Nonarthritic Hip Pain Research Articles

Ultrasound Evaluation of the Hip.

Non-arthritic hip pain is a common presentation among the general population, with many possible contributing etiologies. While radiographs, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging are all within the standard diagnostic workup, ultrasonography has emerged as a facile tool given its low cost, lack of radiation, and dynamic application. This article reviews the utility of ultrasound (US) in evaluation of non-arthritic hip pain and its ability to detect pathology both statically and dynamically in comparison and as an adjunct to standard imaging modalities. Current research highlights applications of US to commonly treated hip pathologies including femoroacetabular impingement, labral tears, hip microinstability, and various other extra-articular phenomena. While static evaluation seems to add similar value to that of radiography, several novel protocols have been developed that allow for dynamic evaluation of joint biomechanics, including extent and onset of impingement and femoral head translation, that cannot be assessed with more standard imaging modalities.

Feasibility of interdisciplinary evaluation in non-arthritic hip pain: A randomized trial

BackgroundPhysical therapy and orthopaedic surgery are two common treatments for non-arthritic hip pain. Interdisciplinary evaluation across these disciplines may produce a more supportive treatment-planning process; however, the feasibility of such an evaluation remains unknown. Hypothesis ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility of an interdisciplinary evaluation with an orthopaedic surgeon and physical therapist for non-arthritic hip pain. Study designObservational feasibility study of a randomized controlled trial. MethodsParticipants were randomized to an interdisciplinary (surgeon + physical therapist) or standard (surgeon) evaluation in a hip preservation clinic. Recruitment rate was recorded. Retention rate was calculated for all variables of interest. Enrollment and refusal reasons were recorded as patient quotes and categorized by a single grader. Time spent in clinic was compared across groups using Mann Whitney U tests (P ≤ 0.05). Study clinicians were interviewed, and responses were categorized based on pre-determined themes. ResultsEighty-one percent of eligible patients enrolled over a 15-month recruitment period. Willingness(n = 16), urgency to resolve pain(n = 10), financial compensation(n = 1), interest in research(n = 42), physical therapy(n = 6), or multiple-provider care(n = 15) were participants’ enrollment reasons; reason was not recorded for 22 participants. Time(n = 11), preference for single-provider care(n = 6), current physical therapy treatment(n = 1), and disinterest in physical therapy(n = 7) or research(n = 2) were refusal reasons of patients who did not enroll. Retention for primary variables of interest was 100% in both groups. Participants spent, on average, 23.5 min more time in clinic for the interdisciplinary evaluation compared to the standard (P < 0.001). ConclusionsAn interdisciplinary evaluation for patients with non-arthritic hip pain that included a physical therapist and orthopaedic surgeon in a hip preservation clinic was feasible and may better inform the treatment planning process.

QUANTIFYING RADIATION EXPOSURE IN THE RADIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF NON-ARTHRITIC HIP PAIN

Radiological investigations are essential in the work-up of patients presenting with non-arthritic hip pain, to allow close review of the complex anatomy around the hip and proximal femur. The aim of this study is to quantify the radiation exposure associated with common radiological investigations performed in assessing young adult patients presenting with non-arthritic hip pain.A retrospective review of our UK tertiary hip preservation centre institutional imaging database was performed. Data was obtained for antero-posterior, cross-table lateral and frog-lateral radiographs, along with data for the low dose CT hip protocol and the Mako CT Hip protocol. The radiation dose of each imaging technique was measured in terms of dose-area product (DAP) with units of mGycm2, and the effective doses (ED, mSv) calculated.The mean effective radiation dose for hip radiographs was in the range 0.03 to 0.83mSv (mean DLP 126.7–156.2 mGycm2). The mean effective dose associated with the low-dose CT hip protocol was 3.04mSv (416.8 mGycm2) and for the Stryker Mako CT Hip protocol was 8.4mSv (1061 mGycm2). The radiation dose associated with use of CT imaging was significantly greater than plain radiographs (p&lt;0.005)Investigation of non-arthritic hip pain can lead to significant ionising radiation exposure for patients. In our institution, the routine protocol is to obtain an anteroposterior radiograph and then a specific hip sequence 3 Tesla MRI including anteversion views. This provides the necessary information in the majority of cases, with CT scanning reserved for more complex cases where we feel there is a specific indication. We would encourage the hip preservation community to carefully consider and review the use of ionising radiation investigations.

