Arthroscopic Management of Dysplastic Hip Deformities: Predictors of Success and Failures With Comparison to an Arthroscopic FAI Cohort

Editorial Commentary: Trends in Hip Arthroscopy Require Rapid Dissemination From Higher-Volume and Academic Surgeons to the Greater Orthopaedic Community

Trends in hip arthroscopy show that labral repair and preservation, capsular repair and preservation, and treatment of femoroacetabular impingement during hip arthroscopy are associated with superior short-term and mid- to longer-term outcomes. Hip arthroscopy, and in particular arthroscopic femoroacetabular impingement correction, is in its infancy compared with many other orthopaedic procedures. As we assimilate knowledge, data, and evidence-based research, it is critical to evaluate surgical trends and how they affect our management of these patients and pathologies. However, it is important to recognize that there is great variability with regards to surgical volume and awareness of impending evidence-based research for relatively newer procedures such as hip arthroscopy. This can lead to delays for incorporating newer evidence-based techniques. The gap is closing, but the time required to close this disparity in management trends between higher-volume/academic surgeons and the orthopaedic community as a whole could be shorter. Whether this delay for adapting evidence-based trends is consistent across the spectrum of orthopaedic surgery or specific to smaller subspecialty areas such as hip arthroscopy is unclear. Regardless, it is essential that those who are performing the larger volume of cases and research must raise our voices, turn up our loudspeakers, and publish, present, and use social media platforms to spread the word of the latest evidence-based trends quickly! It is equally critical for the greater orthopaedic community to listen for the benefit of patients. If all parties collaborate, we can get up to speed in a timelier manner and achieve the best-possible outcomes together.

The Principles of Hip Joint Preservation

The 3 primary factors involved with preservation of the hip joint are femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), hip dysplasia, and femoral torsion abnormalities. Each of these factors affects the health of the acetabular labrum and femoroacetabular cartilage. The appropriate surgical treatments for each of these factors include arthroscopic or open femoroplasty or acetabuloplasty for FAI, periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for acetabular dysplasia, and de-rotational femoral osteotomy for femoral torsion abnormalities. When evaluating patients with prearthritic hip conditions, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the various factors involved in hip joint preservation and, if surgery is indicated, surgeons should be sure to address all factors that need surgical treatment rather than focusing on the most obvious issue or injury (e.g., a labral tear). The purpose of this infographic is to illustrate the importance of the factors involved in hip joint preservation and the appropriate treatments for pathology in any of these factors.

Long-term Survivorship and Outcomes of Patients Without Dysplasia Undergoing Capsular Repair During Primary Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of literature evaluating long-term outcomes and survivorship of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with capsular repair for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

PURPOSE

To report 10-year survivorship and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after primary hip arthroscopy with capsular repair for FAIS and evaluate the effect of capsular repair in patients at the highest risk for conversion to arthroplasty.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed on all patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with capsular repair between October 2008 and February 2011. Patients with a minimum 10-year follow-up on the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and visual analog scale for pain (VAS) scores were selected. The preoperative and minimum 10-year follow-up Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) scores were also reported, if available. Patients with ipsilateral hip surgery, worker's compensation, Tönnis osteoarthritis grade >1, and hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <25°) were excluded. Survivorship, PROS, and clinical benefit-minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS)-were reported. An additional propensity-matched subanalysis was performed on patients at the highest risk for conversion to arthroplasty, comparing patients undergoing capsular repair to patients with unrepaired capsules.

RESULTS

A total of 145 (n = 130 patients) out of 180 eligible hips (n = 165 patients) had a minimum 10-year follow-up (80.6%). Also, 126 hips (86.9%) belonged to women, and 19 hips (13.1%) belonged to men. The mean patient age was 30.3 ± 12.9 years. The survivorship rate was 91% at the 10-year follow-up. The cohort experienced significant improvements (P < .001) in the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS for pain scores. Moreover, the cohort achieved high rates of the PASS for the mHHS (89.8%), high rates of the MCID for the mHHS (82.4%), and high rates of the MCID for VAS for pain (80.6%) scores. In the propensity-matched subanalysis performed on patients with the highest risk for arthroplasty, 29 hips with capsular repair were matched to 81 hips with unrepaired capsules. While both groups experienced significant improvements in all PROs (P < .05), the group without capsule repair trended toward a higher conversion to arthroplasty rate when compared with the repair group. In addition, an odds ratio was calculated for the likelihood of converting to arthroplasty after having an unrepaired capsule compared with capsular repair (2.54 [95% CI, 0.873-7.37]; P = .087).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with capsular repair experienced a high survivorship rate of 91% at a minimum 10-year follow-up. Patients who did not convert to arthroplasty saw favorable improvements in PROs and achieved high clinical benefit rates. In addition, among those patients at the highest risk for conversion to arthroplasty, a trend toward greater survivorship was observed with capsular repair.

Editorial Commentary: Revision Hip Arthroscopy in Patients With Borderline Dysplasia Has a Role: Indications Are Narrow Versus Periacetabular Osteotomy

Hip arthroscopy (HA) is preferred for surgical management of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, whereas periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is the gold standard for frank developmental hip dysplasia in young adults. Borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) is a conundrum, with data supporting the use of either or both, not to mention that BHD is defined by varying lateral center-edge angle thresholds between 18° and 25° or 20° and 25° and features generalized ligamentous laxity and variations in acetabular and femoral version. That said, HA for BDH has been shown to have 10-year survivorship of 82%. In a revision situation after HA in patients with BHD, PAO seems a logical next step, but HA may be indicated under narrow indications. From a technical standpoint, capsular preservation, labral function restoration, and avoiding acetabular rim over-resection are key points when performing HA in BHD. Most important, particularly in the revision setting, is to determine the root cause of failure. Primarily, instability-driven symptoms are an indication for PAO.

Characterizations of Capsule Closure in Hip Arthroscopy Are Infrequently and Incompletely Reported: A Systematic Review

Purpose

To review the recent literature to provide an updated characterization of capsule closure techniques in hip arthroscopy and to determine if the characteristics of closure impacted clinical outcomes.

Methods

In keeping with the Preferred Reporting in Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review was performed with the following eligibility criteria: patients over 18 years of age who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with reporting of patient reported outcome measures or revision/failure, and a sufficiently detailed description of capsule closure. The GRADE framework evaluated study quality, and ROBINS-I evaluated the risk of bias.

Results

Across 18 studies (N = 3277) an interportal capsulotomy was reported in 12 studies (1972/3277) cases, and a T-type capsulotomy was reported in six studies (1305/3277) cases). Six studies reported using #2 suture. Nonabsorbable suture was reported in six studies, and absorbable suture in six studies. The rate of failure was 10.5% across five studies (N = 1133) and the rate of revision was 4.4% across 13 studies (N = 2957).

Conclusions

Capsule closure is commonly performed with #2 high strength suture-the T-type using two to three sutures in the vertical limb and two to three in the transverse limb, and the interportal type using two to three sutures. Compared to earlier reports, there is a trend for increased utilization of T-type capsulotomy. Although there is a growing body of investigations into the efficacy of routine capsule closure following hip arthroscopy, our results demonstrate infrequent and inconsistent reporting of capsule closure characteristics.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies.

Capsular Repair Versus No Repair After Hip Arthroscopy in Patients Without Dysplasia or Generalized Ligamentous Laxity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Many recent studies have shown that patients who undergo capsular repair after hip arthroscopy achieve superior clinical outcomes compared with those who do not. However, patients with dysplasia or generalized ligamentous laxity (GLL) were not excluded from most of these studies, which may have affected the outcomes.

Purpose

To determine whether capsular repair influences the outcomes of hip arthroscopy for patients without dysplasia or GLL.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods

Under the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of capsulotomy with versus without repair were included, but studies that included patients with dysplasia or GLL were excluded. The study outcomes were patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 6 months and 2 years postoperatively-including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS)- and were compared between the repair and no-repair groups. A narrative analysis and meta-analysis were performed to integrate and compare the results of the 2 groups. In the meta-analysis of the outcome measures, studies with significant differences in the preoperative scores between the repair and no-repair groups were excluded because previous studies have shown that these can affect the outcomes.

Results

A total of 761 studies were initially identified, of which 3 were included. Of the 322 included patients, 136 underwent capsular repair, and 186 underwent capsulotomy with no repair. The meta-analysis showed that capsular repair was associated with significantly higher postoperative PROMs: the mHHS at 2 years (P = .03), the HOS-ADL at 6 months (P = .02) and 2 years (P < .0001), and the HOS-SSS at 6 months (P = .02) and 2 years (P = .001).

Conclusion

Capsular repair after hip arthroscopy was associated with superior clinical outcomes when compared with no capsular repair in patients without dysplasia or GLL.

Borderline Dysplasia After Primary Hip Arthroscopy with Capsular Plication and Labral Preservation: Ten-Year Survivorship and Patient-Reported Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The arthroscopic management of borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) is controversial, and long-term follow-up data are scarce. The purpose of this study was to report prospectively collected survivorship and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum 10-year follow-up following primary hip arthroscopy with capsular plication and labral preservation in patients with BHD.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected on all patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy between September 2008 and September 2011. Patients with BHD (defined by a lateral center-edge angle [LCEA] between 18° and 25°) were included. Preoperative and minimum 10-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris hip score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were collected. Exclusion criteria were prior ipsilateral hip surgery, Workers' Compensation status, Tönnis grade of >1, previous hip conditions, or LCEA of <18°. Survivorship was defined as no conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). The risk factors for THA conversion were analyzed. The achievement rate for the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was reported. A propensity-matched comparison with a control group without BHD was performed.

