Defining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State After Endoscopic Gluteus Medius or Minimus Repair With or Without Labral Treatment and Routine Capsular Closure at Minimum 5-Year Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information in the literature on midterm outcomes of endoscopic gluteus medius and/or minimus repair with concomitant labral treatment using only modern surgical techniques. PURPOSE: To define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively for patients undergoing endoscopic hip abductor repair with routine capsular closure. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent primary endoscopic repair of gluteus medius and/or minimus tears between January 2012 and December 2015 by the senior author were eligible for inclusion. Patient-reported outcome scores were assessed preoperatively and at 5 years postoperatively: Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), HOS-Sport Specific (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. The MCID was uniquely calculated using the distribution method, and the PASS was determined via the anchor-based method utilizing receiver operating characteristic curves and Youden index. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients were included in the study. The majority were female (87.0%), with a mean ± standard deviation age of 59.1 ± 8.9 years and body mass index of 27.3 ± 6.9. Significant postoperative improvements (P < .001) in each of the 5 patient-reported outcomes were observed at 5 years postoperatively. The MCID threshold values were calculated as follows: HOS-ADL, 11.5; HOS-SS, 15.1; mHHS, 13.3; iHOT-12, 11.8; and VAS, 15.8. The PASS thresholds were calculated as follows: HOS-ADL, 75.7; HOS-SS, 79.7; mHHS, 81.2; and iHOT-12, 60.8. A majority of patients achieved a clinically significant outcome, with 96.2% of patients reaching a threshold score for the MCID or PASS for at least 1 patient-reported outcome. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic hip abductor repair with concomitant arthroscopic labral treatment has a high rate of achievement of clinically significant outcomes and survivorship at a minimum 5-year follow-up. We defined the MCID for the HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, mHHS, iHOT-12, and VAS outcome scores to be 11.5, 15.1, 13.3, 11.8, and 15.8, respectively. The PASS threshold scores for the HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, mHHS and iHOT-12 scores of 75.7, 79.7, 81.2, and 60.8, respectively. Future researchers and clinicians can use the MCID and PASS values established in this study to better evaluate mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing hip abductor repair.

Comparison of Surgical Time, Short-term Adverse Events, and Implant Placement Accuracy Between Manual, Robotic-assisted, and Computer-navigated Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Recent years have observed the increasing utilization of robotic-assisted and computer navigation techniques in total hip arthroplasty (THA), given the proposed benefits of enhanced consistency and precision in implant placement. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine whether differences in surgical times, adverse events, and implant positioning existed between manual, robotic-assisted, and computer navigation THA. METHODS: PubMed, OVID/MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were queried for RCTs comparing robotic-assisted versus manual THA and computer navigation versus manual THA at a minimum 1-year follow-up. Frequentist model network meta-analyses with P-scores were conducted to compare revisions, complications, and surgical times among the three treatment groups. A random-effects meta-analysis between computer navigation and manual THAs was conducted to analyze cup positioning because no robotic-assisted THA studies reported this outcome. RESULTS: Five RCTs compared robotic-assisted and manual THAs, while seven compared computer navigation and manual THAs. manual THA was associated with significantly reduced surgical time in comparison with computer navigation (mean difference: 23.3 minutes) and robotic-assisted THAs (mean difference: 8.6 minutes; P < 0.001). No difference was observed in the incidence of all-cause complications (computer navigation: 1.7%, manual: 6.6%, and robotic-assisted: 16.2%) or revisions (computer navigation: 1.0%, manual: 1.7%, and robotic-assisted 4.8%) among the three treatment groups based on the network meta-analysis. In three studies that reported acetabular implant positioning, computer navigation had a significantly higher percentage of acetabular cups placed in the Lewinnek "safe zone" compared with manual THA (79% versus 52%; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: manual THA results in markedly shorter surgical times and a similar incidence of complications and revisions compared with robotic-assisted and computer navigation THAs, given the sample sizes available for study. However, computer navigation THA led to increased precision in the placement of acetabular implants.

