Adhesions in the setting of hip arthroscopy.

With the growing number of primary arthroscopies performed, patients requiring revision hip arthroscopies for various issues is high including postoperative adhesion formation, a source of pain, mechanical symptoms, range of motion limitation, stiffness, and microinstability. Adhesions are a consequence of biological pathways that have been stimulated by injury or surgical interventions leading to an increased healing response. Preventative efforts have included surgical adjuncts during/after primary hip arthroscopy, biologic augmentation, and postoperative rehabilitation. Treatment options for adhesion formation includes surgical lysis of adhesions with or without placement of biologic membranes aimed at inhibiting adhesion reformation as well as systemic medications to further reduce the risk. Postoperative rehabilitation exercises have also been demonstrated to prevent adhesions as a result of hip arthroscopy. Ongoing clinical trials are further investigating pathways and prevention of adhesion formation.

When Do We Perform Elective Total Knee Arthroplasty? General and Demographic-Specific Trends of Preoperative Pain and Function among 10,327 Patients.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the sole disease-modifying intervention for end-stage osteoarthritis. However, the temporal trends and stratification of age and patient demographics of pain and function levels at which surgeons perform TKA have not been characterized. The present investigation aimed to analyze the temporal trends of preoperative pain and functional patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) over the past 5 years when stratifying patient demographics. A prospective cohort of all patients who underwent primary elective TKA between January 2016 and December 2020 at a North American integrated tertiary health care system was retrospectively reviewed. The primary outcome was quarterly baseline (preoperative) pain and function PROM values before primary elective TKA. Evaluated PROMs included Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-pain and KOOS-physical function shortform (PS) for the 5-year study period and were stratified by patient demographics (age, sex, race, and body mass index [BMI]). A total of 10,327 patients were analyzed. Preoperative pain levels remained unchanged over the study period for patients in the 45- to 64-year category (P-trend = 0.922). Conversely, there was a significant improvement in preoperative pain levels in the 65+ years group. Sex-stratified trends between males and females did not demonstrate a significant change in pre-TKA baseline pain over the study period (P-trend = 0.347 and P-trend = 0.0744). Both white and black patients demonstrated consistent KOOS-pain levels throughout the study period (P-trend = 0.0855 and P-trend = 0.626). Only white patients demonstrated improving preoperative KOOS-PS (P-trend = 0.0001), while black and "other" patients demonstrated consistent lower preoperative functional levels throughout the study period (P-trend = 0.456 and P-trend = 0.871). All BMI categories demonstrated relatively consistent preoperative KOOS-pain and KOOS-PS except for overweight and obese patients who demonstrated progressive improvement in preoperative KOOS-PS over the study period. Patients and surgeons are electing to perform primary TKA at higher levels of preoperative function. Stratification by race showed black patients did not experience a similar trend of improving function and exhibited a consistently lower functional level versus white patients. This disparity is likely to be multifactorial but may indicate underlying barriers to TKA access.

Outcomes and Survivorship at a Median of 8.9 Years Following Hip Arthroscopy in Adolescents with Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Matched Comparative Study with Adults.

BACKGROUND: Because of the unique theoretical surgical risks, including osteonecrosis, acute iatrogenic slipped capital femoral epiphysis, and epiphyseal injury, the optimal treatment strategy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in growing adolescents has yet to be established. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of primary arthroscopic treatment of FAI in growing adolescents with a matched adult group. METHODS: Patients with FAI who underwent arthroscopic treatment with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were included. Patients with previous ipsilateral hip surgery, an Outerbridge grade of ≥3, a preoperative Tönnis grade of ≥2, or evidence of dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle of <25°) were excluded. Eligible patients who were ≤19 years old and whose proximal femoral physis had not yet closed were matched to adult (20 to 40-year-old) counterparts in a 1:1 ratio by sex, body mass index, and time of surgery. For the adolescents, cam resection was performed with a physeal-sparing approach. Outcome scores, including the modified Harris hip score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and HOS-Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), were prospectively collected. RESULTS: Of the 196 eligible adolescents, 157 (80%) were pair-matched to adult controls, with a median postoperative follow-up of 8.9 and 6.6 years, respectively. Fourteen (9%) of the adolescents required revision hip arthroscopy compared with 18 adults (11%) (p = 0.46). No patient in the adolescent group had conversion to a total hip arthroplasty (THA), while 3 in the adult group had a THA (p = 0.25). For adolescents without subsequent hip surgery, the median mHHS improved from 59 preoperatively to 96 postoperatively; the HOS-ADL, from 71 to 98; and the HOS-SSS, from 44 to 94 (p < 0.001), which were significantly higher postoperative scores than those of the matched adults (p < 0.05) despite similar or inferior baseline scores. No complications were found during the office visit or at the final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Hip arthroscopy performed with a physeal-sparing approach for FAI in growing adolescents is safe and effective and yields superior clinical outcomes compared with those in a matched adult group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Midterm Outcomes After Hip Labral Augmentation in Revision Hip Arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Labral augmentation has emerged as an essential procedure to address a deficient or irreparable labrum while preserving native labral tissue and restoring the hip suction seal mechanism. PURPOSE: To evaluate midterm outcomes of arthroscopic hip labral augmentation for labral insufficiency after previous hip arthroscopy. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Patients were identified from a prospectively collected database who underwent arthroscopic hip labral augmentation between January 2011 and January 2017 with a minimum 3-year follow-up. Pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome scores were compared and included the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey physical and mental component summaries, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Hip Outcome Score (HOS) (Activities of Daily Living [ADL] and Sport). Postoperative Tegner Activity Scale and patient satisfaction (1-10) scores were also evaluated. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) between the preoperative and minimum 3-year follow-up scores were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 88 patients (39 men, 49 women) underwent revision hip arthroscopy with labral augmentation. The average age was 32.8 ± 11 years. Of these, 77 patients (88%) were available for the minimum 3-year follow-up. The survivorship (absence of conversion to total hip arthroplasty) at 3 years and 5 years was 93% at both time points, with a mean survival time of 8.5 years (95% CI, 8.0-8.9). Eleven patients (14%) required revision arthroscopic surgery for continued pain. Revisions occurred at a mean of 2.6 ± 1.4 years after augmentation. The mean follow-up was 5.2 ± 1.2 years (range, 3-9 years). For patients not requiring subsequent surgery (n = 61), all patient-reported outcome measures significantly improved, which included a 20-point increase in HOS-ADL (MCID, 82%; PASS, 72%) and mHHS (MCID, 78%; PASS, 70%). The median postoperative Tegner score was 4 (range, 1-10). The median postoperative patient satisfaction score was 9 out of 10 (range, 1-10). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic hip labral augmentation is a successful treatment option for patients with labral insufficiency after previous hip arthroscopy, demonstrating improved patient-reported outcomes and survivorship of 93% at 3 years and 5 years. This technique provides a valuable labral preservation option when addressing hip labral pathology when viable native labral tissue remains.

