Postoperative Opioid Usage and Disposal Strategies After Arthroscopic Procedures in a Young Cohort: A Prospective Observational Study.

Background: Although several studies have noted that patients are routinely overprescribed opioids, few have reported usage after arthroscopic surgery. Purpose: To determine opioid consumption and allocation for unused opioids after common arthroscopic surgeries. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Patients between the ages of 15 and 40 years who were scheduled to undergo anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), labral repair of the hip or shoulder, meniscectomy, or meniscal repair were prospectively enrolled. Patients were prescribed either 5 mg hydrocodone-325 mg acetaminophen or 5 mg oxycodone-325 mg acetaminophen based on surgeon preference. Patients completed a daily opioid usage survey during the 2-week postoperative period. In addition, patients completed a survey on postoperative day 21 inquiring about continued opioid use and medication disposal, if applicable. Opioid medication consumption was converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). Results: Of the 200 patients who were enrolled in the study, 176 patients had sufficient follow-up after undergoing 85 (48%) ACLR, 26 (14.8%) hip labral repair, 34 (19.3%) shoulder labral repair, 18 (10.2%) meniscectomy, and 13 (7.4%) meniscal repair procedures. Mean age was 26.1 years (SD, 7.38); surgeons prescribed a mean of 26.6 pills whereas patients reported consuming a mean of 15.5 pills. The mean MME consumption in the 14 days after each procedure was calculated: ACLR (95.7; 44% of prescription), hip labral repair (84.8; 37%), shoulder labral repair (57.2; 35%), meniscectomy (18.4; 27%), and meniscal repair (32.1; 42%). This corresponded to approximately 39% of the total opioid prescription being utilized across all procedures. Mean MME consumption was greatest on postoperative day 1 in hip, shoulder, and meniscal procedures and on postoperative day 2 in ACLR. Only 7.04% of patients reported continued opioid use in the third postoperative week. Patients had a mean of 11 unused pills or 77.7 MMEs remaining. Of the patients with remaining medication, 24.7% intended to keep their medication for future use. Conclusion: The results of our study indicate that patients who undergo the aforementioned arthroscopic procedures consume <75 MMEs in the 2-week postoperative period, translating into a mean of 10 to 15 pills consumed. Approximately 60% of total opioids prescribed went unused, and one-fourth of patients intended to keep their remaining medication for future usage. We have provided general prescribing guidelines and recommend that surgeons carefully consider customizing their opioid prescriptions on the basis of procedure site to balance optimal postoperative analgesia with avoidance of dissemination of excess opioids.

Variation in Reported Learning Outcomes and Measurement Instruments in Hip Arthroscopy Simulation Training: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the current literature on the effectiveness of hip arthroscopy simulation training and to determine the consistency of reporting and validation of simulation used in hip arthroscopy. METHODS: Three databases (PubMed, EMBase, and CINAHL) were screened using PRISMA guidelines in January 2022 for published literature on virtual simulation in hip arthroscopy. Studies reporting on the use of hip arthroscopy simulation training in orthopedic surgical trainees were included and assessed for quality and risk of bias using MINORS criteria. The number of participants, participant education level, experience, simulator type, validation type, method of assessment, and simulation outcomes were extracted from included studies. RESULTS: Of the 286 articles screened, 11 met inclusion criteria for review evaluating 323 orthopedic trainees with a mean of 29.36 participants per study published between 2012 and 2021, most commonly in the United Kingdom (55%). The four most reported surgical skills evaluated were visualization and probing tasks (82%), mean time to perform the task (73%), number of cartilage and soft tissue collisions (73%), and number of hand movements (73%). The most described measurement instruments included a simulation built-in scoring system (55%), Arthroscopic Surgical Skill Evaluation Tool (ASSET) Global Rating Scale (GRS) (27%), and motion analysis system (18%). Construct validity was the most reported overall type of validity (82%), followed by face validity (36%), transfer validity (18%) and content validity (18%). Construct validity was also the most reported validity for the simulator and measurement instrument (55% and 89%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in reported learning outcomes and measurement instruments for evaluating the effectiveness of hip arthroscopic-based education. This study highlights that simulation training may be an effective tool for evaluation of hip arthroscopy skills. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of level I to III studies.

