconstruction leads to lower secondary surgery rates than does labral repair for patients aged ≥40 years.

PURPOSE

To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores, survivorship, and secondary surgeries in patients aged ≥40 years who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction compared with a propensity-matched primary labral repair group.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent a primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome between January 2014 and June 2018. Patients aged ≥40 years who underwent a labral reconstruction or a labral repair and had preoperative and minimum 2-year PROs for the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were included. Patients with previous ipsilateral hip conditions and surgery, Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia, or workers' compensation status were excluded. Patients in the reconstruction group were propensity matched 1:2 to patients in the repair group based on age, sex, and body mass index. Secondary surgeries and achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and maximum outcome improvement (MOI) were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 53 and 106 hips were included in the labral reconstruction and repair groups, respectively. The average follow-up time was 37.6 months. The average ages for the reconstruction and repair groups were 48.01 ± 5.4 years and 48.61 ± 6.0 years, respectively. Both groups achieved significant improvements in all PROs at a minimum of 2 years, with similar achievements of MCID, PASS, and MOI, and comparable secondary surgery rates.

CONCLUSION

Patients aged ≥40 years who received primary labral repair and primary labral reconstruction achieved similar significant improvements in all PROs, VAS pain, and patient satisfaction at the minimum 2-year follow-up, with comparable rates of secondary surgeries and achieving MCID, PASS, and MOI. Based on these findings, labral repair remains the gold standard treatment for viable labrum in this population group, while reconstruction is a useful alternative for irreparable labrum.

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.

Editorial Commentary: Assistive Technologies for Hip Arthroscopic Cam Resection Will Improve Diagnostic and Surgical Accuracy: Desperately Needed and Here to Stay

Hip arthroscopy is technically demanding and presents a steep learning curve. Joint access and maneuverability of surgical tools are impeded by a large soft-tissue envelope. Furthermore, cam resection is challenging owing to the small size of the lesion and the difficulty in delineating what is normal and where the cam starts. Thus, the number of incomplete resections is high and represents the bulk of indications for revision hip arthroscopy. The search for assistive technologies to improve on diagnostics and surgical accuracy is consequently substantial and unquestionably needed. Intraoperative feedback will improve our resection accuracy while decreasing the learning efforts of both expert and novice surgeons.

Repair versus Debridement for Acetabular Labral Tears-A Systematic Review

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain whether acetabular labral repair (ALR) or debridement (ALD) resulted in superior patient outcomes.

Methods

The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Peer-reviewed studies comparing ALR and ALD published in English with full text available were included. Patients undergoing both open and arthroscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies were included. Studies were quantified for methodological quality using the MINORS criteria. Clinical outcomes were compared, with qualitative analysis, and quantitative analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism version 7. A P value <.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

There were 8 studies included (level of evidence [LOE] I = 1; LOE II = 2; LOE III = 5). The 7 studies compared 364 patients (369 hips) with ALR to 318 patients (329 hips) with ALD, with a mean follow-up time ranging between 32-120 months. Five studies found significantly improved patient reported outcomes with ALR (Harris Hip Score, Merle d'Aubigné, Pain, SF-12). Several studies compared the outcomes after ALR and ALD and found statistical significance in all investigated metrics in favor of ALR. One study found a significant improvement in abduction but no other study found any difference in range of motion. No study found any difference in complication rate, revision rate or conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Although, 2 studies found ALR reduced the rate of osteoarthritic progression.

Conclusion

Current literature suggests that acetabular labral repair may result in superior patient reported outcomes. However, there appears to be no significant difference in the rate of progression to total hip arthroplasty at up to 10-year follow-up.

Level of Evidence

Level III, systematic review of Level I, II, and III studies.

Hip Arthroscopy With and Without A Perineal Post: A Comparison of Early Postoperative Pain

PURPOSE

To compare postoperative pain and early recovery after hip arthroscopy with and without a perineal post for joint distraction.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients who underwent hip arthroscopy before and after the adoption of a postless technique. Patients who underwent concurrent periacetabular or femoral osteotomy were excluded. Demographic information, procedure variables, and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores were recorded. Analgesic medications given were converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for comparison. Uni- and multivariate analyses were conducted to compare total MME, postoperative pain, and time to discharge between groups.