Establishing Clinically Significant Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Pediatric Patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish clinically significant outcome values for the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in the pediatric and adolescent populations and to assess factors that were associated with achieving these outcomes. METHODS: Patients between the age of 10 to 21 who underwent ACLR between 2016 and 2018 were identified and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Intraoperative variables collected included graft choice, graft size (diameter), graft fixation method, and concomitant procedures. PROs collected for analysis were the International Knee Documentation Committee Score (IKDC) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). MCID and PASS were calculated using receiver operating characteristic with area under the curve analyses for delta (ie, baseline-to-postoperative change) and absolute postoperative PRO scores, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 59 patients were included in the analysis. Of the entire study population, 53 (89.8%) reported satisfaction with their surgical outcome. The established MCID threshold values based on the study population were 33.3 for IKDC, 28.6 for (KOOS) Symptoms, 19.4 for Pain, 2.9 for activities of daily living (ADL), 45.0 for Sport, and 25.0 for Quality of Life (QoL). Postoperative scores greater than the following values corresponded to the PASS: 80.5 for IKDC, 75.0 (KOOS) Symptoms, 88.9 for Pain, 98.5 for ADL, 75.0 for Sport, and 68.8 for QoL. CONCLUSION: Clinically meaningful outcomes including MCID and PASS were established for pediatric ACLR surgery using selected PRO measures, IKDC, and KOOS. Patient age, sex, graft type, and graft size were not associated with greater achievement of these outcomes. In contrast, collision sports, fixed-object high-impact rotational landing sports, and concomitant meniscectomy surgery were associated with a decreased likelihood of achieving clinically significant improvement. However, findings must be interpreted with caution due to limitations in follow-up and sample size. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV: case series.

Predictors of Above Average 6-Year Citation Rates in Leading Spine-Specific Medical Journals.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of manuscripts achieving 6-year citation rates higher than the mean in spine-specific literature. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: An article's citation rate demonstrates its contribution to academia and its quality. Predictors of citation rates have not yet been studied in spine-specific medical literature. METHODS: Three leading spine-specific journals were identified by a weighted scoring system comparing various journal metrics. Research articles published in 2014 were evaluated from the following journals: Spine, European Spine Journal, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. Article features analyzed included journal of origin, number of words in article title, author count, degree of first author, conflicts of interest, quantity of contributing academic institutions, country of origin, study topic, study design, level of evidence, sample size, reference count, and citation rate. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of above average citation rate at 6 years following publication. RESULTS: The final analysis included 1091 articles. Spine had a significantly higher citation rate than European Spine Journal (P = 0.0008); however, no significant differences were observed between Spine and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies originating in North America (OR:1.44, 95% CI:1.01-2.01, P = 0.04), those with 6 ≥ authors (OR:1.72, 95% CI:1.29-2.30, P < 0.001), sample size >100 (P < 0.001), prospective case series (OR: 2.67, 95% CI: 1.24-5.76), and retrospective case series (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.07-3.73) were independent predictors of achieving above average 6-year citation rates. CONCLUSION: Spine, European Spine Journal, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine had the highest 6-year citation rates of the top 10 orthopedic spine journals, with Spine being significantly higher than European Spine Journal. Studies originating in North America, those with six or more authors, sample sizes > 100, and those that are retrospective or prospective case series are independent predictors of greater citation rates at 6 years in orthopedic spine-specific medical literature.Level of Evidence: 4.

Machine Learning Predicts Femoral and Tibial Implant Size Mismatch for Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Despite reasonable accuracy with preoperative templating, the search for an optimal planning tool remains an unsolved dilemma. The purpose of the present study was to apply machine learning (ML) using preoperative demographic variables to predict mismatch between templating and final component size in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) cases. METHODS: This was a retrospective case-control study of primary TKA patients between September 2012 and April 2018. The primary outcome was mismatch between the templated and final implanted component sizes extracted from the operative database. The secondary outcome was mismatch categorized as undersized and oversized. Five supervised ML algorithms were trained using 6 demographic features. Prediction accuracies were obtained as a metric of performance for binary mismatch (yes/no) and multilevel (undersized/correct/oversized) classifications. RESULTS: A total of 1801 patients were included. For binary classification, the best-performing algorithm for predicting femoral and tibial mismatch was the stochastic gradient boosting model (area under the curve: 0.76/0.72, calibration intercepts: 0.05/0.05, calibration slopes: 0.55/0.7, and Brier scores: 0.20/0.21). For multiclass classification, the best-performing algorithms had accuracies of 83.9% and 82.9% for predicting the concordance/mismatch of the femoral and tibial implant, respectively. Model predictions of greater than 51.0% and 47.9% represented high-risk thresholds for femoral and tibial sizing mismatch, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ML algorithms predicted templating mismatch with good accuracy. External validation is necessary to confirm the performance and reliability of these algorithms. Predicting sizing mismatch is the first step in using ML to aid in the prediction of final TKA component sizes. Further studies to optimize parameters and predictions for the algorithms are ongoing.

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient-Acceptable Symptomatic State After Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair and Associated Variables for Achievement.