Quantifying radiation exposure in the radiological investigation of non-arthritic hip pain

ABSTRACT Radiological investigations are essential for evaluating underlying structural abnormalities in patients presenting with non-arthritic hip pain. The aim of this study is to quantify the radiation exposure associated with common radiological investigations performed in assessing patients presenting with non-arthritic hip pain. A retrospective review of our institutional imaging database was performed. Data were obtained for antero-posterior, cross-table lateral, frog lateral radiographs and low-dose CT hip protocol. The radiation dose of each imaging technique was measured in terms of dose-area product with units of mGy cm2, and the effective doses (ED, mSv) calculated. The effective radiation dose for each individual hip radiograph performed was in the range of 0.03–0.83 mSv [mean dose-area product 126.7–156.2 mGy cm2]. The mean ED associated with the low-dose CT hip protocol (including assessment of femoral anteversion and tibial torsion) was 3.04 mSv (416.8 mGy cm2). The radiation dose associated with the use of CT imaging was significantly greater than plain radiographs (P &amp;lt; 0.005). Investigation of non-arthritic hip pain can lead to significant ionizing radiation exposure for patients. In our institution, the routine protocol is to obtain an antero-posterior pelvic radiograph and then a specific hip sequence Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan which includes the assessment of femoral anteversion. This provides the necessary information in the majority of cases, with CT scanning reserved for more complex cases where we feel there is a specific indication. We would encourage the hip preservation community to carefully consider and review the use of ionizing radiation investigations.

Hip microinstability and its association with femoroacetabular impingement: A scoping review.

Hip microinstability has become a recognized cause of non-arthritic hip pain and disability in young patients. However, its pathophysiology remains unclear. We want to (1) present an overview of the evidence of hip microinstability and of its association with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), (2) map out the type of evidence available, and (3) make recommendations for future research. A deductive analysis and extraction method was used to extract information. In addition, diagnostic accuracy statistics were extracted or calculated. Of the 2,808 identified records, 123 were eligible for inclusion. Different definitions for microinstability exist. A standardized terminology and clear diagnostic criteria are lacking. FAI and microinstability may be associated and may aggravate each other. Conservative treatment strategies for FAI and microinstability are similar. The reported prevalence of microinstability in combination with FAI ranges from 21% to 42% in adults undergoing hip arthroscopy or magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) of the hip. Hip microinstability and FAI may be associated, occur together, or exacerbate each other. To better address this topic, a standardized terminology for microinstability is essential. Achieving consensus on physical examination and diagnosis is also necessary. Initial efforts to establish uniform diagnostic criteria have been made, but further work is needed. Specifically, randomized controlled trials are required to evaluate the effectiveness of training programmes aimed at reducing symptoms in individuals with microinstability, with or without FAI. Such studies will enable clinicians to manage microinstability with greater confidence within this context.

Evaluating Functional Performance Tests in those with Non-arthritic Intra-articular Hip Pain: An International Consensus Statement.