RESULTS

Forty-five (80%) of 56 eligible hips were included in this study: 38 hips (84%) of female patients and 7 hips (16%) of male patients. The mean patient age was 31.0 ± 12.9 years, and the mean patient body mass index (BMI) was 24.5 ± 5.4 kg/m2. The 10-year survivorship was 82.2%, and there was significant improvement in all PROMs and VAS pain from baseline to the minimum 10-year follow-up (p < 0.001). The odds of undergoing conversion to THA were 4.4 times higher for patients with a BMI of ≥23 kg/m2 and 7.1 times higher for patients who were ≥42 years of age. The MCID was achieved at high rates for the mHHS (79%), NAHS (79%), HOS-SSS (70%), and VAS pain (76%). The minimum 10-year survivorship, PROMs, and MCID achievement rates for the BHD group were comparable with those for the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with BHD who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with capsular plication and labral preservation demonstrated an overall survivorship of 82.2% and significant improvement in all PROMs and achieved the MCID at high rates at a minimum 10-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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.

High Survivorship and Comparable Patient-Reported Outcomes at a Minimum 5 Years After Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement, With and Without Lateral Rim Dysplasia

BACKGROUND

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in patients with dysplasia presents a unique challenge to surgeons. Short-term outcomes are conflicting, while longer term follow-up data are only emerging.

PURPOSE

To quantify midterm (minimum 5-year follow-up) outcomes after the arthroscopic correction of FAI in the presence of lateral rim dysplasia compared with a matched control group with FAI with normal acetabular coverage.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Prospective outcome data, collected in a consecutive series of patients undergoing arthroscopic FAI correction with lateral rim dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA] of 13°-25°), were reviewed (N = 75 cases). An age- and sex-matched control group of 120 cases was also formed (LCEA >25°). Survivorship was defined as the avoidance of total hip replacement and assessed using a Kaplan-Meier curve with the log-rank test. Survival rates and patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores (modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS], University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA], 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36], and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC] preoperatively and at 5 years postoperatively) were compared between the groups. The proportion of patients across groups achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was compared for each PROM. The dysplasia group was also analyzed independently to identify any factors that may indicate a less favorable outcome using regression analysis. The group was divided into 2 subgroups: borderline dysplasia (LCEA of 20°-25°) and severe dysplasia (LCEA <20°).

RESULTS

The survival rate in the dysplasia group was 97%. There was no statistical difference with respect to survival rates or any PROM scores (P > .05 for all) between the groups. There were similar rates of achieving the MCID between the groups for the mHHS, UCLA, and WOMAC. The FAI control group had a higher rate of achieving the MCID for the SF-36 (P = .012; effect size = 0.274 [small]). Subgroup analysis indicated a lower survival rate (78% vs 100%, respectively; P < .001) in female cases in the dysplasia group (n = 9) compared with male cases in the dysplasia group (n = 66). The UCLA score in female cases in the dysplasia group at 5 years was statistically lower compared with that in male cases in the dysplasia group (6 vs 10, respectively; P = .003; effect size = 0.378 [medium]), but no other outcome revealed any differences between the sexes. There were also no variables identified on regression analysis that accurately predicted a poorer outcome in the dysplasia group. When stratified by severity, there was no difference in survivorship or outcomes between those with severe dysplasia (LCEA <20°; n = 11) and those with borderline dysplasia (LCEA of 20°-25°; n = 64).

CONCLUSION

An arthroscopic intervention was a successful treatment option for FAI in the presence of lateral rim dysplasia at midterm follow-up. Irrespective of the severity of dysplasia, patients can expect similar improvements to those in patients with normal femoral head coverage.

Midterm results after arthroscopic femoral neck osteoplasty combined with labral debridement for cam type femoroacetabular impingement in active adults

INTRODUCTION

Arthroscopic labral procedures are frequently undertaken in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). The role of arthroscopic femoral neck osteoplasty is well established, but less is known about labral procedures. This study evaluates the midterm efficacy and feasibility of arthroscopic osteoplasty with concomitant labral debridement for cam impingement in active adults.

METHODS

The present study was conducted according to the STROBE Statement. All 108 patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for cam type FAI combined with labral debridement were considered. Axial and anteroposterior plain radiographs of the pelvis were obtained preoperatively to identify the cam deformity and assess the presence of osteoarthritis, the lateral centre-edge angle, and the alpha angle. The ROM (flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, and intra/extra rotation) was evaluated. The following PROMs were administered: visual analogic scale (VAS), Tegner Activity Scale, non-arthritic hip score (NAHS), the international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) overall score, and related subscales: symptoms and functional limitations, sports and recreational activities, job-related concerns, and social, emotional, and lifestyle concerns.

RESULTS

At a mean of 2.0 ± 1.1 months, all 108 patients returned to their daily activities with no limitation. At a mean of 2.6 ± 1.4 months, all 108 patients were able to return to sport with no limitation. At 11.9 ± 2.1-month follow-up, no differences were reported in the range of motion compared to baseline: flexion (P = 0.3), extension (P = 0.09), abduction (P = 0.1), adduction (P = 0.3), internal rotation (P = 0.4), and external rotation (P = 0.6). At 72.8 ± 21.7-month follow-up, the mean VAS score was 1.7 ± 3.0, Tegner Activity Scale 3.5 ± 1.4, NAHS 92.1 ± 21.5, iHOT33 83.3 ± 27.2. At a mean of 21.7 ± 15.5 months following the index procedure, 14 of 108 patients had undergone total hip arthroplasty. No further revisions or complications were reported.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic femoral neck osteoplasty with concomitant labral debridement for cam type of FAI in active adults yields the reliable results, with a rate of progression to total hip arthroplasty of 13% (14 of 108) at 3-year follow-up. All patients returned to their daily activities with no limitation 2 months postoperatively. Within 3 months, all patients returned to sport with no limitations. No complication related to the index procedure was reported, and no further arthroscopic procedures were necessary.

Outcomes of Periacetabular Osteotomy for Borderline Acetabular Dysplasia

BACKGROUND

The optimal surgical treatment (hip arthroscopy compared with periacetabular osteotomy [PAO]) for borderline acetabular dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA], 18° to 25°) remains a topic of debate. To date, the literature has focused primarily on arthroscopy outcomes, with only a few small reports on PAO outcomes. The purpose of this study was to define PAO outcomes in a large cohort of borderline hips. In a secondary analysis, we assessed the effect of prior failed arthroscopy, concurrent hip arthroscopy, and concurrent femoral osteoplasty on PAO outcomes in this cohort.

METHODS

A prospective database was retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent PAO for symptomatic instability in the setting of borderline dysplasia (LCEA, 18° to 25°). Of the 232 identified hips, 186 (80.2%) were assessed at a mean follow-up of 3.3 ± 2.0 years postoperatively. The mean patient age was 25.2 ± 8.5 years (range, 14 to 45 years), and 88.2% were female. Thirty hips (16.1%) had undergone a failed prior arthroscopy. Arthroscopy was performed concurrently with the PAO in 130 hips (69.9%), and femoral osteoplasty was performed concurrently in 120 hips (64.5%). The modified Harris hip score (mHHS) was assessed relative to the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 8 and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) of 74. Clinical failure was defined as a reoperation for persistent symptoms or a failure to achieve either the mHHS MCID or PASS.

RESULTS

Of the 156 hips undergoing a primary surgical procedure, clinical success was achieved in 148 hips (94.9% [95% confidence interval (CI), 90.2% to 97.4%]). Two hips (1.3% [95% CI, 0.4% to 4.6%]) underwent reoperation (hip arthroscopy) for persistent symptoms and an additional 6 hips (3.8% [95% CI, 1.8% to 8.1%]) failed to achieve the mHHS MCID or PASS, for a clinical failure rate of 5.1% (95% CI, 2.6% to 9.8%); 8.8% reported dissatisfaction with the surgical procedure. Clinical failure was more frequent among the 30 hips (23.3% [95% CI, 11.8% to 40.9%]; p = 0.001) that had undergone a prior failed arthroscopy. There were no outcome differences between hips that had or had not undergone concurrent hip arthroscopy or femoral osteoplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates excellent early outcomes of PAO for borderline acetabular dysplasia, with significant clinical improvement in 94.9% of patients undergoing a primary surgical procedure; 91.2% were satisfied with the surgical procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

The posterior capsule is distended in dysplastic hips, but the anterior capsule is not

PURPOSE

In the setting of acetabular dysplasia, the increased translational motion of the femur may damage the labrum and cartilage, as well as stretch the capsule. The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between the acetabular coverage and the capsular stiffness by assessing the distension of anterior and posterior joint recesses on the hip computed tomography arthrography.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-three patients (138 hips) with a median age of 36 years (range 18-50 years) who received the computed tomography arthrography for evaluation of nonarthritic hip pain in our institute between 2015 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The maximal distance between the anterior/posterior capsule and the anterior femoral head-neck junction/posterior femoral head on the axial imaging of computed tomography arthrography was defined as the width of anterior/posterior joint recess. The width of anterior/posterior joint recess was adjusted with the diameter of the femoral head and was then compared between acetabular dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle < 25°), normal acetabulum (lateral center-edge angle between 25 and 39°), and deep acetabulum (lateral center-edge angle > 39°). In addition, the standard univariate linear regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between the adjusted width of anterior/posterior joint recess and anterior/posterior coverage of the hip, determined by the anterior/posterior wall index.

RESULTS

The adjusted width of posterior joint recess was significantly greater in the acetabular dysplasia group than the normal acetabulum and deep acetabulum groups (p < 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively). There was no significant difference of the adjusted width of anterior joint recess between the groups (n.s.). The adjusted width of posterior joint recess had a significant but weak negative correlation with the anterior wall index (r =  - 0.25, p < 0.001), and no correlation with the posterior wall index (r =  - 0.0004, n.s.). There was no significant correlation between the adjusted width of anterior joint recess and the anterior/posterior wall index (r = 0.05, n.s./r = 0.07, n.s.).

