Current concepts in revision hip arthroscopy

Analysis of the Accuracy of CAM-type Deformity Resection on a Low-cost Arthroscopic Simulator in a Training Scenario

Objective To evaluate surgeons' performance in resecting CAM-type deformities using a realistic arthroscopic surgery simulator. Methods An arthroscopic simulator was created using low-cost materials with the help of a GTMax Core A1 3D printer and the programs Invesalius and Meshmixer 2017, which were used to develop femoral head parts in ABS material, with the presence of a CAM-type deformity, to mimic a femoroacetabular impact situation. After the operations were performed by 16 surgeons, the femurs were compared to a previous model with deformity and another without, using Cloudcompare, and parameters such as the volumetric difference between the operated femurs, with and without deformity, the minimum and maximum distance between them, the percentage of the deformity resected, the estimated time for total resection of the deformity, as well as a qualitative analysis based on the images and graphs provided by the program representing the areas of the parts resected, were evaluated at the end. Results The average resection speed was 34.66 mm 3 /min (SD = 46 mm 3 /min, max = 147.33; min = -2.66). The average resection rate was 26.2% (SD = 34.7%, max = 111; min = -2). Qualitative analysis showed hyporesection of deformities and sometimes hyperresection of nondeformed areas. The simulator was highly rated by the surgeons, with a tactile sensation very similar to real surgery, according to them. Conclusion Arthroscopic simulators have proved very useful in training less experienced surgeons.

Predicting Outcomes in Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) continues to rise in incidence, and thus there is an increased focus on factors that predict patient outcomes. The factors that impact the outcomes of arthroscopic FAIS treatment are complex. The purpose of this review is to outline the current literature concerning predictors of patient outcomes for arthroscopic treatment of FAIS.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple studies have shown that various patient demographics, joint parameters, and surgical techniques are all correlated with postoperative outcomes after arthroscopic FAIS surgery, as measured by both validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores and rates of revision surgery including hip arthroplasty. To accurately predict patient outcomes for arthroscopic FAIS surgery, consideration should be directed toward preoperative patient-specific factors and intraoperative technical factors. The future of accurately selecting patient predictors for outcomes will only improve with increased data, improved techniques, and technological advancement.

The revision hip arthroscopy complex: capsular deficiency, labral deficiency, femoral over-resection and adhesions can result in good survivorship with revision hip arthroscopy

To evaluate the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship of combined arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction/augmentation, capsular reconstruction, femoral neck remplissage and lysis of adhesions. Patients ≥18 years old who underwent this combination of procedures during revision hip arthroscopy and were eligible for minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. PRO scores including Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living scale, HOS-Sports scale, modified Harris Hip Score, Short Form 12, and Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, patient satisfaction and failure rates were analyzed. Seven patients (5 females and 2 males) with average age of 45.0 ± 5.2 (range: 40-54 years) met inclusion criteria. Patients had a median of 1 (range: 1-3) prior hip surgery at an outside institution. All patients had previously undergone femoral osteoplasty, and 85% (6/7) of patients had a labral repair performed. Four patients had no capsule closure performed in their prior procedures. Six patients were available for minimum 2-year follow-up. Two patients converted to total hip arthroplasty: one patient with four prior hip arthroscopies and the other had advanced osteoarthritis with outerbridge grade 3/4 defects requiring microfracture. Mean patient satisfaction was 7 (range: 2-9). At mean follow-up of 3 years, most patients who underwent the combination of labral reconstruction, capsular reconstruction, femoral neck remplissage and lysis of adhesions during revision hip arthroscopy demonstrated improved PROs. This salvage procedure has the potential to restore hip function in patients who have failed an initial hip arthroscopy procedure. In patients with these pathologies present and concomitant joint space narrowing, a total hip arthroplasty may be a more appropriate salvage option.

Criteria-Based Rehabilitation Following Revision Hip Arthroscopy: A Clinical Commentary

Hip revision arthroscopy is becoming an increasingly popular surgery for those with unsatisfactory outcomes following primary hip arthroscopy. With the relatively uncommon but potentially increased difficulty of rehabilitation from this surgery, a lack of established research regarding rehabilitative programs remains. Therefore, the purpose of this clinical commentary is to propose a criterion-based progression that considers the intricacies present following a hip revision arthroscopy from early rehabilitation through return to sport. Criteria are presented clearly to promote objective progression through rehabilitation as opposed to relying on time since surgery as revision surgeries do not always follow traditional tissue healing time-frames. This criterion based progression promotes range of motion (ROM), strength, gait, neuromuscular control, load introduction and gradual return to play.

Level of Evidence

5.

Hip microinstability diagnosis and management: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review is to present the most common causes, diagnostic features, treatment options and outcomes of patients with hip micro-instability.