PURPOSE: To establish the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) after arthroscopic meniscal repair and identify the factors associated with achieving these outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective study with prospectively collected data. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected from April 2017 to March 2020. All patients who underwent arthroscopic meniscal repair and completed both preoperative and postoperative PROMs were included in the analysis. MCID and PASS were calculated via half the standard deviation of the delta PRO change from baseline (for International Knee Documentation Committee Score [IKDC]) and via anchor-based methodology (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] subscales). RESULTS: Sixty patients were included in the final analysis. The established MCID threshold values were 10.9 for IKDC, 12.3 for KOOS Symptoms, 11.8 for KOOS Pain, 11.4 for KOOS Activities of Daily Living (ADL), 16.7 for KOOS Sport, and 16.9 for KOOS Quality of Life (QoL). Postoperative scores greater than the following values corresponded to the PASS: 69.0 for IKDC, 75.0 for KOOS Symptoms, 80.6 for KOOS Pain, 92.7 for KOOS ADL, 80.0 for KOOS Sport, and 56.3 for KOOS QoL. Higher preoperative PRO scores were associated with lower likelihood of achieving MCID. Concomitant ligament procedures were associated with a higher likelihood of achieving PASS. Tears to both menisci were associated with decreased likelihood of achieving MCID and PASS for IKDC. Horizontal tears were associated with decreased likelihood of achieving PASS for IKDC and KOOS. Complex tears were associated with decreased likelihood of achieving MCID for KOOS. CONCLUSION: Clinically meaningful outcomes such as MCID and PASS were established for meniscal repair surgery using selected PROMs for IKDC and KOOS subscales. Variables more likely to be associated with achieving these outcomes include lower preoperative PRO score and concomitant ligament procedure, whereas higher preoperative PRO score, tearing of both medial and lateral menisci, and horizontal and complex tear classifications were associated with decreased likelihood of achieving these outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, retrospective case series.

Hypermobile Disorders and Their Effects on the Hip Joint.

Hypermobility, or joint hyperlaxity, can result from inherited connective tissue disorders or from micro- or macrotrauma to a joint. The supraphysiologic motion of the hip joint results in capsuloligamentous damage, and these patients have a propensity to develop femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and labral injury. In this review, the recent literature evaluating the definitions, history, incidence, genetics, and histology of hypermobile disorders is investigated. We then review the clinical evaluation, natural history, and resulting instability for patients presenting with a hypermobile hip. Lastly, treatment options and outcomes will be highlighted.

Regenerative Potential of Mesenchymal Stem Cells for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis and Chondral Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effects of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) on cartilage regeneration and patient-reported pain and function. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed (2008-2019), EMBASE (2008-2019), and MEDLINE (2008-2019) were queried in July 2019 for literature reporting use of stem cells to treat knee osteoarthritis or chondral defects. Data describing administered treatment, subject population, injection type, duration of follow-up, pain and functional outcomes, and radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging findings were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black scale. Meta-analyses adjusted for random effects were performed, calculating pooled effect sizes in terms of patient-reported pain and function, cartilage quality, and cartilage volume. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies with 439 subjects were identified. There was no significant difference in pain improvement between MSC treatment and controls (pooled standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.23, P = .30). However, MSC treatment was significantly favored for functional improvement (SMD = 0.66, P < .001). There was improvement in cartilage volume after MSC treatment (SMD = 0.84, P < .001). Regarding cartilage quality, meta-analysis resulted in a small, nonsignificant effect size of 0.37 (95%, -0.03 to 0.77, P = .07). There was risk for potential bias among included studies, with 17 (68%) receiving either a grade of "poor" or "fair." CONCLUSIONS: The pooled SMD from meta-analyses showed statistically significant effects of MSC on self-reported physical function but not self-reported pain. MSCs provided functional benefit only in patients who underwent concomitant surgery. However, this must be interpreted with caution, as there was substantial variability in MSC composition and mode of delivery. MSC treatment provided significant improvement in cartilage volume but not cartilage quality. Preliminary data regarding therapeutic properties of MSC treatment suggest significant heterogeneity in the current literature, and risk of bias is not negligible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Pelvic osteotomies for acetabular dysplasia: Are there outcomes, survivorship and complication differences between different osteotomy techniques?

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO), rotational acetabular osteotomy (RAO), and eccentric rotational acetabular osteotomy (ERAO) for treating hip dysplasia by comparing complication rates, survivorship, and functional outcomes after treatment. A systematic review in the MEDLINE and CINAHL databases was performed, and studies reporting outcomes after pelvic osteotomy for hip dysplasia with a minimum of 1-year follow-up or reported postoperative complications was included. Patient demographics, radiographic measurements, patient reported outcomes including the modified Harris hip score (mHHS), complications using the modified Clavien-Dindo classification, and reoperations were extracted from each study. A meta-analysis of outcome scores, complications, change in acetabular coverage, and revision rates for the 3 pelvic osteotomies was performed. A total of 47 articles detailing outcomes of 6,107 patients undergoing pelvic osteotomies were included in the final analysis. When stratified by procedure, RAO had a statistically greater change in LCEA when compared to PAO (33.9° vs 18.0°; P <0.001). The average pooled mHHS improvement was 15.6 (95% CI: 8.3-22.8, I 2= 99.4%). Although ERAO had higher mean score improvements when compared to RAO and PAO, the difference was not statistically significant (P >0.05). Lastly, patients undergoing PAO had a statistically greater complication rate than those undergoing ERAO and RAO (P <0.001 for both), while revision rate was not statistically different between the 3 techniques. In summary, there are many more publications on PAO surgery with a wide range of reported complications. Complications after ERAO and RAO surgery are lower than PAO surgery in the literature, but it is unclear whether this represents an actual difference or a reporting bias. Lastly, there are no significant differences between revisions, or postoperative reported outcomes between the 3 techniques.