Does central sensitization correlate with two-year postoperative functional outcome scores following hip arthroscopy?

Background: Central sensitization (CS) involves amplified central nervous system (CNS) signaling and several biochemical changes which lead to pain hypersensitivity. Data on the effects of CS are limited in orthopaedics and has been associated with reported levels of postoperative pain after hip arthroscopy. Methods: Patients over the age of 18 who underwent hip arthroscopy with preoperative as well as 2-year postoperative functional outcome scores were identified through the Multicenter Arthroscopic Study of the Hip (MASH) database. Patient demographics, procedure information, as well as patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected along with CS index scores. Results: 34 patients met inclusion criteria for our study. Preop MCS and iHOT as well as Postop MCS, showed moderate to strong negative correlations with CSI scores (-0.607, -0.573, and -0.756, respectively). VAS, PCS and MSC scores were significantly different preoperatively to postoperatively, ensuring alleviation of pain after hip arthroscopy. Subgroup analysis by stratifying CSI scores into 1 SD below the mean, within 1 SD of the mean, and above 1 SD showed significant differences across all 3 groups for preoperative MCS (p < 0.001), postoperative MCS (p = 0.001), and PSEQ2 (p = 0.015). Postoperative VAS pain approached significance but did not meet criteria of p < 0.05 (p = 0.062). Conclusion: Increased postoperative CSI scores directly correlated with decreased preoperative and postoperative MCS scores and worse preoperative resilience. Recognizing the influence of CS on pain perception and resilience on coping with adversity in the recovery period may guide orthopaedic surgeons in developing comprehensive treatment plans to continue to improve surgical outcomes in hip arthroscopy. Level of evidence: IV.

Associating Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy With Patient Resilience.

Background: Higher patient resilience has been shown to be associated with improved patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 6 months after hip arthroscopy. Purpose: To examine the relationship between patient resilience and PROMs at minimum 2 years after hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included were 89 patients (mean age, 36.9 years; mean follow-up, 4.6 years). Patient demographics, surgical details, and preoperative International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores were collected retrospectively. Postoperative variables were collected via a survey and included the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), Patient Activation Measure-13 (PAM-13), Pain Self-efficacy Questionnaire-2 (PSEQ-2), VAS satisfaction, and postoperative iHOT-12, and VAS pain scores. Based on the number of standard deviations from the mean BRS score, patients were stratified as having low resilience (LR; n = 18), normal resilience (NR; n = 48), and high resilience (HR; n = 23). Differences in PROMs were compared between the groups, and a multivariate regression analysis was performed to assess the relationship between pre- to postoperative change (Δ) in PROMs and patient resilience. Results: There were significantly more smokers in the LR group compared with the NR and HR groups (P = .033). Compared with the NR and HR groups, patients in the LR group had significantly more labral repairs (P = .006), significantly worse postoperative iHOT-12, VAS pain, VAS satisfaction, PAM-13, and PSEQ-2 scores (P < .001 for all), and significantly lower ΔVAS pain and ΔiHOT-12 scores (P = .01 and .032, respectively). Regression analysis showed significant associations between ΔVAS pain and NR (ß = -22.50 [95% CI, -38.81 to -6.19]; P = .008) as well as HR (ß = -28.31 [95% CI, -46.96 to -9.67; P = .004) and between ΔiHOT-12 and NR (ß = 18.94 [95% CI, 6.33 to 31.55]; P = .004) as well as HR (ß = 20.63 [95% CI, 6.21 to 35.05]; P = .006). Male sex was a significant predictor of ΔiHOT-12 (ß = -15.05 [95% CI, -25.42 to -4.69]; P = .006). Conclusion: The study results indicate that lower postoperative resilience scores were associated with significantly worse PROM scores, including pain and satisfaction, at 2 years after hip arthroscopy.