RESULTS

One hundred patients were in each group. The overall age (mean ± standard deviation) was 26.5 ± 9.9 years (Post [P]: 57 females; No Post [NP]: 68 females). Total operative time (P 100.4 ± 17.9 minutes vs NP 89.1 ± 25.5 minutes, P = .0004), traction time (P 45.8 ± 10.3 minutes vs NP 40.9 ± 11.1 minutes, P = .0017), and operating room time (P 148.8 ± 19.3 minutes vs NP 137.3 ± 25.8 minutes, P = .0005) were found to be shorter in the NP group. Total MME, and final VAS pain scores in the PACU were similar between both groups (MME, P = .1620; VAS, P = .2139). Time to discharge was significantly shorter in the NP group (P 207.2 ± 58.8 vs NP 167.5 ± 47.9, P < .0001). Patient age (≥25 years) (65.2 ± 18.1 vs 59.8 ± 15.7 [MME], P = .0269) and elevated body mass index (≥25) (65.1 ± 17.1 vs 59.3 ± 16.4 [MME], P = .0164) were factors associated with greater total MME consumption. Female sex was associated with higher postoperative VAS pain scores (FM 4.1 ± 1.6 vs M 3.4 ± 1.8 P = .0027).

CONCLUSIONS

Adoption of the postless technique did not result in prolonged operating room or operative time. Overall, both groups had similar postoperative pain, however, the time from surgery to hospital discharge was shorter in the postless group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparison study.

‘Mini-Max’ knotless acetabular labrum repair: repair construct rationale and allocation in a consecutive case series with minimum 1-year clinical outcomes

To describe the ‘mini-Max’ approach to labrum repair using non-absorbable 2.4-mm knotless suture anchors and report objective clinical outcomes with a large single-surgeon cohort. Level 3 retrospective case series. A retrospective review was conducted to report the use and allocation of non-absorbable 2.4-mm knotless suture anchors during ‘mini-Max’ labral repair from 2015 to 2018. Descriptive analysis of the labral damage severity, size and number of anchors used to arthroscopically repair the acetabular labrum was performed. Paired-samples t-tests were performed to evaluate whether preoperative and 1-year follow-up patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were statistically significant. An analysis of variance was performed comparing PROs with categorized number of labral anchors. A total of 390 patients were queried in this study, with 330 (85%) diagnosed intraoperatively with acetabular labral tears. A total of 245 patients (137 females and 108 males) with a mean age of 30.1 ± 11.6 years (mean ± SD) at the time of surgery underwent ‘mini-Max’ labral refixation. Of the 245 labral tears, 88 (35.9%) were graded as mild, 113 (46.1%) as moderate and 44 (18.0%) as severe. Labral repairs required an average of 2.1 ± 0.67 anchors across all patients included. Forty-one repairs (16.7%) required one anchor, 139 (56.7%) required two anchors, 63 (25.7%) required three anchors and 2 (0.8%) required four anchors. Significant improvements were reported for all PROs (P ≤ .001) at a minimum of 1-year follow-up. Arthroscopic ‘mini-Max’ labral repair using non-absorbable knotless suture anchors is a safe and effective technique for improving the lives of patients suffering from symptomatic acetabular labrum tears.

Editorial Commentary: Hip Arthroscopy Evolution and Causes of Failure

Hip arthroscopy use has grown as a result of expanding indications; improved imaging including higher resolution magnetic resonance imaging with stronger magnetic fields and the advent of 3-dimensional computed tomography revealing the nuances of hip joint morphology; increased specialized training; improvements in instruments and implants; a record of successful outcomes; and increased understanding of microinstability, focal acetabular undercoverage or occult dysplasia, indications for labral reconstruction and capsular plication, and, most of all, femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, the leading diagnosis for which hip arthroscopy is performed, in the orthopaedic community as well as the general medical and athletic communities. We now know that labral repair results in better outcomes than labral debridement, and evidence suggests that capsule closure leads to better long-term success. Osteoarthritis and its correlate, advanced age, result in inferior survivorship after hip arthroscopy, which is unsurprising; hip preservation surgery is not designed to treat irreparable cartilage damage. Association of female sex with hip arthroscopy failure requires additional investigation. More females undergo hip arthroscopy than males, and females initially present with greater disability. Females tend to have smaller alpha angles, greater femoral and acetabular anteversion, and lower center edge angles than males, consistent with increased prevalence of hip dysplasia. Thus surgeons indicating females for hip arthroscopy should be aware of atypical locations of cam lesions, borderline dysplasia, or ligamentous laxity, all of which must be appropriately respected at the time of surgery. With all of the improvements we have made in techniques, patient diagnosis and surgical indications, and our overall understanding of complex anatomy and a technically challenging surgery, we can speculate that our long-term survivorship will only improve. I await with interest the long-term outcomes we will see 10 years from today, with the addition of insight from patient-reported outcome measures to answer these questions with greater certainty.