CONCLUSIONS

The distension of posterior capsule on the computed tomography arthrography was significantly greater in acetabular dysplasia. In addition, there was a significant but weak negative correlation between the distension of posterior capsule and the anterior coverage of the hip. It indicated a looser posterior capsule was observed in a dysplastic hip. The relevance of posterior capsular laxity to clinical outcomes warrants further investigation. Given the fact that the distension of anterior capsule was not significantly higher in acetabular dysplasia, the need of anterior capsular plication in a dysplastic hip should be carefully evaluated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Capsular closure versus unrepaired interportal capsulotomy after hip arthroscopy in patients with femoroacetabular impingement: results of a patient-blinded randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hip capsular management after hip arthroscopy remains a topic of debate. Most available current literature is of poor quality and are retrospective or cohort studies. As of today, no clear consensus exists on capsular management after hip arthroscopy.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of routine capsular closure versus unrepaired capsulotomy after interportal capsulotomy measured with NRS pain and the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All eligible patients with femoroacetabular impingement who opt for hip arthroscopy (n = 116) were randomly assigned to one of both treatment groups and were operated by a single surgeon. Postoperative pain was measured with the NRS score weekly the first 12 weeks after surgery. The HAGOS questionnaire was measured at 12 and 52 weeks postoperatively.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics and operation details were comparable between treatment groups. Regarding the NRS pain no significant difference was found between groups at any point the first 12 weeks after surgery (p = 0.67). Both groups significantly improved after surgery (p < 0.001). After 3 months follow-up there were no differences between groups for the HAGOS questionnaire except for the domain sport (p = 0.02) in favour of the control group. After 12 months follow-up there were no differences between both treatment groups on all HAGOS domains (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this randomised controlled trial show highest possible evidence that there is no reason for routinely capsular closure after interportal capsulotomy at the end of hip arthroscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered at the CCMO Dutch Trial Register: NL55669.048.15.

Primary Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome in Adolescents Improves Outcomes and Clinical Benefit Achievement Rates at Short-Term Follow-Up. A Multicenter Analysis

PURPOSE

To report minimum 2-year follow-up patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) and rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), the patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and the maximal outcome improvement (MOI) on adolescents following primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Second, to determine risk factors for revision surgery.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from two high-volume hip arthroscopy centers were retrospectively reviewed on adolescents (≤19 years old) who underwent primary hip arthroscopy between November 2008 and February 2019. Adolescents with a minimum 2-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were included regardless of their growth plate status. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, lateral center edge-angle <18°, and previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions. Preoperative and postoperative radiographic data, MCID, PASS, MOI, secondary surgeries, and complications were reported. A multivariable survival analysis for risk factors for secondary surgery was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 287 hips (249 patients) were included (74.9% females). The mean values for age, body mass index, and follow-up were 16.3 ± 1.3 years, 22.3 ± 3.5, and 26.6 ± 9.4 months, respectively. Further, 88.9% underwent labral repair, 81.5% femoroplasty, and 85.4% capsular closure. Improvement for all PROs was reported (P < .001) with high patient satisfaction (8.8 ± 1.5). Achievement for the MCID was 71.7%, 83.0%, 68.1%, and 79.5% for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and iHOT-12, respectively. Achievement for the PASS was 68.3% for the mHHS and 73.2% for the NAHS. The MOI for mHHS, NAHS, and VAS was 58.3%, 77.0%, and 59.6%, respectively. Rates of revision hip arthroscopy, cam recurrence, and heterotopic ossification were 5.8%, 1.7%, and 5.5%, respectively. Acetabular retroversion was found to be a risk factor for revision surgery (P = .03).

CONCLUSION

The results of this multi-center study demonstrated that adolescents who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS reported significant improvement in all PROs, with satisfactory achievement rates for the MCID, PASS, MOI, and high patient satisfaction at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective multicenter study.

Editorial Commentary: Restoration of Hip Capsular Tension Is More Important Than Repair Construct Configuration

The debate regarding optimal capsular management during hip arthroscopy has been evolving for over 20 years. Femoroacetabular impingement emerged in the arthroscopic world in the early 2000s. However, the ability to address osseous deformities and decompress and/or reshape them was limited by the hip capsular structures and small capsulotomies. Some surgeons attempted to arthroscopically manage these deformities with limited capsulotomies, with not surprisingly limited success. Others made larger capsular windows (capsulectomies) to more accurately manage these deformities but potentially left some patients with varying degrees of iatrogenic microinstability or macroinstability. Over time, an increasing awareness of post-arthroscopy instability in the form of case reports, case series, and backroom chatter among the hip arthroscopy thought leaders brought the idea of routine capsular closure to the forefront. Biomechanical studies defined the role of the hip capsular ligaments, the deficits created with various capsulotomies during surgery, and the ability to restore stability after capsular repair. Clinical studies revealed better outcomes and lower revision rates after capsular repair for subtle osseous and soft-tissue instability, revision cases, and athletes compared with unrepaired capsulotomies. Various capsular repair constructs (side-to-side repairs, capsular shifts, and various suture configurations and suture materials) have been proposed, without evidence to support a superior technique or suture material. In the end, capsular management is an evolving art that takes into account various patient-specific factors (i.e., individual activity requirements, soft-tissue and osseous parameters, and intraoperative impressions) with the end goal of achieving a stable, impingement-free joint. There might be various capsular management roads to travel, but the destination remains the same.

Relationship between labral length and symptoms in patients with acetabular dysplasia before rotational acetabular osteotomy

The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between acetabular labral length and symptoms in patients with acetabular dysplasia. In a retrospective medical record review, 218 patients with acetabular dysplasia who had undergone rotational acetabular osteotomy were identified. After implementing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 53 patients were analyzed for preoperative symptoms measured by the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Hip Disease Evaluation Questionnaire (JHEQ), acetabular bone morphology parameters by anteroposterior pelvic radiographs and labral parameters by radial magnetic resonance imaging. Spearman's correlation coefficients were calculated among JHEQ scores, bone morphologic parameters and labral parameters. Multiple linear regression models to determine the predictive variables of JHEQ score and labral length were obtained. There was no correlation between bone morphologic parameters and JHEQ scores. Labral length measured anteriorly correlated with JHEQ pain {r [95% confidence interval (CI)] = -0.335 (-0.555, -0.071), P = 0.014}, movement subscale [r (95% CI) = -0.398 (-0.603, -0.143), P = 0.003], mental subscale [r (95% CI) = -0.436 (-0.632, -0.188), P = 0.001] and total JHEQ score [r (95% CI) = -0.451 (-0.642, -0.204), P = 0.001]. The multiple linear regression results showed that anterior labral length was independently associated with JHEQ subscales in some models. Meanwhile, age, acetabular head index and total JHEQ score were independently associated with anterior labral length in all models. Labral length, notably in anterosuperior area, in patients with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia was related to patient's symptom. Labral length may be an important objective image finding that can be used to assess the severity of cumulative hip instability.

Use of Anatomic Radiographic Horizons for the Lateral Center-Edge Angle in the Classification of Hip Dysplasia

BACKGROUND

The lateral center-edge angle of Wiberg (LCEA) and Tönnis angle (TA) rely on a "horizon" that functions as a reference point for measurements of hip dysplasia on weightbearing anteroposterior pelvis radiographs. There are 3 different horizons that are currently utilized depending on surgeon preference: (1) a line parallel to the radiographic floor (F), (2) a line that connects the inferior portions of the acetabular teardrops (ATs), or (3) a line that connects the ischial tuberosities (ITs). It is imperative to accurately assess the degree of hip dysplasia on initial workup to select the appropriate surgical intervention.

PURPOSE

To assess how the choice of a radiographic horizon affects the measurements of the LCEA and TA. The secondary purpose was to assess how the horizon affected the classification of hips as either normal, borderline dysplastic, or dysplastic.

STUDY DESIGN

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

METHODS

The LCEA and TA were measured on all preoperative weightbearing anteroposterior pelvis radiographs for 186 consecutive patients who underwent hip preservation surgery between February 2016 and November 2020 (140 hip arthroscopic procedures, 46 combined hip arthroscopic procedures with periacetabular osteotomy), 3 times per hip, each time using an F, AT, and IT horizon. The Student t test was used to analyze the differences in the measurements of the LCEA and TA, and discordance rates in the dysplasia classification between horizons were quantified.

RESULTS

For the entire study population, the mean LCEA_F (23.4°± 7.4°) was significantly greater than the mean LCEA_IT (23.1°± 7.2°) (95% CI, -0.634 to -0.003; P = .047) and mean LCEA_AT (23.0°± 7.1°) (95% CI, -0.723 to -0.139; P = .004). There was no difference between the LCEA_IT and LCEA_AT (95% CI, -0.305 to 0.080; P = .251). When stratified by hip arthroscopic surgery, the mean LCEA_F (26.3°± 5.6°) was significantly greater than the mean LCEA_AT (25.8°± 5.3°) (95% CI, -0.845 to -0.162; P = .004). Overall, there was a 17.7% and 18.3% discordance rate in the dysplasia classification using the LCEA_IT and LCEA_AT compared with the LCEA_F, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the mean TA_IT, TA_AT, and TA_F for the entire study population, the arthroscopic surgery group, and the combined arthroscopic surgery and periacetabular osteotomy group.

CONCLUSION

There was no statistical difference between the AT and IT horizons for LCEA measurements. The dysplasia classification was in better agreement between the 2 anatomic horizons compared with the F horizon. The TA was not affected by changes in the horizon.

Hip Arthroscopy Improves Outcomes With Moderate Conversion to Total Hip Arthroplasty Rates in Patients Aged 50 Years or Older: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the indications, outcomes, and complications of hip arthroscopy in individuals 50 years of age or older over the past 5 years.

METHODS

The electronic databases PUBMED, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched on March 3, 2022, for studies assessing the use of primary hip arthroscopy for patients aged 50 years or older from the past 5 years. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess study quality. Data are presented descriptively.