Ten-Year Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement and Borderline Dysplasia.

BACKGROUND: The role of hip arthroscopy in the treatment of patients with borderline hip dysplasia is controversial and evolving. PURPOSE: To evaluate outcomes at a minimum 10-year follow-up in patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement in a hip with borderline dysplasia. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: All hips that underwent labral repair between June 2006 and March 2009 for femoroacetabular impingement with borderline dysplasia were included if they had a lateral center-edge angle of 20° to 25°, had primary hip arthroscopy for the diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement, and were aged 18 to 70 years. Patients were excluded if they had previous hip surgery, avascular necrosis, or fracture. Kaplan-Meier survivorship was performed, with survivorship defined as avoidance of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). RESULTS: A total of 45 patients met the inclusion criteria, and 38 were contacted at a minimum 10 years postoperatively (84%; mean ± SD, 12 ± 1.3 years). There were 23 women and 15 men with an average age of 41 ± 9.6 years (range, 25-69). Twenty patients were ≥40 years of age. In this patient cohort, survivorship was 87% at 5 years and 79% at 10 years for conversion to THA. Of the 38 patients included, 9 were converted to THA (24%), and 3 required revision hip arthroscopy (7%). Patient age, Tönnis grade, microfracture of cartilage lesions, and Tönnis angle >15° were associated with conversion to THA. No statistically significant differences were found between those who underwent conversion to THA and those who did not regarding lateral center-edge angle, Sharp angle, or alpha angle. Significant improvements were seen at follow-up of 12 years (range, 10-13) for the modified Harris Hip Score (58 to 83; P = .002), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (70 to 87; P = .003), Hip Outcome Score-Sport (47 to 76; P = .004), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (31 to 10; P = .001). At follow-up, >80% maintained the minimal clinically important difference for the Hip Outcome Score (Activities of Daily Living and Sport) with no differences between patients aged <40 and ≥40 years. CONCLUSION: Risk factors for conversion to THA after hip arthroscopy in the borderline dysplastic hip included older age, higher Tönnis grades, grade 4 chondral lesions that were microfractures, and Tönnis angle >15°. In those patients who did not convert to THA, improvement in outcome measures was seen at 10 years. Careful patient selection is critical to the success of this procedure.

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.

Autograft Versus Allograft: The Evidence in Hip Labral Reconstruction and Augmentation.