Relationship of Average Outcomes Scores and Change in Status Requires Further Interpretation Between 1 and 2 Years Following Hip Arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated a clinically impactful change in patients between 1 and 2 years after hip arthroscopy. Assessment of differences in patient-specific factors between patients who remain the same and those who change (ie, either improve or decline) could provide valuable outcome information for orthopaedic surgeons treating those patients. PURPOSE: To identify patients who experienced change in functional status between 1 and 2 years after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and assess differences in patient-specific factors between those who improved, remained the same, or declined in functional status. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Prospectively collected data for patients who underwent hip arthroscopy at 1 of 7 centers were analyzed retrospectively at 1 year and 2 years postoperatively. Patients were categorized as "improved,""remained the same," or "declined" between 1- and 2-year follow-up based on the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) minimal clinically important difference (MCID) value. A 1-way analysis of variance was used to assess differences in iHOT-12 scores, age, body mass index (BMI), alpha angle, and center-edge angle (CEA) between groups. Chi-square analyses were used to assess differences in the proportions of male and female patients in the outcome groups. RESULTS: The study included 753 patients (515 women and 238 men), whose mean ± SD age was 34.7 ± 12 years. Average 1-year (±1 month) and 2-year (±2 months) iHOT-12 scores for all patients were 73.7 and 74.9, respectively. Based on the calculated MCID of ±11.5 points, 162 (21.5%) patients improved, 451 (59.9%) remained the same, and 140 (18.6%) declined in status between 1- and 2-year follow-up. Those who improved between 1 and 2 years had lower 1-year iHOT-12 scores (P < .0005). We found no difference in age, BMI, alpha angle, CEA, or sex between groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Between 1- and 2-year follow-up assessments, 21.5% of patients improved and 18.6% declined in self-reported functional status. Those with iHOT-12 scores indicating abnormal function at 1 year improved beyond the MCID at 2 years follow-up. Thus, any decisions about the failure or success of arthroscopic hip procedures should not be made until at least the 2-year follow-up. Failing to thrive at 1-year follow-up may not accurately predict outcomes at year 2 or beyond. This could potentially decrease the perceived need for revision surgery in patients who do not thrive before 2-year follow-up.

Symptom duration predicts inferior mid-term outcomes following hip arthroscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have demonstrated a negative relationship between the length of time with symptoms and patient-reported outcome measures in primary hip arthroscopy. Our aim was to expand the generalizability of this finding with a multi-center cohort. METHODS: A multi-center hip arthroscopy registry was queried for patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy from 2014 to 2017. Patients were stratified according to whether pre-operative symptom duration exceeded two years or did not exceed two years. A Wilcoxon rank sum test was performed for differences in two year post-operative outcome scores. Logistic regression models analyzed the influence of symptom duration on achieving clinically meaningful thresholds (minimum clinically important difference, patient-acceptable symptom state, substantial clinical benefit) when controlling for baseline scores, age, BMI, and sex. RESULTS: Seven hundred forty-four patients met the inclusion criteria, from which 620 had complete outcomes information. The mean ± SD 2-year iHOT-12 scores of patients with symptom duration greater than two years (69 ± 26) were significantly lower than patients with symptom duration less than two years (77 ± 23) (Dunn test, p < 0.001). Chronic duration of pain was a negative predictor of achieving iHOT-12 MCID (0.47 [0.31-0.72]), PASS (0.53 [0.37-0.76]), and SCB (0.67 [0.47-0.94]). CONCLUSION: When controlling for differences in baseline demographic factors and pre-operative iHOT-12 scores, patients with chronic pain report poorer functional outcomes at mid-term follow-up. These results suggest that chronic pain predicts inferior outcomes from primary hip arthroscopy and that surgical intervention at earlier time points may be beneficial in achieving better outcomes.

Acetabular Cartilage Lesions Predict Inferior Mid-Term Outcomes for Arthroscopic Labral Repair and Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome.