Application of Machine Learning for Predicting Clinically Meaningful Outcome After Arthroscopic Femoroacetabular Impingement Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Hip arthroscopy has become an important tool for surgical treatment of intra-articular hip pathology. Predictive models for clinically meaningful outcomes in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) are unknown. PURPOSE: To apply a machine learning model to determine preoperative variables predictive for achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at 2 years after hip arthroscopy for FAIS. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data were analyzed for patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS by a high-volume fellowship-trained surgeon between January 2012 and July 2016. The MCID cutoffs for the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), HOS-Sport Specific (HOS-SS), and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) were 9.8, 14.4, and 9.14, respectively. Predictive models for achieving the MCID with respect to each were built with the LASSO algorithm (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) for feature selection, followed by logistic regression on the selected features. Study data were analyzed with PatientIQ, a cloud-based research and analytics platform for health care. RESULTS: Of 1103 patients who met inclusion criteria, 898 (81.4%) had a minimum of 2-year reported outcomes and were entered into the modeling algorithm. A total of 74.0%, 73.5%, and 79.9% met the HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, and mHHS threshold scores for achieving the MCID. Predictors of not achieving the HOS-ADL MCID included anxiety/depression, symptom duration for >2 years before surgery, higher body mass index, high preoperative HOS-ADL score, and preoperative hip injection (all P < .05). Predictors of not achieving the HOS-SS MCID included anxiety/depression, preoperative symptom duration for >2 years, high preoperative HOS-SS score, and preoperative hip injection, while running at least at the recreational level was a predictor of achieving HOS-SS MCID (all P < .05). Predictors of not achieving the mHHS MCID included history of anxiety or depression, high preoperative mHHS score, and hip injections, while being female was predictive of achieving the MCID (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: This study identified predictive variables for achieving clinically meaningful outcome after hip arthroscopy for FAIS. Patient factors including anxiety/depression, symptom duration >2 years, preoperative intra-articular injection, and high preoperative outcome scores are most consistently predictive of inability to achieve clinically meaningful outcome. These findings have important implications for shared decision-making algorithms and management of preoperative expectations after hip arthroscopy for FAI.

Two-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy with Capsular Incompetency.

PURPOSE: To determine clinical outcomes of patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for failure to improve with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and intraoperative evidence of a capsular incompetency as compared with (1) patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy without evidence of a capsular incompetency and (2) patients undergoing primary surgery for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) at a minimum follow up of 2 years. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with MRI/arthrogram-confirmed capsular incompetency between January 2012 and June 2016 were analyzed. All revision patients with capsular incompetency was matched 1:1 by age and body mass index to FAIS revision patients without capsular incompetency and primary FAIS patients. Outcomes included the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living (ADL), HOS-Sports Subscale (SS), Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), pain, and satisfaction. The minimal clinically important difference was calculated for HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, and mHHS. RESULTS: In total, 49 patients (54.4%) of 90 undergoing revision hip arthroscopy had MRI evidence of a capsular incompetency. Most patients were female (79.6%), with a mean age of 30 ± 10.5 years and body mass index of 25.7 ± 5.5. The difference among pre- and postoperative HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, mHHS, and visual analog scale score for pain were all statistically significant (P < .05). Analysis of reported outcomes among matched groups demonstrated statistically significant differences, with the group undergoing primary surgery having the greatest 2-year outcomes. Only 66.7% of patients undergoing revision surgery with capsular incompetency achieved a minimal clinically important difference; however, there was no significant difference when compared with revision patients without capsular incompetency. When compared with patients undergoing primary surgery, the difference in frequency was statistically significant (66.7% vs 91.3%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: More than one half of patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy had MRI and intraoperative evidence of capsular incompetency. Revision arthroscopy for capsular incompetency results in significantly improved 2-year outcomes. However, patients undergoing revision for capsular incompetency and intact capsule revision patients reported significantly lower outcomes compared with primary patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study.