BACKGROUND: Labral augmentation and labral reconstruction have emerged as essential procedures for restoring the anatomic and functional characteristics of the hip joint in patients with a deficient hip labrum or irreparable labral tear. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare allograft and autograft hip labral reconstruction and augmentation. We hypothesized that autografts would entail fewer revision arthroscopic procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients were identified who underwent labral reconstruction or labral augmentation using iliotibial band (ITB) allograft or ITB autograft performed by a single surgeon between 2011 and 2017. Patient-reported outcome measures collected before surgery and at minimum 2-year follow-up included the following: Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living and Hip Outcome Score Sports-Specific Subscale and, at follow-up, patient satisfaction (range, 1-10, with 10 being very satisfied). Patients followed a standardized rehabilitation protocol after surgery with relative individualization to address each patient's needs. For continuous variables, comparisons between allografts and autografts were made using Student t tests or Mann-Whitney tests. Categorical comparisons were assessed using chi-square or Fisher exact test. Multiple logistic regression was performed to determine the influence of graft choice on risk of revision or THA. RESULTS: A total of 205 hips met 2-year inclusion criteria. ITB allografts were used for 55 patients (37 augmentations, 18 reconstructions) and ITB autografts for 150 patients (34 augmentations, 116 reconstructions). Females represented a greater proportion of allograft versus autograft patients (71% vs 46%, respectively; P = .001). Overall, autograft patients had larger alpha angles (66.6° vs 59.1°; P = .001) and longer grafts (46 vs 41 mm; P = .03) compared with allograft patients. A total of 13 (23.6%) patients required revision surgery in the allograft group compared with 11 (7.3%) in the autograft group (P < .001). After controlling for sex, procedure (reconstruction vs augmentation), and previous surgery, the odds of revision were higher for allograft patients (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.5-11.6). No significant differences in conversion to THA were observed between groups (allograft = 9%; autograft = 6%; P = .50), even after adjustment for the above covariates (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.6-7.9). No differences in postoperative patient-reported outcome measures or patient satisfaction were observed between groups. CONCLUSION: Labral augmentation or reconstruction with autograft has a significantly lower revision rate than labral augmentation or reconstruction with allograft.

No Correlation Between Depth of Acetabuloplasty or Postoperative Lateral Center-Edge Angle on Midterm Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy With Acetabuloplasty and Labral Repair.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of pincer deformity in hip arthroscopy remains controversial, with some authors advocating that over resection may risk early joint deterioration. The role of acetabular resection depth and postoperative acetabular morphology on postoperative outcomes has yet to be defined. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: This study measures the influence of acetabular resection depth and postoperative lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) on minimum 5-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs), revision rates, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty using a single surgeon's prospective database. We hypothesized that patients with acetabular resections >10°, as measured by LCEA, or patients with postoperative LCEA outside the normal range of 25° to 35° would have lower PROs, higher revision rates, and higher conversion to total hip arthroplasty at midterm follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: A total of 192 patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with acetabuloplasty and labral repair by a single surgeon with a minimum 5-year follow-up met the inclusion criteria. Preoperative and postoperative LCEAs were measured on supine anteroposterior radiographs, and patients were divided into cohorts based on LCEA and acetabular resection depth. Cohorts for postoperative LCEA were <20° (dysplasia), 20° to 25° (borderline dysplasia), 25° to 35° (normal), and >35° (borderline overcoverage). Cohorts for acetabular resection depth were <5°, 5° to 10°, and >10° difference from preoperative to postoperative LCEA. Outcome measures included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score, satisfaction scores, revision rates, and conversion to arthroplasty rates. RESULTS: Patients significantly improved in all outcome score measures at final follow-up. There were no statistically significant differences in PRO scores or conversion to total hip arthroplasty between any cohorts in the postoperative LCEA group. There were more revisions in the 25° to 35° cohort than the other cohorts (P = .02). The 5-10° resection depth cohort demonstrated a higher postoperative WOMAC score (P = .03), but otherwise no statistically significant differences were seen between resection depth cohorts in the remaining postoperative outcomes scores, revision rates, or conversion to total hip arthroplasty rates. CONCLUSION: Patients with postoperative LCEA values outside the normal reference range and with large resections perform similar to those with normal postoperative LCEA values and smaller resections at a minimum 5-year follow-up.

Emergency department patients' perceptions of the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED) providers are on the forefront of the prescription drug crisis and understand-ing patient's perceptions of opioids may allow physicians to better address misconceptions. The aim was to determine the perceptions of ED patients regarding the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of a convenience sample of adults at a single urban academic ED. Patients completed a tablet-based survey regarding the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics. RESULTS: Of the 715 subjects, the sample was predominantly black (80.4 percent), female (59.2 percent), and aged 18-59 years (76.8 percent). The majority (70.1 percent) of respondents reported pain as the reason for visit. Seventy-two percent had previously taken an opioid primarily for acute pain, found them effective for pain (88.2 percent), and would be willing to do so again (62.7 percent). Adverse effects made patients less likely to use them again (OR 0.703, [0.659-0.751]). Gender and age did not affect perceptions of efficacy and safety, but certain racial groups did (OR 1.08, [1.02 to 1.14], p < 0.05). Knowing someone who used opioids in a nonmedical manner did not impact willingness to use opioids. Many (54 percent) believed opioids to be as safe as nonopioid alternatives. The majority (78 percent) consid-ered prescription opioid abuse a public health problem, however underestimated the number of annual opioid-related deaths. CONCLUSION: The majority of ED patients had used opioids and considered the prescription drug crisis a public health problem. Through personal use or media coverage, the majority of participants considered opioids safe, even compared to nonopioid alternatives. Better understanding these viewpoints may improve patient-physician communication about analgesic treatment.