PURPOSE: To analyze the effect of acetabular chondrosis at a minimum of 2 years following hip arthroscopy in patients undergoing labral repair and treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. METHODS: From 2014 to 2017, patients undergoing arthroscopic labral repair were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter hip arthroscopy registry. The registry was retrospectively queried for primary labral repair patients with complete 2-year outcomes and a Tonnis grade of less than 2. Patients were grouped according to severity of articular cartilage damage noted intraoperatively using the Beck classification system: none, low-grade (Grade 1 or 2), or high-grade (Grade 3 or 4) damage. A Kruskal-Wallis test and post hoc Dunn's test with Holm correction compared 2-year postoperative outcome scores of the iHOT-12 scale between groups. The proportion of patients in each cohort who achieved the clinically significant thresholds of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), patient-acceptable symptom scale, and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) were analyzed. Multivariate logistic regression models identified predictors of achieving clinical thresholds while controlling for demographic variation. RESULTS: 422 patients met inclusion criteria, from which 347 completed 2-year outcomes. All groups experienced improvement in iHOT-12 scores from baseline to follow-up (P < .001). iHOT-12 scores at follow-up were inferior for Low-Grade Damage and High-Grade Damage Groups relative to the No Damage Group (P = .04; P = .03). When accounting for age, body mass index, gender, and preoperative iHOT-12 scores in logistic regression models, the presence of high-grade lesions was a negative predictor for achieving SCB (OR [95% CI], 0.54 [0.29-0.96]) and low-grade lesions a negative predictor for achieving MCID (0.50 [0.27-0.92]. Among patients with high-grade lesions, there was no significant difference in 2-year iHOT-12 scores between those undergoing chondroplasty (n = 50) and those undergoing microfracture (n = 14) (P = .14). CONCLUSIONS: Acetabular cartilage damage portends inferior patient-reported outcomes 2 years after primary labral repair and treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. The presence of cartilage lesions was a negative predictor of individual achievement of several clinical thresholds. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Retrospective comparative cohort.

A Scoping Review of Injuries in Amateur and Professional Men's Ice Hockey.

Background: Orthopaedic injuries are common in ice hockey at all levels and can result in physical and psychological adverse effects on these athletes. Purpose: Primarily, to summarize published data on orthopaedic hockey injuries at the junior through professional level. Secondarily, to characterize the literature based on anatomic site injured, return-to-play rates, cause/mechanism of injury, time lost, and treatments used. Study Design: Scoping review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and SCOPUS were searched using the terms "hockey" and "injuries" using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, and 4163 studies involving orthopaedic injuries were identified. Our inclusion criteria consisted of accessible full-text articles that evaluated orthopaedic injuries in men's ice hockey athletes of all levels. We excluded case reports and articles evaluating women's ice hockey injuries, as well as those evaluating nonorthopaedic injuries, such as concussions; traumatic brain injuries; and facial, dental, and vascular injuries, among others. Studies were divided based on level of play and anatomic site of injury. Level of evidence, year published, country of corresponding author, method of data collection, incidence of injury per athlete-exposure, and time lost were extracted from each article. Results: A total of 92 articles met the inclusion criteria and were performed between 1975 and 2020, with the majority published between 2015 and 2020. These were divided into 8 anatomic sites: nonanatomic-specific (37%), intra-articular hip (20.7%), shoulder (9.8%), knee (8.7%), trunk/pelvis (7.6%), spine (7.6%), foot/ankle (6.5%), and hand/wrist (2.2%). Of these studies, 71% were level 4 evidence. Data were obtained mostly via surveillance programs and searches of publicly available information (eg, injury reports, player profiles, and press releases). Conclusion: This scoping review provides men's hockey players and physicians taking care of elite ice hockey athletes of all levels with a single source of the most current literature regarding orthopaedic injuries. Most research focused on nonanatomic-specific injuries, intra-articular hip injuries, knee injuries, and shoulder injuries, with the majority having level 4 evidence.

Labral Degeneration Predicts Inferior Mid-Term Outcomes in Hip Labral Repair: A Multicenter Comparative Analysis.