METHODS

Three online databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed) were searched from database inception March 2022, for literature addressing the diagnosis and management of patients with hip micro-instability. Given the lack of consistent reporting of patient outcomes across studies, the results are presented in a descriptive summary fashion.

RESULTS

Overall, there were a total of 9 studies including 189 patients (193 hips) included in this review of which 89% were female. All studies were level IV evidence with a mean MINORS score of 12 (range: 10-13). The most commonly used features for diagnosis of micro-instability on history were anterior pain in 146 (78%) patients and a subjective feeling of instability with gait in 143 (81%) patients, while the most common feature on physical examination was the presence of anterior apprehension with combined hip extension and external rotation in 123 (65%) patients. The most common causes of micro-instability were iatrogenic instability secondary to either capsular insufficiency or cam over-resection in 76 (62%) patients and soft tissue laxity in 38 (31%) patients.

CONCLUSION

The most common symptom of micro-instability on history was anterior hip pain and on physical exam was pain with hip extension and external rotation. There are many treatment options and when managed appropriately based on the precise cause of micro-instability, patients may demonstrate improved outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Arthroscopic Hip Capsular Reconstruction Using Iliotibial Band Allograft as a Salvage Option for Unrepairable Capsular Defects Demonstrates Good Survivorship and Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes

PURPOSE

To describe patient outcomes 3 to 5 years after arthroscopic hip capsule reconstruction.

METHODS

Between January 2007 and December 2016, patients aged 18 to 50 years who underwent arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction using an Iliotibial band allograft by the senior author and had minimum of 3-year follow-up were identified. Patients were excluded if they had previous open hip surgery, advanced osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade >2), significant acetabular dysplasia (lateral center edge angle <20°), avascular necrosis, or Legg-Calve-Perthes disease. Outcome scores including the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living scale, modified Harris Hip Score, HOS-Sports scale, SF-12, and Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were compared in addition to failure rate, revision rate, and patient satisfaction rate with the outcome (range, 1-10). All patients were assessed by the senior author pre- and postoperatively.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of the cohort was 32 ± 10 years, with 6 male and 33 female patients. The average number of previous hip arthroscopy surgeries was 2 ± 1. Six patients (15%) converted to total hip arthroplasty at an average of 2.1 years (range 7 months to 6 years) following capsular reconstruction. Four patients required revision hip arthroscopy after the arthroscopic capsular reconstruction. All arthroscopic revisions occurred in female patients with the primary intraoperative finding of capsulolabral adhesions at the time of revision. At mean follow-up of 4.3 years (range 3-6.8 years), the 29 patients who did not require subsequent surgery had significant improvements from preoperatively to postoperatively in HOS-Activities of Daily Living and HOS-Sport with 90% reaching minimal clinically important difference. All other scores showed significant improvement. Survival for patients not requiring total hip arthroplasty was 86% at 3 years, with a mean survival of 5.7 years (95% confidence interval 4.97-6.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction with iliotibial band allograft is a successful treatment option for patients with symptomatic capsular defects, demonstrating improved patient-reported outcomes maintained at mean follow-up time of 4 years. This technique offers restoration of the anatomic structure and function of the capsular ligaments to improve pain and instability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case series.

Biomechanical Evaluation of 4 Suture Techniques for Hip Capsular Closure

Background:

The most reliable suture technique for capsular closure after a capsulotomy remains unknown.

Purpose:

To determine which suture technique best restores native stability after a 5-cm interportal capsulotomy.

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

Ten human cadaveric hip specimens were tested using a 6-degrees-of-freedom robotic arm in 7 states: intact, capsular laxity, 5-cm capsulotomy, standard suture, shoelace, double shoelace, and Quebec City slider (QCS). Rotational range of motion (ROM) was measured across 9 tests: flexion, extension, abduction, abduction at 45° of flexion, adduction, external rotation, internal rotation, anterior impingement, and log roll. Distraction (ie, femoral head translation [FHT]) was measured across a range of flexion and abduction angles.

Results:

When compared with the native state, the 5-cm capsulotomy state showed the largest laxity increases on all tests, specifically in external rotation ROM (+13.4°), extension ROM (+11.5°), and distraction FHT (+4.5 mm) (P < .001 for all). The standard suture technique was not significantly different from the 5-cm capsulotomy on any test and demonstrated significantly more flexion ROM than the double shoelace suture (+1.41°; P = .049) and more extension ROM (+5.51°; P = .014) and external rotation ROM (+6.03°; P = .021) than the QCS. The standard suture also resulted in significantly higher distraction FHT as compared with the shoelace suture (+1.0 mm; P = .005), double shoelace suture (+1.4 mm; P < .001), and QCS (+1.1 mm; P = .003). The shoelace, double shoelace, and QCS techniques significantly reduced hip laxity when compared with the 5-cm capsulotomy state, specifically in external rotation ROM (respectively, –8.1°, –7.8°, and –10.2°), extension ROM (–6.3°, –7.3°, and –8.1°), and distraction FHT (–1.8, –2.2, and –1.9 mm) (P ≤ .003 for all). These 3 techniques restored native stability (no significant difference from intact) on some but not all tests, and no significant differences were observed among them on any test.