RESULTS

Overall, 17 studies were included, consisting of 6,696 patients (37.5%) with a mean age of 61.4 ± 5.0 years and a median follow-up of 24 months (range: 1.4-70.1). Indications for hip arthroscopy in patients aged 50 years or older were unspecified/undefined (93.8%), mixed pathology (i.e., combined femoroacetabular impingement [FAI], labral tear, osteoarthritis, etc.) (2.7%), and FAI (2.6%). Eleven studies demonstrated significant improvement in functional outcome scores from baseline to final follow-up. Of the 6 studies that compared outcomes across multiple age groups, 3 demonstrated significantly worse functional outcomes, and 2 demonstrated significantly higher rates of conversion to THA for older patients compared to younger patients. Lastly, the overall complication rates ranged from 0 to 38.3%. The rate of conversion to THA ranged from 0 to 34.6%, occurring between 6 and 60 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Hip arthroscopy for patients aged 50 years or older yields significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes postoperatively compared to baseline, with a moderate rate of conversion to THA (range: 0 to 34.6%). Clinicians should consider patient history (e.g., imaging, comorbidities, etc.) and values when electing for hip arthroscopy in the older population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

External Validation of the FEAR Index in Borderline Acetabular Dysplasia

Background

Given the lack of established, externally validated criteria for the diagnosis of unstable hips, the Femoro-Epiphyseal Acetabular Roof (FEAR) index has been proposed as a useful tool for identifying hips with instability in the setting of borderline acetabular dysplasia.

Purposes

To (1) determine the external performance of the FEAR index in identifying hips with a clinical diagnosis of instability in the setting of borderline dysplasia and (2) assess the performance of the FEAR index compared with acetabular inclination or physeal scar angle alone.

Study Design

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

Methods

The authors reviewed 176 patients with borderline acetabular dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle, 20°-25°). A positive FEAR index was defined as ≥5°. An alternative threshold ≥2° was also assessed. Significant instability was determined by the senior surgeon based on the combination of patient and radiographic features; unstable hips were treated with periacetabular osteotomy (with or without hip arthroscopy), and stable hips were treated with isolated hip arthroscopy.

Results

Only 18% of borderline hips had a positive FEAR index. The ≥5° positive FEAR index threshold had a sensitivity of 33% (23/70) and specificity of 92% (98/106) in predicting the clinical diagnosis of instability. The ≥2° FEAR index threshold had a sensitivity of 39% (27/70) and specificity of 89% (94/106) in predicting the clinical diagnosis of instability. No alternative threshold for the FEAR index resulted in high levels of sensitivity and specificity. A threshold of -5° was required to reach an adequate sensitivity of 74%. The FEAR index remained a significant predictor of hip instability even after controlling for acetabular inclination (odds ratio, 1.12; P < .001) or physeal scar angle (odds ratio, 1.6; P < .001).

Conclusion

In the current study, a positive FEAR index was generally indicative of the presence of clinical instability, but the FEAR index alone remained inadequate to fully define the instability of a given hip, as it demonstrated low sensitivity (only 33%) in the external validation. The FEAR index is best used in the context of other clinical and radiographic features.

The minimal clinically important difference for the nonarthritic hip score at 2-years following hip arthroscopy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine and establish the MCID for the NAHS at 2 years in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

METHODS

Patients that underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS between 2010 and 2016 were analyzed for eligibility. Data were collected from a single surgeon's hip arthroscopy database. MCID was calculated for the NAHS utilizing a distribution-based method.

RESULTS

The study included 298 patients (184 females) with an average age of 40.4 ± 13.0 years and average body mass index (BMI) of 25.7 ± 4.2 kg/m². At baseline, the cohort's average NAHS score was 48.7 ± 13.6 and demonstrated an improvement of 36.5 ± 17.0 for NAHS at follow-up. This resulted in MCID values of + 8.5 for NAHS.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to report the MCID (+ 8.5) for NAHS following primary hip arthroscopy, and as such, is a valuable contribution to future hip arthroscopy research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Arthroscopic Treatment of Mild/Borderline Hip Dysplasia with Concomitant Femoroacetabular Impingement-Literature Review

Purpose of Review

This literature review aims to survey the current knowledge about the management FAI in the setting of borderline hip dysplasia.

Recent Findings

With better understanding, hip arthroscopy has recently been advocated for treating mild or borderline hip dysplasia (BDH) with concomitant femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) despite early studies that condemned its use. Recent outcome data have demonstrated that hip arthroscopy is a viable option in BDH, with and without FAI, and has been gaining wider acceptance. Hip arthroscopy can address the concomitant soft tissue and bony intra-articular pathologies and obviate the necessity for other surgeries. Moreover, hip arthroscopy may be used as an adjuvant treatment to other procedures such as a periacetabular osteotomy (PAO).

Summary

Hip arthroscopy for BDH is an evolving procedure with promising short- and mid-term outcomes. The combination of BDH and FAI is becoming recognized as a problem in its own right, requiring dedicated treatment.

Increased Readmission Rates but No Difference in Complication Rates in Patients Undergoing Inpatient Versus Outpatient Hip Arthroscopy: A Large Matched-Cohort Insurance Database Analysis

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of Evidence

Routine Capsular Closure With Hip Arthroscopic Surgery Results in Superior Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In hip arthroscopic surgery, capsulotomy is performed to improve visualization and allow instrumentation of the joint. Traditionally, the defect has been left unrepaired; however, increasing evidence suggests that this may contribute to persistent pain and iatrogenic capsular instability. Nevertheless, the clinical benefit of performing routine capsular repair remains controversial.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of routine capsular closure on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), hypothesizing that superior PROs would be observed with routine capsular closure.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis and systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The terms "hip,""arthroscopy,""capsule,""capsular,""repair," and "closure" were used to query Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), SPORTDiscus, and PubMed. Articles with PROs stratified by capsular management were included. Multivariate mixed-effects metaregression models were implemented with study-level random-effects and fixed-effects moderators for capsular closure versus no repair and after controlling for surgical indication and preoperative PROs. The effect of repair on both the postoperative score and the change in scores was evaluated via the Harris Hip Score (HHS)/modified HHS (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living (ADL), and HOS-Sport Specific Subscale (SSS), with a supplemental analysis of additional outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 432 initial articles, 36 were eligible for analysis, with results for 5132 hip arthroscopic procedures. The capsule was repaired in 3427 arthroscopic procedures and unrepaired in 1705. Capsular repair was associated with significantly higher postoperative HHS/mHHS (2.011; SE, 0.743 [95% CI, 0.554-3.467]; P = .007), HOS-ADL (3.635; SE, 0.873 [95% CI, 1.923-5.346]; P < .001), and HOS-SSS (4.137; SE, 1.205 [95% CI, 1.775-6.499]; P < .001) scores as well as significantly superior improvement on the HHS/mHHS (2.571; SE, 0.878 [95% CI, 0.849-4.292]; P = .003), HOS-ADL (3.315; SE, 1.131 [95% CI, 1.099-5.531]; P = .003), and HOS-SSS (3.605; SE, 1.689 [95% CI, 0.295-6.915]; P = .033).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis is the largest to date evaluating the effect of capsular closure on PROs and demonstrates significantly higher mean postoperative scores and significantly superior improvement with repair, while controlling for the effects of preoperative score and surgical indication. The true magnitude of the benefit of capsular repair may be clarified by large prospective randomized studies using PRO measures specifically targeted and validated for hip arthroscopic surgery/preservation.

Increased Combined Anteversion Is an Independent Predictor of Ischiofemoral Impingement in the Setting of Borderline Dysplasia With Coxa Profunda

PURPOSE

To investigate the differences in radiologic parameters between borderline dysplasia hips (BDDH) +/- coxa profunda and normal hips and to evaluate the correlations between these parameters and the prevalence of ischiofemoral impingement (IFI) in borderline dysplasia.

METHODS

The imaging of patients with BDDH (18° ≤ lateral center edge angle <25°) treated in our hospital from January 2018 to December 2019 was retrospective reviewed. These patients were divided into BDDH with coxa profunda (acetabular fossa touches the ilioischial line, pBDDH) and without coxa profunda (nBDDH) groups. The groups were compared with a control group with normal acetabular coverage. Neck-shaft angle, femoral offset, acetabular versions, acetabular coverage, ischial angle, femoral neck version, and combined anteversion were reviewed and analyzed using computed tomography imaging using one-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

There were 43 patients (36 female/7 male, 26.13 ± 4.96 years) in the pBDDH group, 22 patients (17 female/5 male, 28.60 ± 5.89 years) in the nBDDH group, and 23 patients (14 female/9 male, 27.67 ± 5.98 years) in the control group. The pBDDH group had increased femoral version, ischial angle, acetabular versions, and decreased ischiofemoral space (IFS)/quadratus femoris space (QFS) than the other 2 groups. The IFS/QFS correlated with neck-shaft angle, femoral offset, femoral neck version, acetabular versions, ischial angle, femoral neck-lesser trochanter angle, posterior acetabular coverage, and combined anteversion in patients with BDDH. Combined anteversion at the 3-o'clock level was an independent predictor of a decreased IFS (beta = -0.348, P = .007) and QFS (beta = -0.255, P = .01, R² = .550). Binary logistic regression demonstrated that patients with BDDH with large combined anteversion at the 3-o'clock level had a greater prevalence of IFI (odds ratio 1.148; P = .001, R² = .505).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with borderline dysplasia, the QFS/IFS significantly correlated with combined anteversion at the 3-o'clock level on clock face of acetabulum. BDDH with coxa profunda might have a greater prevalence of IFI because of large combined anteversion.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative observation study.

Magnetic Resonance Arthrogram Improves Visualization of Hip Capsular Defects in Patients Undergoing Previous Hip Arthroscopy

Purpose

To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) in the identification of hip capsular defects in patients who previously underwent hip arthroscopy.

