A High Incidence of Perineal Post-Related Complications After Hip Arthroscopy Is Self-Reported by Patients in Anonymous Online Forums.

Purpose: To evaluate online, self-reported pudendal nerve or perineal injuries related to the use of a perineal post during hip arthroscopy. Methods: Public posts on Reddit and the Health Organization for Pudendal Education were searched to identify anonymous individuals reporting symptoms of pudendal nerve or perineal injury following hip arthroscopy. Included posts were by any individual with a self-reported history of hip arthroscopy who developed symptoms of pudendal nerve injury or damage to the perineal soft tissues. Demographic information and details about a person's symptoms and concerns were collected from each post. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Results: Twenty-three online posts reported on a perineal post-related complication following hip arthroscopy. Sex information was available in 16 (70%) posts (8 male, 8 female). Twenty-two posts reported a sensory injury, and 4 posts reported a motor injury with sexual consequences (sexual dysfunction, dyspareunia, impotence). Symptom duration was available in 15 (65%) posts (8 temporary, 7 permanent). Permanent symptoms included paresthesia of the perineum or genitals (7) and sexual complaints (5). Two posts stated they were counseled preoperatively about the possibility of this injury. Zero patients reported that a postless hip arthroscopy alternative was an option made available to them before surgery. Conclusions: A high incidence of permanent pudendal nerve, perineal skin, and genitourinary/sexual complications are self-reported and discussed online by patients who have undergone post-assisted hip arthroscopy. These patients report being uninformed and undereducated about the possibility of sustaining a post-related complication. No patient reported being informed of postless hip arthroscopy preoperatively. Clinical Relevance: Identifying and evaluating self-reported patient information in online medical forums can provide important information about patient experiences and outcomes.

Cast or Nail? Using a Preference-Based Tool for Shared Decision-Making in Pediatric Femoral Shaft Fracture Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Femoral shaft fractures are common injuries in children 2 to 7 years of age, with treatments ranging from casting to flexible intramedullary nails (FIN). Each treatment has unique attributes and outcomes are overall similar. Given equivalent outcomes, we hypothesized that a shared decision-making process, using adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA), can be used to assess individual family situations to determine ultimate treatment choice. METHODS: An interactive survey incorporating an ACA exercise to elicit the preferences of individuals was created. Amazon Mechanical Turk was used to recruit survey respondents simulating the at-risk population. Basic demographic information and family characteristics were collected. Sawtooth Software was utilized to generate relative importance values of five treatment attributes and determine subjects' ultimate treatment choice. Student's t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare relative importance between groups. RESULTS: The final analysis included 186 subjects with 147 (79%) choosing casting as their ultimate treatment choice, while 39 (21%) chose FIN. Need for second surgery had the highest overall average relative importance (42.0), followed by a chance of serious complications (24.6), time away from school (12.9), effort required by caregivers (11.0), and return to activities (9.6). Most respondents (85%) indicated the generated relative importance of attributes aligned "very well or well" with their preferences. For those who chose casting instead of FIN, the need for secondary surgery (43.9 vs. 34.8, P <0.001) and the chance of serious complications (25.9 vs. 19.6, P <0.001) were the most important factors. In addition, returning to activities, the burden to caregivers, and time away from school were all significantly more important to those choosing surgery versus casting (12.6 vs. 8.7 P <0.001, 12.6 vs. 9.8 P =0.014, 16.6 vs. 11.7 P <0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our decision-making tool accurately identified subjects' treatment preferences and appropriately aligned them with a treatment decision. Given the increased emphasis on shared decision-making in health care, this tool may have the potential to improve shared decision-making and family understanding, leading to improved satisfaction rates and overall outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-III.

Vertical Extension of the T-Capsulotomy Incision in Hip Arthroscopic Surgery Does Not Affect the Force Required for Hip Distraction: Effect of Capsulotomy Size, Type, and Subsequent Repair.