Non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain, caused by various pathologies, leads to impairments in range of motion, strength, balance, and neuromuscular control. Although functional performance tests offer valuable insights in evaluating these patients, no clear consensus exists regarding the optimal tests for this patient population. This study aimed to establish expert consensus on the application and selection of functional performance tests in individuals presenting with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain. A modified Delphi technique was used with fourteen physical therapy experts, all members of the International Society for Hip Arthroscopy (ISHA). The panelists participated in three rounds of questions and related discussions to reach full consensus on the application and selection of functional performance tests. The panel agreed that functional performance tests should be utilized at initial evaluation, re-evaluations, and discharge, as well as criterion for assessing readiness for returning to sports. Tests should be as part of a multimodal assessment of neuromuscular control, strength, range of motion, and balance, applied in a graded fashion depending on the patient's characteristics. Clinicians should select functional performance tests with objective scoring criteria and prioritize the use of tests with supporting psychometric evidence. A list of recommended functional performance tests with varying intensity levels is provided. Low-intensity functional performance tests encompass controlled speed in a single plane with no impact. Medium-intensity functional performance tests involve controlled speed in multiple planes with low impact. High-intensity functional performance tests include higher speeds in multiple planes with higher impact and agility requirements. Sport-specific movement tests should mimic the patient's particular activity or sport. This international consensus statement provides recommendations for clinicians regarding selection and utilization of functional performance tests for those with non-arthritic intra-articular hip pain. These recommendations will encourage greater consistency and standardization among clinicians during a physical therapy assessment.

Hip Pain and Physical Therapy Nonarthritic Hip Pain: What Is It? What Should I Do About It? How Do I Get Back to My Regular Activities?

Hip pain can have many causes, both arthritic and non-arthritic. Experts in managing hip pain developed a guideline to help rehabilitation clinicians help you understand more about hip pain. Here we explain what physical therapy might offer you if you have hip pain and arthritis has been ruled out. You will find out about some of the leg strength and balance tests your physical therapist might ask you to do, and exercises to help alleviate your hip pain and improve your strength, movement and balance.J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(10):1-2. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12236.

Hip Pain and Physical Therapy Nonarthritic Hip Pain: What Is It? What Should I Do About It? How Do I Get Back to My Regular Activities?

Hip pain can have many causes, both arthritic and non-arthritic. Experts in managing hip pain developed a guideline to help rehabilitation clinicians help you understand more about hip pain. Here we explain what physical therapy might offer you if you have hip pain and arthritis has been ruled out. You will find out about some of the leg strength and balance tests your physical therapist might ask you to do, and exercises to help alleviate your hip pain and improve your strength, movement and balance.J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(10):643-644. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.0506.

Improved and Sustained Clinical Outcomes are Observed in the Majority of Patients with Symptomatic Non-arthritic Hip Pain Undergoing a Formal Non-operative Management Program Combining a Hip Injection and Structured Exercise Rehabilitation Program

Improved and Sustained Clinical Outcomes are Observed in the Majority of Patients with Symptomatic Non-arthritic Hip Pain Undergoing a Formal Non-operative Management Program Combining a Hip Injection and Structured Exercise Rehabilitation Program

What is the Rate of Response to Nonoperative Treatment for Hip-Related Pain? A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to (1) determine the rate of satisfactory response to nonoperative treatment for nonarthritic hip-related pain, and (2) evaluate the specific effect of various elements of physical therapy and nonoperative treatment options aside from physical therapy. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched 7 databases and reference lists of eligible studies from their inception to February 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies that compared a nonoperative management protocol to any other treatment for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, acetabular dysplasia, acetabular labral tear, and/or nonarthritic hip pain not otherwise specified. DATA SYNTHESIS: We used random-effects meta-analyses, as appropriate. Study quality was assessed using an adapted Downs and Black checklist. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies (1153 patients) were eligible for qualitative synthesis, and 16 were included in the meta-analysis. Moderate certainty evidence suggests that the overall response rate to nonoperative treatment was 54% (95% confidence interval: 32%, 76%). The overall mean improvement after physical therapy treatment was 11.3 points (7.6-14.9) on 100-point patient-reported hip symptom measures (low to moderate certainty) and 22.2 points (4.6-39.9) on 100-point pain severity measures (low certainty). No definitive specific effect was observed regarding therapy duration or approach (ie, flexibility exercise, movement pattern training, and/or mobilization) (very low to low certainty). Very low to low certainty evidence supported viscosupplementation, corticosteroid injection, and a supportive brace. CONCLUSION: Over half of patients with nonarthritic hip-related pain reported satisfactory response to nonoperative treatment. However, the essential elements of comprehensive nonoperative treatment remain unclear. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(5):1-21. Epub 9 March 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11666.