PURPOSE: To analyze and compare the mid-term outcomes of hip arthroscopy for patients with and without labral degeneration from multiple orthopaedic centers. The purpose of this research is to develop an understanding of the impacts of labral degeneration on patient outcomes following arthroscopic treatment of labral tears. METHODS: A prospective multicenter hip arthroscopy registry was queried for primary surgeries from January 2014 to October 2017 with completed 2-year International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) reports. Patients were placed into cohorts based on the presence or absence of labral degeneration noted intraoperatively during hip arthroscopy. Degeneration was defined as yellowing, ossification, or calcification present in at least 50% of the labrum. Differences in baseline variation between groups were assessed with a Wilcoxon rank-sum test or χ2 test. Two-year outcomes were assessed with iHOT-12. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted while controlling for age, body mass index, sex, and preoperative iHOT-12 scores to identify significant predictors of achieving the clinically significant thresholds of minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient-acceptable symptom scale. RESULTS: In total, 735 patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 613 had complete outcomes information. Relative to the control group, the labral degeneration group was significantly older (mean age 44 ± 11 years vs 33 ± 12 years; P < .01). Both groups experienced statistically significant improvement in iHOT-12 scores from baseline to final follow-up (P < .001); however, patients with labral degeneration reported inferior 2-year iHOT-12 scores when compared with patients without degeneration (P < .001). In the logistic regression models, labral degeneration was a significant negative predictor of achieving iHOT-12 minimal clinically important difference (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.28-0.79), patient acceptable symptom state (OR 0.50; 95 CI 0.32-0.77), and substantial clinical benefit (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.37-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study conclude that patients with nondegenerative labral tissue at the time of repair have superior patient-reported outcomes at mid-term follow-up. The presence of labral degeneration was a negative predictor of achieving clinically significant thresholds after controlling for patient age, body mass index, sex, and baseline iHOT-12 scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.

Adolescent Quadriceps Tendon Rupture, an Early Complication After ACL Reconstruction: A Case Report.

CASE: A healthy adolescent male patient initially presented with complete rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) after a plant-twist injury during a high school football game. Four weeks after ACL reconstruction with autograft bone-patella tendon-bone, the patient slipped and fell, sustaining hyperflexion of the knee, resulting in rupture of the ipsilateral quadriceps tendon. CONCLUSION: Although this rare complication has previously been reported in the adult population, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first known report of an adolescent patient sustaining a quadriceps tendon rupture after ACL reconstruction.

Multicenter Outcomes After Primary Hip Arthroscopy: A Comparative Analysis of Two-Year Outcomes After Labral Repair, Segmental Labral Reconstruction, or Circumferential Labral Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: (1) To report minimum 2-year follow-up patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing labral repair (LR), segmental labral reconstruction (SLR), or circumferential labral reconstruction (CLR) in the primary setting; and (2) to compare minimum 2-year follow-up patient-reported outcome measures among these groups. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multicenter database of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy was performed. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for treatment of labral tear and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome between January 2014 and October 2017, and completion of minimum 2-year postoperative outcome scores. Exclusion criteria were patients undergoing revision hip surgery, labral treatment limited to debridement, lateral center-edge angle <20°, osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade > 1), slipped capital femoral epiphysis, workers compensation status, and patients undergoing concomitant gluteus medius and/or minimus repair. Labral reconstruction patients were matched (1:3) with labral repair patients on age, sex, and body mass index. The labral reconstruction group was further stratified into SLR, and CLR groups. Patient demographic characteristics and clinical outcomes including Hip Outcome Score - Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score - Sport Subscale, modified Harris Hip Score, international Hip Outcome Tool, and visual analog scale for pain were analyzed, as well as achievement of the minimal clinical improvement difference (MCID). A P-value less than .05 indicated statistical significance. RESULTS: A total of 416 patients were included (LR, n = 312; SLR, n = 53; CLR, n = 51). The age, body mass index, and sex of the matched cohort were 42.3 ± 11.2 years, 24.7 ± 3.7, and 55.0% female. At a minimum of 2-year after hip arthroscopic surgery, no differences were found in preoperative, postoperative, or the delta visual analog scale for pain, modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score - Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score - Sport Subscale, or international Hip Outcome Tool. Subsequently, the proportion of patients achieving the MCID and the PASS at latest follow-up were analyzed. This analysis revealed that no significant differences in the rate of MCID or PASS achievement for any outcome measure existed based on labral treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study on labral treatment in the primary setting, patients undergoing LR, SLR, and CLR demonstrated no difference in preoperative or postoperative scores, nor the proportion of patients achieving clinically significant outcome improvement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III; therapeutic outcome study with controls.