BACKGROUND: Interportal and T-capsulotomies are popular techniques for exposing femoroacetabular impingement deformities. The difference between techniques with regard to the force required to distract the hip is currently unknown. PURPOSE: To quantify how increasing interportal capsulotomy size, conversion to T-capsulotomy, and subsequent repair affect the force required to distract the hip. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric hip specimens were dissected and fixed in a materials testing system, such that pure axial distraction of the iliofemoral ligament could be achieved. The primary outcome measure was the load required to distract the hip to a distance of 6 mm at a rate of 0.5 mm/s. Each hip was tested in the intact state and then sequentially under varying capsulotomy conditions: 2-cm interportal, 4-cm interportal, half-T (4-cm interportal and 2-cm T-capsulotomy), and full-T (4-cm interportal and 4-cm T-capsulotomy). After serial testing, isolated T-limb repair and then subsequent complete repair were performed. Repaired specimens underwent distraction testing as previously stated to assess the ability to restore hip stability to the native profile. Distraction force as well as the relative distraction force (percentage normalized to the intact capsule) were compared between all capsulotomy and repair conditions. RESULTS: Increasing interportal capsulotomy size from 2 to 4 cm resulted in significantly less force required to distract the hip ( P < .001). The largest relative decrease in force was seen between the intact state (274.6 ± 71.2 N; 100%) and 2-cm interportal (209.7 ± 73.2 N; 76.4% ± 15.6%; P = .0008). There was no significant mean difference in distraction force when 4-cm interportal (160.4 ± 79.8 N) was converted to half-T (140.7 ± 73.5 N; P = .270) and then full-T (112.0 ± 70.2 N; P = .204). When compared with the intact state, isolated T-limb repair partially restored stability (177.3 ± 86.3 N; 63.5% ± 19.8%; P < .0001), while complete repair exceeded native values (331.7 ± 103.7 N; 122.7% ± 15.1%; P = .0008). CONCLUSION: The conversion of interportal capsulotomy to T-capsulotomy did not significantly affect the force required to distract the hip in a cadaveric model. However, larger interportal capsulotomies resulted in significant stepwise decreases in distraction force. When performing interportal or T-capsulotomy, the iliofemoral ligament strength is significantly decreased, but complete capsular repair demonstrated the ability to restore joint stability to the native, intact hip. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Increasing interportal capsulotomy size decreases the force required to distract the hip. In an effort to maximize visualization and minimize the magnitude of iliofemoral ligament fibers cut, many surgeons have moved from extended interportal capsulotomy to T-capsulotomy. Interportal and T-capsulotomies result in equivalent hip distraction, partial capsular repair marginally improves hip stability, and only complete repair has the ability to restore the hip to its native biomechanical profile.

Arthroscopic hip preservation surgery practice patterns: an international survey.

To design and conduct a survey analyzing pre-, intra- and post- hip arthroscopy practice patterns among hip arthroscopists worldwide. A 21-question, IRB-exempt, HIPAA-compliant, cross-sectional survey was conducted via email using SurveyMonkey to examine pre-operative evaluation, intra-operative techniques and post-operative management. The survey was administered internationally to 151 hip arthroscopists identified from publicly available sources. Seventy-five respondents completed the survey (151 ± 116 hip arthroscopy procedures per year; 8.6 ± 7.1 years hip arthroscopy experience). Standing AP pelvis, false profile and Dunn 45 were the most common radiographs utilized. CT scans were utilized by 54% of surgeons at least some of the time. Only 56% of participants recommended an arthrogram with MRI. Nearly all surgeons either never (40%) or infrequently (58%) performed arthroscopy in Tönnis grade-2 or grade-3 osteoarthritis. Surgeons rarely performed hip arthroscopy on patients with dysplasia (51% never; 44% infrequently). Only 25% of participants perform a routine 'T' capsulotomy and 41% close the capsule if the patient is at risk for post-operative instability. Post-operatively, 52% never use a brace, 39% never use a continuous passive motion, 11% never recommended heterotopic ossification prophylaxis and 30% never recommended formal thromboembolic disease prophylaxis. Among a large number of high-volume experienced hip arthroscopists worldwide, pre-, intra- and post- hip arthroscopy practice patterns have been established and reported. Within this cohort of respondents, several areas of patient evaluation and management remain discordant and controversial without universal agreement. Future research should move beyond expert opinion level V evidence towards high-quality appropriately designed and conducted investigations.

The financial impact of orthopaedic fellowship training.

BACKGROUND: Previous reports have compared the expected financial return of a medical education with those expected in other professions. However, we know of no published report estimating the financial return of orthopaedic training. The purpose of this study was to estimate the financial incentives that may influence the decision to invest an additional year of training in each of the major orthopaedic fellowships. METHODS: With survey data from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and using standard financial techniques, we calculated the estimated return on investment of an additional year of orthopaedic training over a working lifetime. The net present value, internal rate of return, and the break-even point were estimated. Eight fellowships were examined and compared with general orthopaedic practice. RESULTS: Investment in an orthopaedic fellowship yields variable returns. Adult spine, shoulder and elbow, sports medicine, hand, and adult arthroplasty may yield positive returns. Trauma yields a neutral return, while pediatrics and foot and ankle have negative net present values. On the basis of mean reported incomes, the break-even point was two years for spine, seven years for hand, eight years for shoulder and elbow, twelve years for adult arthroplasty, thirteen years for sports medicine, and twenty-seven years for trauma. Fellowship-trained pediatric and foot and ankle surgeons did not break even following the initial investment. When working hours were controlled for, the returns for adult arthroplasty and trauma became negative. CONCLUSIONS: The financial return of an orthopaedic fellowship varies on the basis of the specialty chosen. While reasons to pursue fellowship training vary widely, and many are not financial, there are positive and negative financial incentives. Therefore, the decision to pursue fellowship training is best if it is not made on the basis of financial incentives. This information may assist policy makers in analyzing medical education economics to ensure the training of orthopaedic surgeons in all specialties and subspecialties.