The posterior capsule is distended in dysplastic hips, but the anterior capsule is not.

In the setting of acetabular dysplasia, the increased translational motion of the femur may damage the labrum and cartilage, as well as stretch the capsule. The purpose of the study was to investigate the relationship between the acetabular coverage and the capsular stiffness by assessing the distension of anterior and posterior joint recesses on the hip computed tomography arthrography. One hundred thirty-three patients (138 hips) with a median age of 36years (range 18-50years) who received the computed tomography arthrography for evaluation of nonarthritic hip pain in our institute between 2015 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. The maximal distance between the anterior/posterior capsule and the anterior femoral head-neck junction/posterior femoral head on the axial imaging of computed tomography arthrography was defined as the width of anterior/posterior joint recess. The width of anterior/posterior joint recess was adjusted with the diameter of the femoral head and was then compared between acetabular dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle < 25°), normal acetabulum (lateral center-edge angle between 25 and 39°), and deep acetabulum (lateral center-edge angle > 39°). In addition, the standard univariate linear regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship between the adjusted width of anterior/posterior joint recess and anterior/posterior coverage of the hip, determined by the anterior/posterior wall index. The adjusted width of posterior joint recess was significantly greater in the acetabular dysplasia group than the normal acetabulum and deep acetabulum groups (p < 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively). There was no significant difference of the adjusted width of anterior joint recess between the groups (n.s.). The adjusted width of posterior joint recess had a significant but weak negative correlation with the anterior wall index (r = - 0.25, p < 0.001), and no correlation with the posterior wall index (r = - 0.0004, n.s.). There was no significant correlation between the adjusted width of anterior joint recess and the anterior/posterior wall index (r = 0.05, n.s./r = 0.07, n.s.). The distension of posterior capsule on the computed tomography arthrography was significantly greater in acetabular dysplasia. In addition, there was a significant but weak negative correlation between the distension of posterior capsule and the anterior coverage of the hip. It indicated a looser posterior capsule was observed in a dysplastic hip. The relevance of posterior capsular laxity to clinical outcomes warrants further investigation. Given the fact that the distension of anterior capsule was not significantly higher in acetabular dysplasia, the need of anterior capsular plication in a dysplastic hip should be carefully evaluated. Level III.

A systematic approach to CT evaluation of non-arthritic hip pain.

Bone morphology has been increasingly recognized as a significant variable in the evaluation of non-arthritic hip pain in young adults. Increased availability and use of multidetector CT in this patient population has contributed to better characterization of the osseous structures compared to traditional radiographs. Femoral and acetabular version, sites of impingement, acetabular coverage, femoral head-neck morphology, and other structural abnormalities are increasingly identified with the use of CT scan. In this review, a standard CT imaging technique and protocol is discussed, along with a systematic approach for evaluating pelvic CT imaging in patients with non-arthritic hip pain.

The diagnosis of hip microinstability is correlated with ease of intra-operative hip distraction.

Hip microinstability has emerged as a contributor to young adult, non-arthritic hip pain. There is a paucity of objective clinical data to identify patients with hip microinstability and guide surgical treatment. The purpose of this study was to identify the degree of distractibility in patients with and without microinstability undergoing hip arthroscopy. A single-surgeon series of hip arthroscopies were retrospectively reviewed from 2014-2020. All procedures were performed with paralysis on a fracture table with a perineal post where 1 turn of fine traction equates to 4mm of axial traction. Diagnosis was recorded as isolated instability, instability plus femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), and isolated FAI. Operative reports were reviewed to collect patient demographic data, number of turns of traction required for adequate distraction of the femoral head relative to the acetabulum (10mm), and the presence of residual subluxation after initial traction was released. A total of 464 patients were identified, 26 (5.6%) with isolated microinstability, 183 (39.4%) with microinstability with FAI anatomy, and 255 (55.0%) with FAI. The concurrent diagnosis of microinstability was associated with decreased turns required to adequately distract the hip. Isolated microinstability patients required 6.9 turns (IQR 4.6-8.8) while those with instability plus FAI required 8.8 turns (IQR 6.5-11) and isolated FAI required 19.1 turns (IQR 15-22). Residual subluxation after removal of negative intra-articular pressure but before performing the hip arthroscopy was more commonly associated with instability, occurring in 84.6% of isolated instability and 86.9% of instability plus FAI as compared with 29.8% in the isolated FAI cohort. A diagnosis of hip microinstability, with or without features of FAI, is associated with decreased axial traction required to distract the hip. These data support the use of intra-operative ease of distraction as a method of identifying patients with hip microinstability. Level III.