Multicenter Outcomes After Revision Hip Arthroscopy: Comparative Analysis of 2-Year Outcomes After Labral Repair Versus Labral Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of literature evaluating patient outcomes in patients undergoing revision labral repair and labral reconstruction. PURPOSE: To compare outcomes in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for treatment of labral tears by labral repair or labral reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multicenter database of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy was performed. An a priori power analysis determined that a total of 62 patients were required. Patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for labral tears with completed 2-year outcome scores were included. Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy, labral debridement, concomitant gluteal repair, and patients with hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <20°) were excluded. Patients were grouped into revision labral repair and labral reconstruction groups. Patient demographics and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including Hip Outcome Score - Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score - Sport Subscale, modified Harris Hip Score, international Hip Outcome Tool-12, visual analog scale for pain and satisfaction, and achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients underwent revision labral repair and 55 patients underwent labral reconstruction. Patients undergoing revision labral repair were younger (mean age, 30.0 ± 10.7 years vs 34.4 ± 9.7 years; P = .048), had lower rates of labral degeneration (25.0% vs 62.7%; P = .004), and had lower rates of severe complexity of tears (21.1% vs 66.0%; P = .003). However, the labral repair group had higher rates of articular cartilage damage (62.5% vs 33.3%; P = .009). There were no differences in any preoperative or 2-year postoperative PROs. Furthermore, no differences were seen in achievement of MCID or PASS in any PRO. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter study on revision hip arthroscopy, patients undergoing revision labral repair were younger and had better labral characteristics but greater cartilage damage compared with patients undergoing labral reconstructions. Despite these differences, patients who underwent labral repair reported similar outcomes to those undergoing labral reconstruction.

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.

Allocation of Anchors During Labral Repair: A Multicenter Cohort Analysis of Labral Treatment in Hip Arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND: While previous studies have established several techniques for suture anchor repair of the acetabular labrum to bone during arthroscopic surgery, the current literature lacks evidence defining the appropriate number of suture anchors required to effectively restore the function of the labral tissue. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To define the location and size of labral tears identified during hip arthroscopy for acetabular labral treatment in a large multicenter cohort. The secondary purpose was to differentiate the number of anchors used during arthroscopic labral repair. The hypothesis was that the location and size of the labral tear as well as the number of anchors identified would provide a range of fixation density per acetabular region and fixation method to be used as a guide in performing arthroscopic repair. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We used a multicenter registry of prospectively collected hip arthroscopy cases to find patients who underwent arthroscopic labral repair by 1 of 7 orthopaedic surgeons between January 2015 and January 2017. The tear location and number of anchors used during repair were described using the clockface method, where 3 o'clock denoted the anterior extent of the tear and 9 o'clock the posterior extent, regardless of sidedness (left or right). Tear size was denoted as the number of "hours" spanned per clockface arc. Chi-square and univariate analyses of variance were performed to evaluate the data for both the entire group and among surgical centers. RESULTS: A total of 1978 hips underwent arthroscopic treatment of the acetabular labrum; the most common tear size had a 3-hour span (n = 820; 41.5%). Of these hips, 1645 received labral repair, with most common repair location at the 12- to 3-o'clock position (n = 537; 32.6%). The surgeons varied in number of anchors per repair according to labral size (P < .001 for all), using 1 to 1.6 anchors for 1-hour tears, 1.7 to 2.4 anchors for 2-hour tears, 2.1 to 3.2 anchors for 3-hour tears, and 2.2 to 4.1 for 4-hour tears. CONCLUSION: Variation existed in the number of anchor implants per tear size. When labral repair involved a mean clockface arc >2 hours, at least 2 anchor points were fixated.