Methods

Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy for capsular insufficiency by a single surgeon between March 2014 and December 2019 were identified by Current Procedural Terminology code. Patients with arthroscopically confirmed capsular defects treated surgically who underwent both MRI and MRA between their primary and revision surgeries were identified. Imaging studies were blinded, randomized, and distributed to two fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists. Radiologists evaluated 14 components of different anatomic structures, including the presence of capsular defect and defect grading, over 2 months, with a 2-week washout period between 4 sets of reads to obtain 2 complete reads from each radiologist. Data were analyzed in R version 4.0.2.

Results

Two hundred thirty patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy between March 2014 and December 2019. Twelve patients had both an MRI and an MRA of the operated hip performed between their primary and revision surgeries. Time between primary and revision hip arthroscopy was 2.0 ± 1.5 years (R: .3-6.3). Time between MRI and MRA was .6 ± .6 years (R: .0-1.6). Sensitivity for detecting hip capsular defects was significantly higher for MRA than for MRI (87.5%, 95% CI: [68,96] vs 50%, 95% CI: [31,69], respectively; P = .008).

Conclusions

This retrospective review demonstrates that MRA has higher sensitivity than MRI in detecting surgically confirmed capsular defects. MRA may be more helpful in identifying capsular defects in patients presenting with hip instability symptoms who have had a previous hip arthroscopy.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, diagnostic case series.

Nonarthritic Hip Pathology Patterns According to Sex, Femoroacetabular Impingement Morphology, and Generalized Ligamentous Laxity

BACKGROUND

Sex differences are frequently encountered when diagnosing orthopaedic problems. Current literature suggests specific sex differences, such as a higher prevalence of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement syndrome in male patients and features of hip instability in female patients.

PURPOSE

To identify hip pathology patterns according to sex, alpha angle deformity, and generalized ligamentous laxity (GLL) in a nonarthritic patient population that underwent primary hip arthroscopy in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and labral tears.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy between February 2008 and February 2017 were included and separated into male and female groups for initial analysis. Patients were excluded if they had Tönnis osteoarthritis grade >1, previous ipsilateral hip surgery, or previous hip conditions. The demographics, radiographic findings, intraoperative findings, and surgical procedures were then analyzed and compared. Subanalyses were performed for both groups. A threshold of 1 SD above the mean alpha angle in the male group was used to create 2 subgroups. For female patients, GLL based on a Beighton score ≥4 was used to divide the group. Intraoperative findings were compared for both subanalyses.

RESULTS

A total of 2701 hips met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of those, 994 hips were in the male group and 1707 in the female group. The mean ± SD age was 36.6 ± 13.8 and 37.1 ± 15.0 years for the male and female groups, respectively(P = .6288). The average body mass index was significantly higher in the male group (P < .0001). GLL was more common in women (38.6%) than men (13.6%) (P < .001). The male group had a higher proportion of acetabular Outerbridge grade 3 (21.8%) and 4 (19.2%) lesions when compared with the female group (9.3% and 6.3%, respectively) (P < .0001). Men in the subgroup with an alpha angle ≥78° reported higher rates of acetabular Outerbridge grade 4 damage than men with an alpha angle <78° (P < .001). Mean lateral center-edge angle was lower in the female subgroup with Beighton score ≥4 vs <4 (23.7°± 4.2° vs 31.3°± 5.8°; P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

In this analysis of a large cohort of patients who underwent hip arthroscopy, 2 patterns of hip pathologies were related to sex. On average, male patients had larger alpha angles and increased acetabular chondral damage when compared with their female counterparts. Furthermore, a larger cam-type anatomy was associated with more severe acetabular chondral damage in men. In the female group, the incidence of features of hip instability such as GLL were significantly higher than in the male group.

Return to Sport in Athletes With Borderline Hip Dysplasia After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Data on outcomes in patients with borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) who undergo hip arthroscopy remain limited, particularly in regard to return to sport (RTS).

PURPOSE

To evaluate outcomes in patients with BHD and their ability to RTS after hip arthroscopy for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with self-reported athletic activity and radiographic evidence of BHD, characterized by a lateral femoral center-edge angle (LCEA) between 18° and 25° and a Tönnis angle >10°, who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS between November 2014 and March 2017 were identified. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes including the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and satisfaction were analyzed at minimum 2-year follow-up. In addition, all patients completed an RTS survey.

RESULTS

A total of 41 patients with a mean age and body mass index (BMI) of 29.6 ± 13.4 years and 25.3 ± 5.6, respectively, were included. Mean LCEA and Tönnis angle for the study population were 22.7°± 1.8° and 13.3°± 2.9°, respectively. A total of 31 (75.6%) patients were able to RTS after hip arthroscopy at a mean of 8.3 ± 3.2 months. A total of 14 patients (45.2%) were able to RTS at the same level of activity, 16 patients (51.6%) returned to a lower level of activity, and only 1 (3.2%) patient returned to a higher level of activity. Of the 11 high school and collegiate athletes, 10 (90.9%) were able to RTS. All patients demonstrated significant improvements in all patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as well as in pain scores at a mean of 26.1 ± 5.4 months after surgery. Patients who were able to RTS had a lower preoperative BMI than patients who did not RTS. Analysis of minimum 2-year PROMs demonstrated better HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, mHHS, iHOT-12, and VAS outcomes for pain in patients able to RTS versus those who did not RTS (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Of the patients with BHD studied here, 75.6% of patients successfully returned to sport at a mean of 8.3 ± 3.2 months after hip arthroscopy for FAIS. Of the patients who successfully returned to sport, 45.2% returned at the same level, and 3.2% returned at a higher activity level.

Hip Capsular Deficiency-A Cause of Post-Surgical Instability in the Revision Setting Following Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To characterize current concepts in capsular repair and hip instability, and examine findings from biomechanical and clinical studies on hip capsular management strategies as they pertain to hip stability, patient outcomes, and hip arthroscopy failure. Further, we discuss the clinical evaluation and treatment of capsular deficiency.

RECENT FINDINGS

There remains debate regarding the optimal capsular management strategies in hip arthroscopy, particularly concerning the necessity of routine capsular repair. A variety of capsulotomy techniques exist and may be used to access the hip joint. Additionally, a wide variety of techniques are employed to repair the hip capsule. Biomechanical evidence supports capsular closure restores hip joint stability to that of the intact, native state. Several clinical studies in both primary and revision hip arthroscopy settings have demonstrated improved pain and functional outcomes in patients who underwent capsular repair or capsular reconstruction. Studies have shown capsular repair may be especially important in patients with ligamentous laxity and hip dysplasia, and in competitive athletes. Post-surgical hip instability secondary to capsular insufficiency is increasingly recognized as a cause of hip arthroscopy failure. Capsular closure restores native biomechanical stability to the hip joint, and several clinical studies report improved pain and functional outcomes following capsular repair or capsular reconstruction in both the primary and revision hip arthroscopy settings. There remains much to learn regarding capsular hip instability as it relates to optimal capsular management surgical technique, intra-operative capsular management decision-making, clinical diagnosis, and related advanced imaging findings.

Capsular Repair During Hip Arthroscopy Demonstrates Restoration of Axial Distraction Resistance in an in Vivo Intraoperative Testing Model

BACKGROUND

Cadaveric models demonstrate that failure of hip capsular repair is dependent on the robustness of the repair construct. In vivo data on capsular repair construct efficacy are limited. We investigated the effect of a figure-of-8 capsular repair on hip distraction resistance relative to native and post-capsulotomy states. We hypothesized that an unrepaired capsulotomy would demonstrate increased axial distraction compared with the native state and that capsular repair would restore distraction resistance to native levels.

METHODS

Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy by a single surgeon were prospectively enrolled between March 2020 and June 2020. Prior to any instrumentation, fluoroscopic images of the operative hip were obtained at 12.5-lbs (5.7-kg) traction intervals, up to 100 lbs (45.4 kg). Anterolateral, modified anterior, and distal anterolateral portals were established. Following interportal capsulotomy, labral repair, and osteochondroplasty, fluoroscopic images were reobtained at each traction interval. Capsular repair was performed with use of a figure-of-8 suture configuration. Traction was reapplied and fluoroscopic images were again obtained. Joint distraction distance was measured at each traction interval for all 3 capsular states. Anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were utilized to scale fluoroscopic images to obtain joint space measurements in millimeters.

RESULTS

A total of 31 hips in 31 patients were included. Capsulotomy resulted in significant increases in distraction distance from 25 (11.3 kg) to 100 lbs of traction compared with both native and capsular repair states (all comparisons, p ≤ 0.017). Capsular repair yielded a significantly greater distraction distance compared with the native state at 37.5 lbs (17.0 kg; 5.49 versus 4.98 mm, respectively; p = 0.012) and 50 lbs (22.7 kg; 6.08 versus 5.35 mm; p < 0.001). The mean difference in distraction distance between native and capsular repair states from 25 to 100 lbs of traction was 0.01 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

This in vivo model demonstrates that an unrepaired interportal capsulotomy significantly increases axial distraction distance compared with the native, intact hip capsule. Performing a complete capsular closure reconstitutes resistance to axial distraction intraoperatively. Future research should evaluate the in vivo effects and associated clinical outcomes of other published capsular repair techniques and assess the durability of capsular repairs over time.

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.

Arthroscopic Treatment of Labral Tears in Patients with Borderline Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: A Retrospective Study with Mean 5.8 Years Follow-Up

Objective

To retrospectively assess the mid‐term clinical and radiological results of hip arthroscopic treatment of labral tears in patients with borderline developmental dysplasia of the hip (BDDH).

Methods

From January 2010 and December 2019, data were retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent arthroscopic surgery of the hip for the treatment of intra‐articular abnormalities. Only the Patients who had borderline developmental dysplasia (BDDH) were included. All operations were performed by two senior surgeons, the arthroscopic treatment including labral repair, labral debridement, minimal acetabuloplasty, femoroplasty and capsular closure. The evaluation consisted of pain evaluation (visual analog scale [VAS]), the modified Harris hip score (MHHS), range of motion, the radiological evaluation of plain film and MRI analysis of the hip joint. The plain film evaluation included anteroposterior views of the pelvis to assess lateral center‐edge angle (LCEA) and acetabular inclination (AI), frog‐leg lateral views of the hip to assess α angle.