Beyond the Basics of Athletic Hip Evaluation

AbstractThere is a growing trend in the world of orthopedics and sports medicine revolving around the nonarthritic hip. The incidence of hip arthroscopy has exponentially grown in the past decade and despite the importance of the recognition of these hip pathologies as contributors to pain and dysfunction, there is an ever-increasing rate of “failed” procedures emerging in the literature. The etiology of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome and associated pathologies of the hip are now better understood. With this understanding there appears a tendency to point a finger at the hip joint without consideration for the involvement of the surrounding joints or extraarticular structures. Because of the nature of the morphological condition of FAI and the high incidence of a gradual progression of pain and impairments over time, as opposed to an acute injury, there is a need for a more robust assessment of the hip. The purpose of this commentary is to discuss the importance of a combined traditional orthopedic exam, imaging, and movement assessment in diagnosis and treatment recommendations in those with nonarthritic hip pain. It is our belief that this combined model can assist in identifying movement dysfunction that may lead to poor surgical outcomes and developing improved nonoperative or preoperative care pathways. Level of evidenceLevel V.

Open MRI validation of a hip model driven with subject-specific motion capture data in predicting anterior femoroacetabular clearance

BackgroundCam and/or pincer morphologies (CPM) are potential precursors to hip osteoarthritis (OA) and important contributors to non-arthritic hip pain. However, only some CPM hips develop OA and/or pain, and it is not clear why. Anterior impingement between the femoral head/neck contour and acetabular rim during motion is a proposed pathomechanism. Understanding how activity and deformity combine to produce impingement may shed light on the causes of hip degeneration/pain. The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of a subject-specific hip model driven by subject-specific motion data in predicting anterior impingement.MethodsWe recruited 22 participants with CPM (both with and without pain) and 11 controls. We collected subject-specific 3D kinematics during squatting and sitting flexion, adduction, and internal rotation (FADIR) (an active and a passive maneuver, respectively, proposed to provoke impingement). We then developed 3D subject-specific hip models from supine 3T hip MRI scans that predicted the beta angle (a measure of anterior femoroacetabular clearance) for each frame of acquired kinematics. To assess the accuracy of these predictions, we measured the beta angle directly in the final position of squatting and sitting FADIR using open MRI scans. We selected the frame of motion data matching the static imaged posture using the least-squares error in hip angles. Model accuracy for each subject was calculated as the absolute error between the open MRI measure of beta and the model prediction of beta at the matched time frame. To make the final model accuracy independent of goodness of match between open MRI position and motion data, a threshold was set for least-squares error in hip angles, and only participants that were below this threshold were considered in the final model accuracy calculation, yielding results from 10 participants for squatting and 7 participants for sitting FADIR.ResultsFor squatting and sitting FADIR, we found an accuracy of 1.1°(0.8°) and 1.3°(mean (SD), and root mean squared error, respectively) and 0.5°(0.3°) and 0.6°, respectively.ConclusionThis subject-specific hip model predicts anterior femoroacetabular clearance with an accuracy of about 1°, making it useful to predict anterior impingement during activities measured with motion analysis.

Open MRI assessment of anterior femoroacetabular clearance in active and passive impingement-provoking postures.