The Arthroscopic Surgery Skill Evaluation Tool Global Rating Scale is a Valid and Reliable Adjunct Measure of Performance on a Virtual Reality Simulator for Hip Arthroscopy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to further evaluate the construct validity and interobserver reliability of a hip arthroscopy virtual simulator using the Arthroscopic Surgery Skill Evaluation Tool (ASSET) global rating scale.

METHODS

Thirty participants (23 male/7 female) completed a diagnostic arthroscopy and a loose body retrieval simulation on the VirtaMed Arthros Hip Simulator (Zurich, Switzerland) twice at a minimum of 1 week apart. Subjects consisted of 12 novices (medical students, postgraduate year [PGY] 1-2), 5 intermediate trainees (PGY3-4), 9 senior trainees (PGY5 and fellows), and 4 attending faculty. Simulator metrics were recorded and then compiled to generate a total simulator score (TSS). The loose body retrieval was graded using the ASSET scoring tool. Inter-rater and intrarater reliability for the ASSET for 2 blinded raters and construct validity of the ASSET and the TSS were calculated. Correlation between the TSS, ASSET and individual simulator metrics was determined.

RESULTS

Prior simulation experience (P ≤ 0.01) correlated with higher TSS and higher ASSET, while video game experience correlated with higher TSS on the diagnostic module only (P = 0.004). There was a significant difference in ASSET score among all experience groups (P < 0.04). Novices had the lowest mean ASSET whereas experts had the highest mean ASSET with a difference of 17.4 points. Overall performance on the surgical module significantly correlated with the ASSET score (r = 0.444, P = 0.016). There was a significant positive correlation among higher ASSET and number of loose bodies retrieved, operation time, camera path and grasper path length, and percentage of cartilage injury. ASSET demonstrated excellent intrarater reliability and showed substantial or better inter-reliability in 8 of 9 domains.

CONCLUSION

The VirtaMed hip arthroscopy simulator demonstrated good construct validity and excellent reliability for simulator-based metrics and ASSET score. Use of both simulator metrics and ASSET offers a more comprehensive performance assessment on hip arthroscopy simulation than either measure alone.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As virtual reality simulation for arthroscopy becomes more commonplace in orthopaedic training, evaluation of the most effective objective and subjective measures of performance is necessary to optimize simulation training.

Increased hip arthroscopy operative duration is an independent risk factor for overnight hospital admission

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the association between operative duration and short-term complications as well as overnight hospital admission following hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

Hip arthroscopy cases from 2006 to 2016 were retrieved from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program registry, which prospectively collects 30-day postoperative complications. Patients were stratified into the following groups based on procedure length: group 1 (< 60 min), group 2 (60-120 min), and group 3 (> 120 min). Preoperative characteristics were compared across the cohorts. Multivariate regressions were used to compare complication rates and overnight hospital admission between the three groups. Independent risk factors for overnight hospital admission were characterized.

RESULTS

A total of 2129 hip arthroscopy cases were identified. Average operative duration was 99.3 ± 55.7 min. As operative time increased, patients were more likely to be younger, male, and had lower American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (p < 0.001). Body mass index and comorbidity profiles were similar across the patient cohorts, with the exception of hypertension being more prevalent in the shorter operative time cohort (p < 0.001). Patients in group 3 were more likely to stay overnight in the hospital (26.0%) compared to patients in groups 1 (7.7%) and 2 (10.9%), p < 0.001). All postoperative complication rates were otherwise similar between the cohorts. Independent risk factors for overnight hospital admission included increasing operative time (most notably > 120 min relative to < 60 min, relative risk [RR] = 3.53, 95% CI 2.50-5.00, p < 0.001) and increasing ASA classification (most notably ASA III or IV relative to ASA I, RR = 1.64, 95% CI 1.18-2.27; p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing operative duration was not associated with increased postoperative complications following hip arthroscopy. However, patients were more than three times likely to stay in the hospital overnight if their surgery was longer than 120 min, relative to cases that were less than 60 min.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Incidence of Hip Dysplasia Diagnosis in Young Patients With Hip Pain: A Geographic Population Cohort Analysis