Results

There were 34 patients (36 hips) ultimately enrolled in this study. The follow‐up duration of the patients were minimal 2 years (average, 69.2 months) postoperatively. The patient group included seven men and 27 women, the mean age at the time of surgery was 30.9 years. The mean BMI was 22.3 kg/m². From the pre‐operative status to the final follow‐up visit, mean mHHS score increased from 64.5 to 92.7, mean VAS score decreased from 6.8 to 1.3. All scores exhibited statistically significant differences (P < 0.001). The mean LCEA decreased from 22.9° to 22.7°, the mean AI decreased from 7.7° to 7.6°. Which all showed no significant differences compared with the final follow‐up to the pre‐operative status (P > 0.05). However, the mean α angle was significantly decreased from 48.3° to 40.1° (P < 0.001). We encountered no significant complications such as infection, deep venous thrombosis, fluid extravasation, or permanent nerve injury. One patient (2.94%) underwent revision periacetabular osteotomies (PAO) because of subluxation of the hip joint with permanent pain after 6 months failed conservative treatment.

Conclusion

Arthroscopic treatment of labral tears in patients with BDDH may provide safe and durable favorable results at midterm follow‐up. The best outcome could be expected in patients with labral repair and closure of the capsule with strict patient selection criteria.

[Arthroscopic labrum reconstruction for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: 12 cases report]

To investigate the surgical effect of hip arthroscopic labrum reconstruction. A retrospective study was performed on the clinical data of 12 patients who underwent hip arthroscopic labrum reconstruction in our department from September 2017 to February 2021 and were followed up for 5-46 months, with an average of 21.5 months. All the patients had a hip joint space of more than 2 mm, and Tonnis grade less than level Ⅱ. These 12 patients underwent arthroscopic debridement of hyperplastic synovium, femoral head and neck and/or acetabular osteoplasty, and labrum reconstruction using autograft iliotibial band or gracilis tendon. After the surgery, we conducted follow-up and data collection, recorded the satisfaction of the patients and occurrence of complications, as well as the cartilage lesion of hip joint observed under the arthroscopy. We compared the alpha angle of Dunn X-ray film, center-edge angle (CE angle) of AP X-ray film, modified Harris hip score (mHHS score), hip outcome score (HOS), international hip outcome tool 12 score (iHOT12 Score), and visual analogue scale (VAS scale) before and after the arthroscopic operation, to assess clinical symptom relief and joint function recovery. The 12 patients were followed up for 5-46 (21.5±12.8) months. The VAS scale were (5.3±2.5) and (2.5±1.4) before and after the surgery, showing significant decrease (P=0.018). The mHHS score were (60.6±22.2) and (83.1±5.8) before and after the surgery, showing significant increase (P=0.003). The patient satisfaction was high (7.8±2.0) (range: 0-10). None of the 12 patients had serious complications, revision surgery, or total hip replacement at the end of the last follow-up. Autologous tendon transplantation for reconstruction of acetabular labrum under arthroscopy can improve the clinical symptoms and joint function of patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), which is a safe and effective treatment.

Acetabular Coverage May Affect Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes of Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation of Focal Femoral Head Lesions: A Case Series From a Single Institution

Osteochondral lesions of the femoral head in young people are rare and present unique management challenges. Optimal treatment for these lesions is unclear. From 2009 to 2016, clinical and radiographic outcomes were prospectively collected within a series of symptomatic focal osteochondral lesions of the femoral head with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. A surgical hip dislocation followed by implantation of a size-matched fresh osteochondral femoral head allograft was performed. Nine hips in eight patients (6 female patients) underwent surgery at an average of 17 years (11 to 21 years). Individual allograft sizes ranged from 10 to 35 mm in diameter; with 2 of 9 hips receiving two allografts in a stacked or mosaicplasty technique at the time of treatment. The average graft implantation was 3536.5 mm2. Modified Harris hip scores improved by 13.4 (P = 0.018) from preoperative to final follow-up for all patients. Significant improvements in internal rotation (12° versus 23°, P = 0.011), external rotation (32° versus 50°, P = 0.041), and abduction (28° versus 40°, P = 0.042) were also achieved. Three patients (four hips) demonstrated poor radiographic healing (<50% incorporation at 2 years), which correlated with worse clinical outcomes and was associated with a lower preoperative lateral center edge angle (21.5° versus 30.4°, P = 0.049). Fresh osteochondral allograft treatment is a good option for focal osteochondral lesions of the femoral head with improved outcomes and motion; however, higher failure rates may be seen in those with a lower center edge angle.

Capsular Repair May Improve Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review of Comparative Outcome Studies

PURPOSE

To review the existing literature in order to determine the effect of hip capsule repair on outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.

METHODS

This study used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to find articles by using PubMed and Embase. Included studies were Level I through III studies that focused on patient outcomes as a function of hip capsular treatments: capsulotomy repair, partial repair, plication, and unrepaired capsulotomies. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies was used for quality assessment of clinical outcome studies. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 16 comparative outcome studies evaluating 2,996 hips were included; they evaluated the following capsular management techniques: complete repair (n = 1,112, 37.1%), partial repair (n = 32, 1.1%), plication (n = 223, 7.4%), and unrepaired capsulotomy (n = 1629, 54.4%).

RESULTS

Of the 16 studies, 13 included patient-reported outcome scores (PROs), 3 included imaging outcomes data, and 2 reported on reoperation. Of the studies, 10 directly compared patient-reported outcomes between a capsular repair group and an unrepaired group. Of the 10 studies that directly compared PROs between a group with unrepaired capsulotomy and a group with capsular repair, 8 studies demonstrated statistically significantly better PROs in the repaired group compared to the unrepaired group, and 2 studies found no difference between the groups. Reoperation rates demonstrated mixed results between groups, and no difference was found in regard to imaging outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Midterm outcome studies suggest that capsular repair is safe and effective in patients without arthritis who are undergoing hip arthroscopy, and it may result in superior PROs compared with those found after unrepaired capsulotomy. Studies consistently demonstrate similar or superior outcomes in cohorts after capsular repair compared to unrepaired capsulotomy, and no studies reported superior results in unrepaired capsulotomy patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I through Level III studies.

Borderline Dysplastic Female Patients With Painful Internal Snapping Improve Clinical Outcomes At Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up Following Hip Arthroscopy With Femoroplasty, Labral Repair, Iliopsoas Fractional Lengthening, and Capsular Plication: A Propensity-Matched Controlled Comparison

PURPOSES

To report minimum 2-year follow-up patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) in borderline dysplastic female patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with femoroplasty, labral repair, iliopsoas fractional lengthening, and plication of the capsule (FLIP procedure) for cam-type femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS), labral tear, and painful internal snapping and to compare these PROs to a propensity-matched borderline dysplastic control group without painful internal snapping.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for cam-type FAIS and labral tear between September 2008 and May 2017. Females with borderline dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle of ≥18° to ≤25°) and painful internal snapping, who underwent the FLIP procedure, with minimum 2-year PROs for modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale, patient satisfaction, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were included. The group was matched 1:1 to a control group without painful internal snapping for age, sex, body-mass index (BMI), and surgical procedures. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated. P-value was set at .05.

RESULTS

Seventy-four hips were included. The mean was 26.82 ± 10.49 years and 23.62 ± 4.56 kg/m² for age and BMI, respectively. Improvement was reported for all PROs and VAS (P < .0001). Twenty-nine patients were matched. At minimum 2-year follow-up, the FLIP procedure demonstrated comparable improvement in PROs and rate of achievement of MCID to the control group.

CONCLUSION

After primary hip arthroscopy and FLIP procedure, females with borderline dysplasia and painful internal snapping demonstrated significant improvement in PROs at minimum 2 years' follow-up. When compared to a propensity-matched control group without painful internal snapping, the improvement between groups was comparable.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; Case-Control study.

Hip Capsular Management in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement or Microinstability: A Systematic Review of Biomechanical Studies

PURPOSE

To investigate the correlation between hip capsular management (repair or reconstruction) and biomechanical results in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement and microinstability.

METHODS

A search of the PubMed and Embase databases was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Included studies focused on hip biomechanics related to capsular release, repair of I- and T-capsulotomy, or capsular reconstruction. Studies were assessed for external/internal rotation of the femur, femoral head translation, rotational torque, and distraction force. Articles were excluded if they discussed treatment of the hip capsule related to surgical dislocation, mini-open surgery, arthroplasty, reorientation osteotomy, or traumatic dislocation.

RESULTS

Twenty-four biomechanical studies were included that evaluated rotation/translation (11 studies), distraction (3 studies), the capsular role in microinstability (simulated with anterior capsule pie crusting [2 studies] and cyclical loading [2 studies]), allograft reconstruction (3 studies), and anatomic properties (3 studies). Repair and reconstruction demonstrated improvements in maximum distractive force, total ROM, and torsional stability when compared to capsular release. Significant differences were observed between capsular repair and release in total ROM in the coronal plane with improved stability in the repair groups (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -1.3°, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.68 , -0.854; P < .001). There was significantly increased total motion in the coronal plane in the capsular laxity state compared to the native state (SMD: 1.4° (95% CI 0.32, 2.49; P = .012).

CONCLUSIONS

Biomechanical evidence supports closure of the capsule after hip arthroscopy to reverse the significant effects of capsulotomy. Simulated capsule laxity models created altered joint motion and translation. Capsule reconstruction appears to restore the hip to its native capsule state.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Investigating the biomechanical outcomes of capsular repair and reconstruction will help surgeons better understand the rationale and implications of these capsular management strategies.