Tenotomy for Iliopsoas Pathology is Infrequently Performed and Associated with Poorer Outcomes in Hips Undergoing Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article was to report prevalence of iliopsoas pathology in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), incidence of rendered tenotomy, and outcomes of hips with iliopsoas involvement compared with those with primary FAI. METHODS: A cohort study from a hip arthroscopy study group using a prospectively-collected multicenter database was performed. Patients who underwent isolated hip arthroscopy for FAI from January 2016 to March 2017 were assigned to the Iliopsoas group (defined as preoperative diagnosis of coxa saltans internus, intraoperative anteroinferior labral bruising or tear, and preoperative positive psoas injection) or control group. The prevalence of iliopsoas pathology, radiographic and intraoperative findings, and rendered procedures between groups were compared. Mean 2-year (minimum 1.8 year) outcomes of iliopsoas groups with and without rendered tenotomy and a control group were compared. RESULTS: There were 1393 subjects, of which 92 (7%) comprised the iliopsoas study group with 1301 subjects control subjects. Sixteen subjects in the iliopsoas group received tenotomy (17% of iliopsoas group, 1% of all subjects), whereas 76 subjects (83% of iliopsoas group) with iliopsoas involvement did not. There was significant effect on postoperative International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) scores based on iliopsoas involvement and treatment, F(2,1390) = 3.74, P = .02. Compared with the control group (M = 73, standard deviation [SD] = 24), the non-tenotomized iliopsoas group (M = 69, SD = 32) had similar postoperative scores (P = .46), whereas the tenotomized iliopsoas group (M = 57, SD = 28) averaged lower postoperative scores (P = .03). In the tenotomy group, 25% achieved the iHOT-12 substantial clinical benefit and patient acceptable symptomatic state value for normal function and 100% satisfaction, compared to 49% and 41% for the without tenotomy and control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Tenotomy in patients with iliopsoas pathology undergoing arthroscopic surgery for FAI is infrequently performed and is associated with poorer outcomes. Co-afflicted patients treated without tenotomy have similar successful outcomes to patients with primary FAI. Indiscriminate tenotomy for iliopsoas pathology in this setting should be cautiously considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, cohort study.

Achievement of Meaningful Clinical Outcomes Is Unaffected by Capsulotomy Type During Arthroscopic Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: Results From the Multicenter Arthroscopic Study of the Hip (MASH) Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Capsule management has emerged as an important topic in the field of hip arthroscopy. The 2 most popular techniques are interportal capsulotomy and T-type capsulotomy, but few studies have compared outcomes between these 2 techniques. PURPOSE: To compare 2-year (±2 months) patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients who underwent interportal versus T-type capsulotomy during arthroscopic labral repair for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A retrospective review of a large multicenter registry of patients undergoing arthroscopic hip preservation surgery for FAIS was performed. Data from 9 surgeons across 9 sites between January 2014 and February 2018 were included in the study. Baseline demographic data, preoperative PROs, and minimum 2-year postoperative PROs including Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), HOS-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score, and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) were recorded. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on whether interportal or T-type capsulotomy was performed according to the senior surgeon's preference and training, and all capsulotomies were then routinely repaired. The 2 groups were matched 1:1 by age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) was compared for the HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, and iHOT-12 between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The final analysis included 658 of 1483 eligible patients with a mean ± SD age of 32.6 ± 11.6 years and BMI of 24.0 ± 3.7; of these, 329 patients were treated via interportal capsulotomy, and 329 patients were treated via T-type capsulotomy. Female patients comprised 66.3% of the study population. Capsulotomy type was not a predictor of 2-year postoperative PROs on multivariate linear regression analysis when adjusted for covariates. Chi-square analysis showed no statistical difference in achievement of MCID, PASS, and SCB between the interportal and T-type groups for HOS-ADL (80.3%, 75.8%, 52.7% and 77.1%, 71.7%, 53.6%, respectively; P > .01 for all), HOS-SS (83.6%, 72.5%, 51.5% and 81.7%, 68.4%, 49.2%, respectively; P > .01 for all), and iHOT-12 (87.5%, 72.0%, 50.5% and 80.0%, 64.7%, 45.6%, respectively; P > .01 for all). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic management of FAIS resulted in significant clinical improvement that was independent of capsulotomy type when the capsulotomy included repair.

Multicenter Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy: Comparative Analysis of Patients Undergoing Concomitant Labral Repair and Ligamentum Teres Debridement Versus Isolated Labral Repair.