Background

Hip dysplasia is a common source of hip pain and a known cause of early osteoarthritis of the hip.

Purpose

To (1) define the population-based incidence of hip dysplasia diagnosis in young patients presenting with hip pain in a large geographically defined cohort, (2) analyze trends regarding presentation and diagnosis of hip dysplasia, and (3) report the rate and type of surgical interventions used to treat this population.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A geographic epidemiological database was queried to identify patients aged 14 to 50 years with hip pain between the years 2000 and 2016. Patient medical records were analyzed, and demographic, imaging, clinical, and treatment history were recorded. Incidence trends were examined by use of linear regression with confidence intervals for age and calendar year.

Results

Overall, 1893 patients were included. Of these, 156 patients (196 hips) had a diagnosis of hip dysplasia. The incidence of hip dysplasia diagnosis in patients who reported hip pain was 12.7 per 100,000 person-years. Patients with dysplasia had a mean age of 26.7 ± 9.8 years, while the highest age-adjusted incidence occurred at age 14 to 18 years in both male and female patients. Female patients had double the age-adjusted incidence of male patients (cases per 100,000 person-years: 16.8 [95% CI, 13.9-19.7] vs 8.7 [95% CI, 6.6-10.8]; P < .01). Of the patients who underwent magnetic resonance imaging, 77% had imaging consistent with labral pathology. Patients were treated with physical therapy (67%), intra-articular steroid injection (29%), hip arthroscopy (10%), and periacetabular osteotomy (9%). The use of hip arthroscopy significantly increased over time (P < .01), whereas the use of steroid injection and periacetabular osteotomy did not (P < .28 and P < .08, respectively).

Conclusion

The incidence of hip dysplasia diagnosis in patients presenting with hip pain was 12.7 per 100,000 person-years. Female patients had twice the age-adjusted incidence of male patients, and the highest age-adjusted incidence occurred in the age range of 14 to 18 years in both sexes. The use of hip arthroscopy to treat patients with hip dysplasia significantly increased over time.

Editorial Commentary: With Properly Indicated and Performed Surgery, We Can (Hopefully) Prevent Osteoarthritis in Patients With Hip Femoroacetabular Impingement

Surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome has been proven to be tremendously successful, outperforming the best conservative care and physical therapy in several prospective multicenter randomized controlled trials. The durability of this operation over time is less commonly reported on. We do know that FAI is associated with the development of hip osteoarthritis, and this is well established. We also know that surgical FAI treatment results in good short-term return to function/sport and improvements in patient-reported outcomes. We do not yet know if we are able to alter the natural history of FAI and prevent or delay conversion to total hip arthroplasty in this population.

Femoral Version in Hip Arthroscopy: Does it Matter?

Femoral version is extremely variable between patients presenting with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Careful and routine measurement of femoral anteversion is essential in comprehensive preoperative planning. In general, low degrees of femoral version can lead to anterior impingement (especially on the subspine and distal medial femoral neck). High degrees of anteversion can be seen in the setting of acetabular dysplasia and can lead to anterior hip instability and or posterior impingement. In this article, the authors will discuss the role of routine femoral version management for optimal outcomes after hip arthroscopy for FAI.

Defining the Clinically Meaningful Outcomes for Arthroscopic Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome at Minimum 10-Year Follow-up: The Timing of Surgery Is Crucial

Background

Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) has become a common procedure. However, meaningful long-term clinical outcomes have not been defined.

Purpose

To define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) at a minimum 10-year follow-up in patients undergoing arthroscopic treatment for FAIS and identify preoperative predictors for achievement of the MCID, SCB, and PASS.