AimsCam and pincer morphologies are potential precursors to hip osteoarthritis and important contributors to non-arthritic hip pain. However, only some hips with these pathomorphologies develop symptoms and joint degeneration, and it is not clear why. Anterior impingement between the femoral head-neck contour and acetabular rim in positions of hip flexion combined with rotation is a proposed pathomechanism in these hips, but this has not been studied in active postures. Our aim was to assess the anterior impingement pathomechanism in both active and passive postures with high hip flexion that are thought to provoke impingement.MethodsWe recruited nine participants with cam and/or pincer morphologies and with pain, 13 participants with cam and/or pincer morphologies and without pain, and 11 controls from a population-based cohort. We scanned hips in active squatting and passive sitting flexion, adduction, and internal rotation using open MRI and quantified anterior femoroacetabular clearance using the β angle.ResultsIn squatting, we found significantly decreased anterior femoroacetabular clearance in painful hips with cam and/or pincer morphologies (mean -11.3° (SD 19.2°)) compared to pain-free hips with cam and/or pincer morphologies (mean 8.5° (SD 14.6°); p = 0.022) and controls (mean 18.6° (SD 8.5°); p < 0.001). In sitting flexion, adduction, and internal rotation, we found significantly decreased anterior clearance in both painful (mean -15.2° (SD 15.3°); p = 0.002) and painfree hips (mean -4.7° (SD 13°); p = 0.010) with cam and/pincer morphologies compared to the controls (mean 7.1° (SD 5.9°)).ConclusionOur results support the anterior femoroacetabular impingement pathomechanism in hips with cam and/or pincer morphologies and highlight the effect of posture on this pathomechanism.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):988–996.

Treatment decisions after interdisciplinary evaluation for nonarthritic hip pain: A randomized controlled trial.

Physical therapy and hip arthroscopy are two viable treatment options for patients with nonarthritic hip pain (NAHP); however, patients may experience considerable decisional conflict when making a treatment decision. Interdisciplinary evaluation with a physical therapist and surgeon may better inform the decision-making process and reduce decisional conflict. To identify the extent to which an interdisciplinary evaluation between a surgeon, physical therapist, and patient influences treatment plans and decisional conflict of persons with NAHP. Randomized controlled trial. Hip preservation clinic. Adults with primary NAHP. Participants were randomized to receive a standard (surgeon) or interdisciplinary (surgeon+physical therapist) evaluation. Surgeon evaluations included patient interview, strength and range-of-motion examination, palpation, gross motor observation, and special testing. Interdisciplinary evaluations started with the surgeon evaluation, then a physical therapist evaluated movement impairments during sitting, sit-to-stand, standing, single-leg stance, single-leg squat, and walking. All evaluations concluded with treatment planning with the respective provider(s). Treatment plan and decisional conflict were collected pre- and postevaluation. Inclusion of physical therapy in participants' postevaluation treatment plans and postevaluation decisional conflict were compared between groups using chi-square tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively. Seventy-eight participants (39 in each group) met all eligibility criteria and were included in all analyses. Sixty-six percent of participants who received an interdisciplinary evaluation included physical therapy in their postevaluation treatment plan, compared to 48% of participants who received a standard evaluation (p= .10). Participants who received an interdisciplinary evaluation reported 6.3 points lower decisional conflict regarding their postevaluation plan (100-point scale; p= .04). The interdisciplinary and standard groups reduced decisional conflict on average 24.8± 18.9 and 23.6± 14.6 points, respectively. Adding a physical therapist to a surgical clinic increased interest in physical therapy treatment, but this increase was not statistically significant. The interdisciplinary group displayed lower postevaluation decisional conflict; however, both groups displayed similar reductions in decisional conflict from pre- to postevaluation. This study also demonstrated the feasibility of an interdisciplinary evaluation in a hip preservation clinic.

Standardizing the Diagnostic Evaluation of Nonarthritic Hip Pain Through the Delphi Method.