Conclusion:

Hip capsule closure with the standard suture technique did not prevent postoperative hip instability after a 5-cm capsulotomy, and 3 suture techniques were found to be preferable; however, none perfectly restored native stability at time zero.

Clinical Relevance:

The shoelace, double shoelace, and QCS suture techniques are recommended when closing the hip capsule.

High prevalence of acetabular rim osteophytes after hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAI

Background

Few studies mentioned acetabular rim osteophytes (ARO) after arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in follow-up after primary hip arthroscopy. We found that many patients had postoperative ARO, which may lead to recurrent or secondary pincer-type deformity after primary hip arthroscopy for FAI and postoperative ARO sometimes even led to revision surgery. It is necessary to carry out related research on ARO.

Methods

We respectively evaluated consecutive cases who underwent hip arthroscopy in our hospital between January 2008 and January 2020. Radiographic examination was obtained for all patients preoperatively and postoperatively. Another CT scan was performed at least 6 months after surgery at final follow-up. Preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and PROs at final follow-up were obtained, including visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). The volume of ARO was calculated using mimics 21.0 software. According to the material of anchors and whether the anchors were used, patients were divided into absorbable group, non-absorbable group and no anchor group.

Results

A total of 71 patients were finally included in this study. Patients with postoperative ARO had higher VAS at final follow-up (P<0.05). Patients without postoperative ARO had higher mean mHHS at final follow-up (P = 0.08) and higher percentage of passing minimal clinical important difference. The percentage and volume of postoperative ARO was significantly higher in patients who underwent acetabuloplasty and labral repair (P<0.05). The percentage and volume of postoperative ARO in absorbable group were significantly higher than the other groups (P<0.05).

Conclusion

There is a high percentage of ARO after hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAI and patients who have undergone labral repair and acetabuloplasty are more likely to have postoperative ARO. Using of absorbable anchors may increase the possibility and volume of postoperative ARO. Postoperative ARO may predict a worse clinical outcome.

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.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy in the Native Hip: A Review of Contemporary Evaluation and Treatment Options

Hip arthroscopy is a reproducible and efficacious procedure for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Despite this efficacy, clinical failures are observed, clinical entities are challenging to treat, and revision hip arthroscopy may be required. The most common cause of symptom recurrence after a hip arthroscopy that leads to a revision arthroscopy is residual cam morphology as a result of inadequate femoral osteochondroplasty and restoration of head–neck offset, though several other revision etiologies including progressive chondral and labral pathologies also exist. In these cases, it is imperative to perform a comprehensive examination to identify the cause of a failed primary arthroscopy as to assess whether or not a revision hip arthroscopy procedure is indicated. When a secondary procedure is indicated, approaches may consist of revision labral repair, complete labral reconstruction, or labral augmentation depending on labral integrity. Gross instability or imaging-based evidence of microinstability may necessitate capsular augmentation or plication. If residual cam or pincer morphology is present, additional resection of the osseous abnormalities may be warranted. This review article discusses indications, the evaluation of patients with residual symptoms after primary hip arthroscopy, and the evaluation of outcomes following revision hip arthroscopy through an evidence-based discussion. We also present a case example of a revision hip arthroscopy procedure to highlight necessary intraoperative techniques during a revision hip arthroscopy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Midterm Follow-Up and Assessment of Cartilage Thickness by Arthro-Magnetic Resonance Imaging After Arthroscopic Cam Resection, Labral Repair, and Rim Trimming Without Labral Detachment

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical and radiological outcome, sum of acetabular and femoral cartilage thickness, and rate of failure in the midterm after arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome with femoral osteoplasty, labral repair, and rim trimming without labral detachment.