Study Design

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A consecutive series of patients undergoing arthroscopic treatment for FAIS between 2007 and 2009 with a minimum 10-year follow-up was analyzed. Patient data included patient characteristics, radiographic parameters, and the pre- and postoperative mHHS and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain score. Paired t tests were used to compare the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The MCID was determined by calculating half of the standard deviation, and SCB and PASS were calculated by the anchor method. Correlation and logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors for the achievement of the MCID, SCB, and PASS.

Results

A total of 44 patients (27 men, 17 women) were included. The mean age and body mass index were 42.2 years (range, 16-67 years) and 22.3 kg/m² (range, 16.76-29.78 kg/m²), respectively. The MCID, absolute SCB, net change SCB, and PASS of the mHHS were calculated to be 19.6, 90.1, 31.5, and 84.4 points, respectively. Preoperative symptom duration was identified as an independent predictor for the achievement of meaningful clinical outcomes. The median symptom durations for patients who achieved the MCID, absolute SCB, net change SCB, and PASS were 11.7, 9.1, 9.0, and 10.8 months, respectively. The median symptom duration for patients who did not achieve the MCID, absolute SCB, net change SCB, and PASS were 15.8, 17.4, 17.3, and 18.4 months, respectively. No other statistically significant correlations were found.

Conclusion

The preoperative duration of symptoms was identified as an independent predictor for achievement of the MCID, SCB, and PASS. These findings can be helpful in accelerating the transition to surgical treatment of FAIS.

Editorial Commentary: Expansion of Hip Arthroscopy in Sports Medicine Fellowship Training: The Good, Bad, and Ugly

Orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship experience in hip arthroscopy is increasing rapidly (2.6-fold from 2011 to 2016), although the case numbers vary quite widely (64-fold) depending on the program. Orthopaedic providers are now able to refine diagnoses and refer or render indicated less-invasive hip treatment options, many of which yield outcomes equaling or surpassing those of open equivalents. Patients benefit. Our profession benefits. However, advanced hip arthroscopy procedures are technically challenging, and complications can be significant in inexperienced hands. For those who choose to perform hip arthroscopy after fellowship training, continuing hip arthroscopy education and skill development is essential.

Orthopaedic Surgery Sports Medicine Fellows See Substantial Increase in Hip Arthroscopy Procedural Volume With High Variability From 2011 to 2016

PURPOSE

To analyze the trends in operative experience, specifically procedures of the shoulder, hip and knee, of fellows graduating from Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships between 2011 and 2016.

METHODS

The 2011-2016 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education orthopaedic surgery sports medicine fellow case logs were retrieved for analysis. Trends in the mean case volume for procedures of the shoulder, hip, and knee were analyzed. Linear regression was used to identify significant changes in trends over time for each surgical case/procedure. Variation in case volume between fellows in the lowest (10th) and highest (90th) centile was assessed for first and last year of the study.

RESULTS

The average number of total procedures per fellow minimally decreased by 3.5% from 2011 to 2016 (726 to 701 cases) (P < .001). The mean total number of hip procedures significantly increased by 155% from 24.9 to 63.5 (P = .049). There were no significant differences in the mean total number of shoulder (P = .88) and knee procedures (P = .54). Arthroscopic hip procedures had the largest increase from 2011 to 2016 (14.1 to 57.8 [+310%], P = .049). There was greater than 2-fold difference in total procedural volume between fellows in the 10th and 90th percentile for 2011 and 2016, with the greatest variation (64-fold) for arthroscopic hip procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study there was a 2.6-fold increase in hip procedures, largely driven by a 310% rise in arthroscopic hip cases. The average procedural volume per fellow minimally decreased, with no change in the mean number of shoulder and knee procedures.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Understanding variability in case exposure among orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships is important for programs to ensure that fellows are appropriately exposed to all facets of sports medicine procedures.

HIP AND PELVIC STABILITY AND GAIT RETRAINING IN THE MANAGEMENT OF ATHLETIC PUBALGIA AND HIP LABRAL PATHOLOGY IN A FEMALE RUNNER: A CASE REPORT

BACKGROUND

Athletic pubalgia is a prevalent injury in athletes who kick, pivot, and cut, however it is poorly described in the literature. Many athletes with this diagnosis fail conservative management secondary to continued pain with activity and require surgical intervention for return to sport.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this case report is to describe an intervention strategy focusing on gait retraining and hip and lumbopelvic stability for a female runner diagnosed with athletic pubalgia and a labral tear of the hip.