Editorial Commentary: Psoas Tenotomy in the Setting of a Borderline Dysplastic Hip Risks Iatrogenic Instability: Be Extremely Cautious and Particularly in Athletes

Successful outcomes after psoas tenotomies have been reported and proposed in the setting of recalcitrant internal snapping and psoas impingement. However, case reports citing hip flexion weakness and iatrogenic instability created concern regarding the role for psoas tenotomies. Despite these concerns, some recent studies reporting improved outcomes after endoscopic psoas tenotomies breathe further life into this controversial topic. Psoas tenotomy in the setting of a borderline dysplastic hip likely carries an even greater risk for iatrogenic instability. It might be critical to evaluate for clinical signs and symptoms of instability in addition to radiographic parameters to avoid this potentially devastating complication. In addition, the traditional definition of borderline dysplasia is based on lateral acetabular coverage that might be less important than anterior acetabular coverage and femoral version when contemplating psoas tenotomies on the basis of the dynamic anterior stabilizing effect of the iliopsoas myotendinous unit. Surgeons should also be extremely cautious when considering psoas tenotomy in an athletic population with the potential for persistent weakness and limited data hinting at inferior sports specific outcomes. In the end, it is not clear whether the psoas tenotomy "drives" the improvements seen in some studies, or whether many of these patients ultimately battle their way into a minimally clinically important difference "despite" the psoas tenotomy.

Minimum 5-Year Outcomes for Revision Hip Arthroscopy With a Prospective Subanalysis Against a Propensity-Matched Control Primary Group

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of midterm outcome data on hip revision arthroscopic surgery.

PURPOSE

(1) To report minimum 5-year patient-reported outcome measurement scores (PROMSs) in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy, (2) to compare minimum 5-year PROMSs with a propensity-matched control group that underwent primary hip arthroscopy, and (3) to compare the rate of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at minimum 5-year follow-up between the revision group and the propensity-matched control primary group.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected between June 2008 and April 2014. Patients were included who underwent revision hip arthroscopy with preoperative and minimum 5-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patients with Tönnis grade >1 or with hip conditions such as avascular necrosis, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and pigmented villonodular synovitis were excluded. A subanalysis was performed against a propensity-matched control group that underwent primary surgery. Groups were propensity matched in a 1:2 ratio for sex, age, body mass index, and follow-up time.

RESULTS

A total of 127 revision arthroscopies (113 patients) were included, and the mean ± SD follow-up time was 72.8 ± 23.3 months. The revision group was 74.0% female, and the average age and body mass index were 34.9 ± 12.4 years and 24.8 ± 4.2, respectively. The revision group demonstrated improvement for all PROMSs and reached the MCID for the mHHS (66.1%), HOS-SSS (68.4%), NAHS (66.9%), and VAS (80.0%). All revision cases were propensity matched to 254 primary arthroscopy cases. PROMSs in the revision group were lower than those of the control group before and after surgery. Delta values were similar between groups for all PROMSs. There were no differences in rates of achieving the MCID. The relative risk of arthroplasty conversion was 2.6 (95% CI, 1.5-4.6) for the revision group as compared with the primary group.

CONCLUSION

Significant improvement in all PROMSs, including the VAS, and high patient satisfaction at minimum 5-year follow-up were reported after revision hip arthroscopy. A high proportion of patients in the revision cohort reached the MCID for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, NAHS, and VAS, with similar rates and magnitudes of improvement relative to the control group. As expected, these data indicate that patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy have higher PROMSs before and after surgery and lower rates of conversion to arthroplasty.

Arthroscopic Treatment and Outcomes of Borderline Dysplasia With Acetabular Retroversion: A Matched-Control Study From the MASH Study Group

BACKGROUND

Although acetabular retroversion (AR) occurs in dysplasia, management of the crossover sign (COS) or outcomes in borderline dysplasia (BD) with AR have not been reported.

PURPOSE

To report any differences in the management of the COS in BD and nondysplastic hips and to report comparative outcomes of BD with AR with matched controls with BD or AR (ie, focal pincer femoroacetabular impingement [FAI]).

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A multicenter matched-pair study was performed with data from a large prospectively collected database. Inclusion criteria were patients who had undergone primary unilateral hip arthroscopy including labral repair for FAI and/or chondral pathology without significant osteoarthritis (ie, Tönnis grade 0 or 1). The study group (BD+AR) was defined radiographically by lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) on standing anteroposterior pelvis of 18° to 25° and positive COS. A 1:1:1 matching on age, sex, and body mass index was performed with a control group with BD and another control group with AR (LCEA, >25°+COS). Acetabuloplasty rates were determined for each group. Mean 2-year outcomes including the 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), minimally clinical important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) scores were compared. Subanalysis of the study group both with and without acetabuloplasty was performed.

RESULTS

There were 69 patients, with 23 in the study group and 23 in each control group. The effect of dysplasia with or without the presence of the COS resulted in changes in acetabuloplasty rates, with 0% performed in the BD group, 35% in the BD+AR study group, and 91% in the AR group (P = .001). Arthroscopic outcomes demonstrated similar and significant mean 2-year improvement of iHOT-12 patient-reported outcomes, MCID, SCB, and PASS scores in the study and both control groups. There was a trend within the study group toward greater postoperative iHOT-12 scores in patients who received anterior-based acetabuloplasty than those who did not receive acetabuloplasty (81.7 and 70.4, respectively; P = .11).

CONCLUSION

Acetabular coverage influences the management of the COS, with significantly lower acetabuloplasty rates in BD with AR compared with AR without BD (focal pincer impingement). Symptomatic patients with combined BD and AR had similar significant successful outcomes to those of patients with BD and those with AR (focal pincer impingement), whether treated without acetabuloplasty or, less frequently, with limited anterior-based acetabuloplasty.

Hip Instability in Ballet Dancers: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Dancers possess a large degree of hip range of motion that results from a combination of innate and acquired osseous morphology and permissive soft tissues. Generalized hypermobility in dancers may predispose them to a spectrum of hip instability. The objective of this narrative review is to discuss the anatomical characteristics, pathogenesis, risk factors, clinical signs and symptoms, management, and outcomes of hip instability treatments in dancers.

METHODS

A retrospective search was performed beginning November 1, 2017, for English language articles regarding hip stability in the dancer. Key words used included but were not limited to: dance(r), ballet, hip, hypermobility, range of motion, instability, microinstability, and laxity. PubMed, Scopus, and MEDLINE databases were used.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were analyzed. Groin pain was found to be the most common presenting symptom of hip instability. A variety of impingement and instability signs may be elicited during physical examination. Hypermobility is frequently observed and is thought to be a necessity for participation in elite levels of ballet. Radiographs and advanced planar imaging (magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography) should be scrutinized to evaluate for dysplasia, cam, pincer, subspine, and rotational morphologies. Dysplasia (low volume acetabulum), cam morphology, femoral retroversion, and coxa valga are common findings in the ballet dancers' hip. Labral injuries and ligamentum teres tears are common and may potentiate instability in the hip. Management options include education, oral non-opioid medications, activity modification, exercise prescription, and surgery. Reported outcomes of these treatments in ballet are limited.

CONCLUSION

Hip hypermobility is prevalent in the ballet population and is a clear advantage. However, it may increase the risk of instability. It is important to identify the multifactorial osseous and soft tissue etiology of hip or groin pain in dancers. Practitioners should have a high level of suspicion for hip instability in the dancer presenting with hip pain and treat accordingly. There is a significant need for increased quantity and quality of investigation into the outcomes of treatment for hip instability in the dancer.

Complete Capsular Closure Provides Higher Rates of Clinically Significant Outcome Improvement and Higher Survivorship Versus Partial Closure After Hip Arthroscopy at Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To (1) compare the rates of reaching threshold hip-specific outcome scores for achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) in patients who underwent partial versus complete T-capsulotomy repair and (2) identify the failure rates in each group 5 years after undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS performed by a single fellowship-trained surgeon from January 2011 to March 2013 were collected and analyzed. Baseline data, hip-specific outcomes, and clinical failure rates were recorded at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively. Patients with partial T-capsulotomy repair were matched 1:3 by age, body mass index, and sex to patients with complete T-capsulotomy repair. Threshold scores for achieving the MCID and PASS were calculated and compared between the 2 groups. Additionally, rates of revision and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 379 patients were available for analysis (39 partial and 340 complete repairs), with 100 patients included in the matching process (25 in the partial-repair group and 75 in the complete-repair group). Comparison of radiographic parameters, including the Tönnis grade, alpha angle, and lateral center-edge angle, between the 2 groups showed no statistically significant difference (P > .05 for all). Comparison of postoperative score averages between the partial- and complete-closure groups showed a significant difference in the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living Subscale (85.4 ± 17.7 vs 94.6 ± 7.8, P < .001), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (76.6 ± 26.2 vs 89.3 ± 16.8, P = .034), modified Harris Hip Score (83.2 ± 19.7 vs 90.5 ± 11.2, P = .035), and visual analog scale pain score (24.5 ± 30.8 vs 13.4 ± 15.8, P = .035). A total of 65 complete-repair patients (95.6%) achieved the MCID for at least 1 outcome measure versus 18 patients with partial repair (78.3%) (P = .04). A total of 69 complete-repair patients (92%) achieved the PASS for at least 1 outcome measure versus 18 partial-repair patients (72%) (P = .017). Of the 39 partial-repair patients, 35.9% (n = 14) underwent revision or conversion to THA, as compared with 2.9% (n = 10) in the overall cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

At a minimum 5-year follow-up, patients with complete capsular closure after hip arthroscopy for FAIS show superior long-term outcomes and achieve higher rates of meaningful clinical success when compared with patients with partial capsular closure. Furthermore, patients with partial capsular repair undergo revision or conversion to THA at high rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Can the Femoro-Epiphyseal Acetabular Roof (FEAR) Index Be Used to Distinguish Dysplasia from Impingement?