BACKGROUND: Increased attention has been directed toward the ligamentum teres (LT) and its association with acetabular coverage, labral pathology, and hip microinstability; however, few studies have evaluated whether LT pathology influences the rate of clinically significant outcome improvement after hip arthroscopy. PURPOSE: To determine if patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) undergoing labral repair and concomitant LT debridement achieve outcomes similar to patients without LT pathology undergoing labral repair. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multicenter database for hip arthroscopy. Included were patients with FAIS who underwent primary labral repair and who had preoperative and minimum 2-year postoperative outcome scores. Patients diagnosed with concomitant partial LT tear were identified and matched 1:3 according to age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) to patients without LT pathology. The following clinical outcomes were compared between groups: modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sport Subscale, International Hip Outcome Tool, and visual analog scale for pain and satisfaction. Achievement of the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state was also compared between groups. RESULTS: This study included 124 patients with FAIS with labral tear and concomitant partial LT tear and 372 patients with labral tear and no LT pathology. The age, BMI, and sex of the matched cohort were 38.0 ± 12.0 years (mean ± SD), 24.3 ± 3.6 kg/m2, and 62.0% female, respectively. No significant difference in age, BMI, sex, workers' compensation status, or duration of pain was observed at baseline. Analysis of radiographic parameters indicated that patients who underwent isolated labral repair had a lower preoperative Tönnis angle (4.8° ± 4.4° vs 6.3° ± 5.4°; P = .006). There were no significant differences between groups on any pre- or postoperative outcome measure, and there were no significant differences in the proportion of patients who achieved the minimal clinically important difference or patient acceptable symptomatic state on any outcome measure. CONCLUSION: Patients with labral tear and concomitant partial LT tear experienced similar preoperative scores and achieved similar outcomes as patients with isolated labral tears after hip arthroscopy.

Arthroscopic classification of intra-articular hip pathology demonstrates at best moderate interrater reliability.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to report several novel classification systems for intra-articular lesions observed during hip arthroscopy, and to quantify the interrater reliability of both these novel systems and existing classifications of intra-articular lesions when tested by a group of high-volume hip arthroscopists. METHODS: Five hip arthroscopists deliberated over shortcomings in current classification systems and developed several novel grading systems with particular effort made to capture factors important to the treatment and outcomes of hip arthroscopy for labral injury. A video learning module describing the classifications was then developed from the video archive of surgeries performed by the senior author and reviewed by study participants. Following review of the module, a pilot study was completed using five randomly selected videos, after which participating surgeons met once more to discuss points of disagreement and to seek clarification. The final video collection for testing reliability was composed of 29 videos selected with the intent of capturing all sublevels of each classification scheme. Study participants recorded their assessments using each classification scheme, and interrater reliability was calculated by a study participant not involved in grading. RESULTS: The average kappa coefficients for the classification schemes ranged from 0.38 to 0.54, with the interrater reliability of all classification schemes except labral degeneration qualifying as moderate. The percent of cases with absolute agreement ranged from 17.2% to 51.7% across the classification systems. CONCLUSIONS: Even among a group of high-volume hip arthroscopists who engaged in several discussions about the proposed classification schemes, grades were found to have at best moderate interrater reliability. Moderate interrater reliability is demonstrated for novel grading systems for describing labral tear complexity, labral bruising, labral size, and extent of synovitis, and fair reliability is demonstrated for labral degeneration. Further development and refinement of multifactorial grading systems for describing labral injury are indicated. Evaluating the multifactorial nature of intra-articular lesions in the hip is an important part of intraoperative decision-making and defining reliable classifications for intra-articular lesions is a critical first step towards developing generalizable criteria for guiding treatment type. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Risk of intra-articular hip injury in adolescent athletes: a five-year multicentre cohort study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the current study was to establish a risk stratification for hip injury by presenting the classification of sports among adolescent athletes undergoing hip arthroscopy. METHODS: A multicentre registry was queried to examine the incidence of adolescent athletes undergoing hip arthroscopy. Patients were identified and grouped according to their sport-specific risk classification (level I-III). Chi-square analysis was performed to determine the relationship of classification of sport and gender in adolescent athletes to hip arthroscopy. A second chi-square analysis was performed to determine the relationship of classification of sport and number of sports the adolescent athlete was participating in prior to arthroscopic hip surgery. RESULTS: A total of 297 adolescent athletes were included in the study with 129 (43.4%) participating in level I sports compared with 84 (28.3%) in level II and 84(28.3%) in level III sports. Chi-square testing demonstrated a significant effect on gender and sport classification, X2 (2, N = 297) = 31.18, p < 0.01. There was a greater percentage of athletes participating in a single sport (65.3%) compared with multiple sports (34.6%), but was not statistically significant, X2 (1, N = 297) = 1.88, p = 0.17. CONCLUSION: The current study was successful in stratifying a large, multicentre cohort of adolescent athletes requiring hip arthroscopy based on classification levels of sport. There were more male athletes participating in level I sports, while more female athletes participated in level II and level III sports.