CASE DESCRIPTION

This case report involved a 45-year-old female runner who was seen for 14 visits, from examination to return to sport, with a follow up at 12 months post discharge. Interventions included hip, pelvic, and lumbar stability exercises, and gait retraining. Outcomes measurements included: pain on the numeric pain rating scale, the Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), gait mechanics, strength, and participation in sport.

OUTCOMES

At discharge the subject demonstrated improved strength of all muscle groups and changes in lower extremity running biomechanics. Changes in running mechanics included increased cadence, decreased pelvic drop, diminished over striding, and improved knee control with less valgus movement during the stance phase of gait. The subject reported no pain with running or recreational activities at discharge and follow up at 12 months post discharge.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

Most of the literature on conservative rehabilitation for athletic pubalgia focuses on athletes whose sports require pivoting and kicking. The literature provides little information on gait analysis and retraining for runners with a diagnosis of athletic pubalgia and/or hip labrum tears. The program used in this case report including gait retraining and hip, pelvic, and lumbar stability training allowed for full return to running in a 45-year-old female with a diagnosis of hip labrum tear and athletic pubalgia. Further research is needed to discern best conservative treatment for runners with athletic pubalgia and/or hip labral tears.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Reporting Clinical Significance in Hip Arthroscopy: Where Are We Now?

BACKGROUND

Although p values are standard for reporting statistical significance of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the shift toward clinically important outcome values, including minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB), necessitates re-evaluation of the current literature.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We sought to answer two questions regarding studies on primary hip arthroscopy performed for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). (1) Do such studies reporting statistical significance on common PROMs meet published MCID/SCB thresholds? (2) What proportion of such studies report both statistical and clinical significance?

METHODS

We identified four papers published in two journals defining MCID/SCB values on the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score-Sport (HOS-Sport), international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33), and its short version (iHOT-12) for different groups of FAIS patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. We reviewed these two journals from the dates of publication to the present to identify papers reporting changes in post-operative PROMs. The difference in pre- and post-operative scores on each PROM was calculated and compared to MCID/SCB thresholds.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were included. Ten studies (83%) evaluated mHHS (90% met MCID, 50% met SCB), seven (58%) evaluated HOS-ADL (100% met MCID/SCB) and HOS-Sport (100% met MCID, 57% met SCB), and one (8%) evaluated iHOT-33 (met MCID/SCB) and iHOT-12 (met MCID). Most studies met MCID and SCB at both 1- and 2-year timepoints. Of the studies evaluated, 50% reported clinical relevance.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly all studies evaluated met MCID, while fewer met SCB. Only half discussed these clinical measures. It is proposed that all future studies report both statistical and clinical significance as standard best practice.

Arthroscopic acetabular labral reconstruction: a review

The function and importance of the acetabular labrum in hip biomechanics have been determined. A labral tear is one of the most common findings in the hip preservation field, commonly associated with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome. It has been established that the restoration of labral anatomy and function are key factors to improve patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) and psychometric tools following arthroscopic hip arthroscopy in the context of FAI syndrome. Labral repair or refixation is currently the gold-standard surgical option when facing labral tears, with clinical mid to long-term data supporting its use. Labral selective debridement has proven to be a valid alternative in selective patients. Acetabular labral reconstruction has risen as an alternative to labral excision or resection when repair is not an option due to labral tissue deficiency. Restoring the labral sealing mechanism is the goal behind the acetabular labral reconstruction. It has been proven that labral reconstruction leads to superior PROMs when compared with resection. This review presents an analysis of the indications, techniques, and outcomes for arthroscopic acetabular labral reconstruction.

Threshold Values for Success After Hip Arthroscopy Using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Assessment: Determining the Minimum Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State

BACKGROUND

Threshold values for patient-reported outcome measures, such as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), are important for relating postoperative outcomes to meaningful functional improvement.