BACKGROUND

Classifying hips with structural deformity on the spectrum from impingement to dysplasia is often subjective and frequently inexact. Currently used radiographic measures may inaccurately predict a hip's morphological stability in borderline hips. A recently described radiographic measure, the Femoro-Epiphyseal Acetabular Roof (FEAR) index, has demonstrated an ability to predict stability in the borderline hip. This measure is attractive to clinicians because procedures can be used on the basis of a hip's pathomechanics. This study was designed to further validate and characterize the FEAR index in a skeletally immature population, in hips with dysplasia/femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), and in asymptomatic hips.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are the characteristics of the FEAR index in children and how does the index change with skeletal maturation? (2) How does the FEAR index correlate with clinical diagnosis and surgical treatment in a large cohort of symptomatic hips and asymptomatic controls? (3) How does the FEAR index correlate with clinical diagnosis in the borderline hip (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA] 20°-25°) group?

METHODS

A total of 220 participants with symptomatic investigational hips with a clinical diagnosis of dysplasia or FAI between January 2008 and January 2018 were retrospectively collected from the senior author's practice. Investigational hips were excluded if they had any femoral head abnormalities preventing LCEA measurement (for example, Perthes disease), Tönnis osteoarthritis grade greater than 1, prior hip surgery, or prior femoral osteotomy. In the 220 participants, 395 hips met inclusion criteria. Once exclusion criteria were applied, 15 hips were excluded due to prior hip surgery or prior femoral osteotomy, and 12 hips were excluded due to femoral head deformity. A single hip was then randomly selected from each participant, resulting in 206 investigational hips with a mean age of 13 ± 3 years. Between January 2017 and December 2017, 70 asymptomatic control participants were retrospectively collected from the senior author's institutional trauma database. Control hips were included if the AP pelvis film had the coccyx centered over the pubic symphysis and within 1 to 3 cm of the superior aspect of the symphysis. Control hips were excluded if there was any fracture to the pelvis or ipsilateral femur or the participant had prior hip/pelvis surgery. After exclusion criteria were applied, 16 hips were excluded due to fracture. One hip was then randomly selected from each participant, resulting in 65 control hips with a mean age of 16 ± 8 years. Standardized standing AP pelvis radiographs were used to measure the FEAR index, LCEA, and Tönnis angle in the investigational cohort. Standardized false-profile radiographs were used to measure the anterior center-edge angle (ACEA) in the investigational cohort. Two blinded investigators measured the FEAR index with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.92 [95% CI 0.84 to 0.96]. Question 1 was answered by comparing the above radiographic measures in age subgroups (childhood: younger than 10 years; adolescence: 10 to 14 years old; maturity: older than 14 years) of dysplastic, FAI, and control hips. Question 2 was answered by comparing the radiographic measures in all dysplastic, FAI, control hips, and a subgroup of operatively or nonoperatively managed dysplasia and FAI hips. Question 3 was answered by comparing the radiographic measures in borderline (LCEA 20°-25°) dysplastic, FAI, and control hips.

RESULTS

The FEAR index was lower in older dysplastic of hips (younger than 10 years, 6° ± 9°; 10 to 14 years, 4° ± 10°; older than 14 years, 5° ± 9°; p < 0.001) and control hips (younger than 10 years, -6° ± 5°; 10 to 14 years, -15° ± 4°; older than 14 years, -16° ± 7°; p < 0.001). The diagnosis and age groups were independently correlated with the FEAR index (p < 0.001). The relationship between the FEAR index and diagnosis remained consistent in each age group (p = 0.11). The FEAR index was higher in all dysplastic hips (mean 5° ± 10°) than in asymptomatic controls (mean -13° ± 7°; p < 0.001) and FAI hips (mean -10° ± 11°; p < 0.001). Using -1.3° as a cutoff for FAI/control hips and dysplastic hips, 81% (112 of 139) of hips with values below this threshold were FAI/control, and 89% (117 of 132) of hips with values above -1.3° were dysplastic. The receiver operator characteristics area under the curve (ROC-AUC) was 0.91. Similarly, the FEAR index was higher in borderline dysplastic hips than in both asymptomatic borderline controls (p < 0.001) and borderline FAI hips (p < 0.001). Eighty-nine percent (33 of 37) of hips with values below this threshold were FAI/control, and 90% (37 of 41) of hips with values above -1.3° were dysplastic. The ROC-AUC for borderline hips was 0.86.

CONCLUSION

The FEAR index was associated with the diagnosis of hip dysplasia and FAI in a patient cohort with a wide age range and with varying degrees of acetabular deformity. Specifically, a FEAR index greater than -1.3° is associated with a dysplastic hip and a FEAR index less than -1.3° is associated with a hip displaying FAI. Using this reliable, developmentally based radiographic measure may help hip preservation surgeons establish a correct diagnosis and more appropriately guide treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE LEVEL

III, diagnostic study.

Arthroscopic Hip Capsule Reconstruction for Anterior Hip Capsule Insufficiency in the Revision Setting

Iatrogenic hip instability is increasingly recognized as a cause of persistent pain and disability after hip arthroscopy. Many authors currently advocate capsular repair to reduce postoperative instability. However, anatomic deficiencies in the anterosuperior capsule can prevent a functional capsular repair, particularly in the revision setting. Capsular reconstruction has been shown to restore biomechanical stabilization in cadaveric models and improve short-term patient outcomes in patients with primary hip arthroscopy failure. Arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction is technically challenging, largely owing to complex suture management and difficulties with graft placement and sizing. This article describes the capsular reconstruction technique, detailing the technical aspects of anterosuperior capsular defect identification; capsular preparation; suture management; and dermal allograft sizing, preparation, and positioning.

Capsular Management Techniques and Hip Arthroscopy

There has been an increased emphasis on capsular management during hip arthroscopy in the literature in recent years. The capsule plays a significant role in the hip joint stability and studies have demonstrated that capsular closure can restore the biomechanics of the hip back to the native state. Capsular management also affects functional outcomes with capsular repair resulting in better clinical outcomes in some studies. Management of the capsule has evolved in recent years with more surgeons performing routine capsular closure. Management techniques and degree of capsular closure, however, can be quite variable between surgeons. This review will discuss hip capsular anatomy, the importance of the capsule in hip biomechanics, management of the capsule during arthroscopy, and functional outcomes as it relates to the various capsular closure techniques versus leaving the capsulotomy unrepaired.

Decision-making in the Borderline Hip

Borderline acetabular dysplasia represents a "transitional acetabular coverage" pattern between more classic acetabular dysplasia and normal acetabular coverage. Borderline dysplasia is typically defined as a lateral center-edge angle of 20 to 25 degrees. This definition of borderline dysplasia identifies a relatively narrow range of lateral acetabular coverage patterns, but anterior and posterior coverage patterns are highly variable and require careful assessment radiographically, in addition to other patient factors. Treatment decisions between isolated hip arthroscopy (addressing labral pathology, femoroacetabular impingement bony morphology, and capsular laxity) and periacetabular osteotomy (improving osseous joint stability; often combined with hip arthroscopy) remain challenging because the fundamental mechanical diagnosis (instability vs. femoroacetabular impingement) can be difficult to determine clinically. Treatment with either isolated hip arthroscopy or periacetabular osteotomy (with or without arthroscopy) appears to result in improvements in patient-reported outcomes in many patients, but with up to 40% with suboptimal outcomes. A patient-specific approach to decision-making that includes a comprehensive patient and imaging evaluation is likely required to achieve optimal outcomes.

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.

The utility of hip arthroscopy for patients with painful borderline hip dysplasia

PURPOSE

We measured the width of the acetabular labra in, and the clinical outcomes of, patients with borderline hip dysplasia (HD) who underwent arthroscopy.

METHODS

A total of 1436 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy to treat symptomatic, acetabular labral tears were enrolled. From this cohort, we extracted a borderline HD group (162 cases). Lateral labral widths were evaluated using preoperative magnetic resonance imaging scans. Clinical data including the modified Harris hip score (mHHS), non-arthritic hip score (NAHS), hip outcome score-activity of daily living (HOS-ADL) score, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and Tönnis grade were collected. In addition, patient satisfaction with arthroscopy outcomes was rated. All complications and reoperations were noted.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 87.4 months. The lateral labral width was 7.64 mm in those with normal hips and 7.73 mm in borderline HD patients, respectively (p = 0.870). The Tönnis grade progressed mildly from 0.46 to 0.76 (p = 0.227). At the last follow-up, clinical outcome scores (mHHS, NAHS, and HOS-ADL scores) and the VAS score were improved (p < 0.001). The mean patient satisfaction was scored at 8.2. The reoperation rate was higher in those who underwent labral debridement (25.6%) than labral repair (4.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The lateral labral width did not differ significantly between the borderline HD group and the nondysplastic control group. Arthroscopy relieved the symptoms of painful borderline HD and did not accelerate osteoarthritis. Therefore, if such patients do not respond to conservative treatment, hip arthroscopy can be considered for further treatment.

Best Practices: Hip Femoroacetabular Impingement

OBJECTIVE. Imaging plays a critical role in the assessment of patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). With better understanding of the underlying pathomechanics and advances in joint-preserving surgery, there is an increasing need to define the most appropriate imaging workup. The purpose of this article is to provide guidance on best practices for imaging of patients with FAI in light of recent advances in corrective FAI surgery. CONCLUSION. Pelvic radiography with dedicated hip projections is the basis of the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected FAI to assess arthritic changes and acetabular coverage and to screen for cam deformities. Chondrolabral lesions should be evaluated with unenhanced MRI or MR arthrography. The protocol should include a large-FOV fluid-sensitive sequence to exclude conditions that can mimic or coexist with FAI, radial imaging to accurately determine the presence of a cam deformity, and imaging of the distal femoral condyles for measurement of femoral torsion. CT remains a valuable tool for planning of complex surgical corrections. Advanced imaging, such as 3D simulation, biochemical MRI, and MR arthrography with application of leg traction, has great potential to improve surgical decision-making. Further research is needed to assess the added clinical value of these techniques.