Background:Femoroacetabular impingement and acetabular dysplasia have gained increased attention as nonarthritic sources of pain and dysfunction in young, active patients. To date, no standardized approach to the diagnostic evaluation of nonarthritic hip pain has been identified, as previous work has focused on the diagnostic evaluation and management of patients with femoroacetabular impingement undergoing hip arthroscopy.Purpose:To explore the standard diagnostic evaluation practice of experts in the field of hip preservation surgery and combine their expertise through the Delphi method to form a standardized approach to the diagnostic evaluation of patients with nonarthritic hip pain.Study Design:Consensus statement.Methods:An expert panel made up of 18 orthopaedic surgeons with extensive experience in the treatment of nonarthritic hip disorders participated in this Delphi study. The Delphi panelists were presented with 4 clinical vignettes representing a spectrum of patients with nonarthritic hip pain. Three iterative survey rounds were presented to the panelists based on these clinical vignettes, and a 3-step classic Delphi method was used to establish consensus techniques in the diagnostic evaluation of nonarthritic hip pain.Results:Total (100%) participation was gained, with all 18 experts completing all 3 Delphi survey rounds. Consensus (≥75% support) was achieved for some, if not all, vignettes for each of the following diagnostic domains: historical features, physical examination, radiographic sequences, radiographic interpretation, cross-sectional imaging, and ancillary diagnostics.Conclusion:In this Delphi study, we identified standardized diagnostic treatment approaches as derived from expert opinion for patients with nonarthritic hip pathomorphologies.

Nonsurgical Versus Surgical Management of Femoroacetabular Impingement: What Does the Current Best Evidence Tell Us.

Controversy exists as to the management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). When nonsurgical management of symptomatic FAI fails, surgical management is generally indicated. However, many groups with a stake in patient care (particularly payors) have insisted on higher levels of evidence. Recently, there have been several Level I studies published, comparing physical therapy (PT) with hip arthroscopy in the management of symptomatic FAI. All of these studies have used outcomes tools developed and validated for patients with nonarthritic hip pain (the International Hip Outcome Tool). Most highest level evidence confirms that although patients with FAI do benefit from PT, patients who undergo surgical management for FAI with hip arthroscopy benefit more than those who undergo PT (mean difference in the International Hip Outcome Tool 6.8 [minimal clinically important difference 6.1], P = 0.0093). Future large prospective studies are needed to evaluate the effect on the outcomes when there is a delay in surgical management in symptomatic individuals, assess whether FAI surgery prevents or delays osteoarthritis, and determine the role of other advanced surgical techniques.

Evidence for Reliability and Validity of Functional Performance Testing in the Evaluation of Nonarthritic Hip Pain.

The single-legged-squat test (SLST) and step-down test (SDT) are 2 functional performance tests commonly used to evaluate active people with nonarthritic hip pain and dysfunction. However, evidence to support the use of the SLST and SDT in this population is lacking. To offer evidence of reliability and validity for the SLST and SDT in evaluating patients with nonarthritic hip pain. Cross-sectional study. Orthopaedic surgeon's clinical office. Forty-five patients (27 female and 18 male participants; age = 28.5 ± 10 years, height = 171.6 ± 10.1 cm, weight = 73.9 ± 15.2 kg, and body mass index = 25 ± 4.1) diagnosed with nonarthritic hip pain. Participants performed the SLST and SDT. Interrater reliability and validity of passive internal rotation of the hip, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, and hip outcome scores (HOSs) for limitations in activities of daily living and sport-related activities (SRAs) were collected. Interrater reliability was moderate to excellent for both the SLST (0.603-0.939) and SDT (0.745-0.943). Participants who passed or failed the SLST and SDT differed on the following measures: VAS for the SLST (F1,43 = 16.21, P < .001); VAS for the SDT (F1,43 = 13.41, P = .001); HOS-activities of daily living for the SLST (F1,40 = 5.15, P = .029); HOS-SRAs for the SLST (F1,40 = 7.48, P = .009); and HOS-SRAs for the SDT (F1,40 = 6.42, P = .015). Our study offers evidence for the use of the SLST and SDT as reliable and valid functional performance tests in the evaluation of physical function for patients with nonarthritic hip pain.