PURPOSE

To determine the PASS and MCID after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) questionnaire.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A consecutive series of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement were administered preoperative and minimum 1-year postoperative PROMIS surveys focusing on physical function (PF) and pain interference (PI). External anchor questions for the MCID and PASS were given with the postoperative PROMIS survey. Receiver operator curves were constructed to determine the threshold values for the MCID and PASS. Curves were generated for the study population as well as separate cohorts segregated by median baseline PF or PI scores and preoperative athletic participation. A multivariate post hoc analysis was then constructed to evaluate factors associated with achieving the PASS or MCID.

RESULTS

There were 113 patients (35% male; mean ± SD age, 32.8 ± 12.5 years; body mass index, 25.8 ± 4.8 kg/m²), with 60 (53%) reporting preoperative athletic participation. Survey time averaged 77.5 ± 49.2 seconds. Anchor-based MCID values were 5.1 and 10.9 for the PF and PI domains, respectively. PASS thresholds were 51.8 and 51.9 for the PF and PI, respectively. PASS values were not affected by baseline scores, but athletic patients had a higher PASS threshold than did those not participating in a sport (53.1 vs 44.7). MCID values were affected by preoperative baseline scores but were largely independent of sports participation. A post hoc analysis found that 94 (83%) patients attained the MCID PF while 66 (58%) attained the PASS PF. A multivariate nominal logistic regression found that younger patients (P = .01) and athletic patients (P = .003) were more likely to attain the PASS.

CONCLUSION

The PROMIS survey is an efficient metric to evaluate preoperative disability and postoperative function after primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement. The MCID and PASS provide surgeons with threshold values to help determine PROMIS scores that are clinically meaningful to patients, and they can assist with therapeutic decision making as well as expectation setting.

Is Labral Size Predictive of Failure With Repair in Hip Arthroscopy?

PURPOSE

To assess whether labral size is predictive of labral repair failure or shows an association with patient outcomes after hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent arthroscopic hip labral repair. Labral size was measured in 4 quadrants with an arthroscopic probe. The average size across torn labral segments was assessed for failure as determined by the change in patient-reported outcomes, the rate at which subjects achieved the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state, and the need for additional surgery. Outcomes were evaluated for any continuous correlation as well as significant differences between the middle 50% of labral sizes and classes of labral sizes derived from upper and lower quartile and decile ranges. Included hips were those from patients aged between 18 and 55 years with 2-year postoperative follow-up and lateral center-edge angles between 25° and 40°.

RESULTS

The study included 571 hips. Labral width did not show a significant difference between hips requiring revision and those not requiring revision (P = .4054). No significant correlation was found between labral width and the change in the International Hip Outcome Tool 12 score (R² = 0.05780), modified Harris Hip Score (R² = 0.19826), or Nonarthritic Hip Score (R² = 0.23543) from preoperatively to 2 years postoperatively. Hips with labral sizes in the upper decile of our cohort showed significantly decreased improvement in the International Hip Outcome Tool 12 score (P = .0287) and Nonarthritic Hip Score (P = .0490) compared with the middle 50% of labral sizes. No statistically significant difference was found in the rate at which the groups achieved the minimal clinically important difference or patient acceptable symptomatic state.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypertrophic labra in the largest 10th percentile showed lower postoperative outcome scores. However, no detectable clinical benefit was found in terms of patient-perceived clinical difference or acceptable symptomatic state. For most patients, labral size does not appear to significantly alter patient outcomes or the need for arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective case series.

Editorial Commentary: When Enough Is Enough-Orthopaedic Procedures With Long Learning Curves and the Case of Hip Arthroscopy

The incidence of hip arthroscopy is increasing over time, as is the rate of labral repairs performed by American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery candidates in general and by sports medicine fellowship-trained candidates in particular. However, both arthroscopic labral debridement and repair yield excellent minimum 10-year outcomes in well-selected femoroacetabular impingement patients. In my practice, most hip arthroscopy patients undergo labral repair, and labral reconstruction is performed in about 4%, so I view the rising use of labral repair as a step forward. But concerns remain. How many of these American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery candidates will be able to hone their arthroscopic skills (and clinical judgment) in anywhere near the number of cases needed to achieve demonstrably low reoperation rates? In addition, will these fledgling surgeons be able to perform labral reconstructions or augmentations when indicated, bearing in mind that only half of such cases could be predicted preoperatively? The definition of adequate hip arthroscopy training remains up for grabs.