METHODS

This retrospective case series included patients with FAI syndrome who had undergone hip arthroscopy from January 2009 to December 2010 by a single surgeon, with a minimum follow-up of 55 months. Data from patients who had undergone arthroscopic hip procedures with labral repair, rim trimming, and femoral osteoplasty were analyzed pre- and postoperatively. Clinical outcome (nonarthritic hip score [NAHS], Short Form 36 [SF-36]), range of motion, progression of osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade), radiological parameters (α angle, lateral center-edge angle [LCEA], Tönnis angle), femoral and acetabular cartilage thickness (using magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), and intraoperative findings were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 148 hip arthroscopies performed, 97 included rim trimming, labral refixation, and femoral osteoplasty. Ten cases were lost to follow-up, leaving 87 hips. Arthroscopic revision was performed on 4 hips and total hip replacement on 4 hips, and 1 hip underwent both arthroscopic revision and total hip replacement. Excluding these 9 cases of revision, for which follow-up was not possible (retrospective study), the remaining 78 hips were followed up for a minimum of 55 months (77 ± 11.4, mean ± SD; range 55 to 124). Mean NAHS (65 to 88, P < .001), SF-36 physical subscale (65 to 85, P < .001), and the numerical pain rating scale (NRS) (5 to 1, P < .001) improved significantly. Outcome scores of minimal clinical importance (NAHS) were achieved in 67.6% of the patients. Mean range of movement improved significantly in flexion (109 to 122, P < .001) and internal rotation (10 to 22.7, P < .001). NAHS was positively associated with flexion of the hip postoperatively (r = 0.307, P = .011). In 16 cases, microfracture was performed (15 acetabular and 1 femoral). Preoperative α angles (anteroposterior and modified Dunn) were significantly higher in this cohort (P < .001, 95% confidence interval 8.9 to 25.2, P = .001). Twenty hips (28 %) progressed to worse Tönnis grades. Initial Tönnis grades were grade 0, 38; grade 1, 48; grade 2, 8. Pre- or postoperative Tönnis grades did not show any correlation with pre- or postoperative NAHS and NRS. MRI measurements at the latest follow-up (69 patients) of the femoral and acetabular cartilage thickness did not reveal any significant reduction at the 12 o'clock position.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic cam resection, rim trimming, and labral repair without detachment of the labrum provides good or excellent outcome in 77.1% of hips based on NAHS in the midterm. Higher range of motion in flexion is associated with higher NAHS postoperatively. Arthroscopic cam resection, rim trimming and labral repair without detachment of the labrum is a successful method for the treatment of FAI syndrome in the midterm.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective case series.

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

Background:

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

Purpose:

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

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

Repaired or unrepaired capsulotomy after hip arthroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

PURPOSE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the surgical techniques, clinical outcomes, rates of revision and conversion to arthroplasty and complications between a repaired and unrepaired capsulotomy after hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

A search of the PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases was performed to identify comparative articles published prior to 10 July 2019 that reported the capsule management strategy and clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy. A narrative analysis and meta-analysis were performed to integrate and compare the results of the 2 groups.

RESULTS

12 comparative studies (n = 1185 hips) with an average (methodological index for non-randomized studies) MINORS score of 17.45 ± 2.02 were identified for analysis, of which 5 were included in the meta-analysis. The pre- to postoperative improvements in the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SS), and Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) revealed no significant differences between the repaired and unrepaired groups (p = 0.40, 0.26 and 0.61, respectively). The risk ratio of the revision rate for the 2 groups was 0.66 (p = 0.21). Evaluation of the MRI scans and the rate of heterotopic ossification also showed no significant differences. The most preferred capsulotomy techniques were interportal and T-shape. No postoperative hip instability was reported in any of the 12 studies.

CONCLUSION

The currently published evidence is still not strong enough to confirm the superiority of repairing the capsule after hip arthroscopy; hence, routine repair of the capsule during surgery cannot be suggested.

Approach to a Failed Hip Arthroscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hip arthroscopy has seen increasing utilization over the last decade. This is largely related to increased recognition and improved techniques for treating femoroacetabilar impingement (FAI). Though hip arthroscopy generally yields favorable outcomes, there are a subset of patients who have residual or recurrent symptoms that require reoperation. The current review discusses an algorithmic approach to evaluating patients following a failed hip arthroscopy including a framework for clinical and radiographic assessment, available treatment options, and associated outcomes in revision surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Residual FAI has been demonstrated to be the most common indication for revision arthroscopy. Other indications include residual or recurrent labral pathology, gross instability, microinstability, or adhesions. Appropriate history and imaging are important to determine the cause for residual symptoms. Novel techniques including labral and capsular reconstruction, and modified remplissage procedures have been developed to deal with complex revision cases. Though studies have shown improved outcomes after revision surgery, they have been shown to result in inferior outcomes compared to a matched cohort following primary hip arthroscopy. Management of a failed hip arthroscopy remains a complex problem. Focused history, cross-sectional imaging, and revision hip arthroscopy with novel techniques can improve outcomes, albeit to a lesser extent than patients undergoing successful primary hip arthroscopy. The information provided here can help guide treatment and set appropriate patient expectations for revision surgery.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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

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

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

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