Secondary Arthroscopy Research Articles

Functional Outcomes, Complications, and Failure Rates in Workers' Compensation Patients Following Hip Arthroscopic Repair: A Systematic Review.

Studies on the feasibility of hip arthroscopy in workers' compensation (WC) patients have been largely inconsistent or limited by study design, necessitating the need for a systematic review. We sought to systematically compare clinically significant differences between WC patients and their counterparts in relation to (1) functional outcomes, (2) complications, and (3) failure rates after hip arthroscopy. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases for studies published between January 1996 and February 2021. In combination with "AND" or "OR" Boolean operators, the following keywords were implemented: "hip arthroscopy," "workers' compensation," "outcomes," "complications," "revision," and "failure rates." Two reviewers screened eligible studies, evaluated methodological quality, and abstracted data. In the 13 studies pooled, comprising 1874 patients, 276 (14.7%) patients received WC benefits. Twelve studies utilized functional outcomes, 2 studies assessed pain, and 3 studies evaluated satisfaction. Despite scoring lower in these measures preoperatively, WC patients demonstrated significant improvements after hip arthroscopy. Three studies linked compensation with marginally inferior functional scores, but this association was not significant at longer follow-up. Seven studies examined complication incidence, and 6 studies addressed failure rates, with all reporting no significant differences in rates of complications, secondary arthroscopies, or conversion to total hip arthroplasty. The findings of this systematic review suggest that hip arthroscopy offers clinically significant benefits, regardless of WC status. Postoperative results in WC patients, including functional scores, pain, satisfaction, complications, and failure rates, were favorable, and the degree of improvement was at least comparable with their counterparts. Further studies should consider prospective study designs with larger cohorts and extended follow-up.

Arthroscopic Disk Repositioning After Failed Open Disk Repositioning.

Open disk repositioning has been long achieving excellent functional and stability outcomes. However, still remains some relapses for whom a second open surgery is often challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of arthroscopic disk reposition as an alternative surgery for unsuccessful cases of anterior disk displacement (ADD) after an initial open disk repositioning. This retrospective study included all patients who underwent secondary arthroscopy for disk repositioning of the relapsed ADD after an initial open surgery between January 2012 to June 2017. The redo arthroscopic disk repositioning and suturing procedure was the primary predictor input variable in this study. Outcome evaluation was based on both clinical (visual analog scale and maximal interincisal opening) and magnetic resonance imaging data. Twenty-seven joints fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included. A significant improvement was detected at 24-month postoperatively compared with the baseline visual analog scale. The maximal interincisal opening showed a statistical improvement from 25.07mm preoperatively to 38.44mm at 24-month postoperatively. Twenty-six joints maintained a stable disk position with only 1 joint relapsed to ADD without reduction. Arthroscopic disk reposition and suturing technique is a reliable and effective repeat surgery after failed initial open disk repositioning for management of ADD.

Outcomes After Primary Hip Arthroscopy in Athletes Older Than 40 Years Compared With Nonathletes

Background: Master athletes (MAs), or athletes older than 40 years, make up a patient population whose outcomes after primary arthroscopic hip surgery are largely unknown. Purpose: To report minimum 2-year outcomes of MAs after primary hip arthroscopy and compare their results to a propensity-matched nonathlete (NA) control group. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were prospectively collected between February 2008 and April 2019 and retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy. Patients were included if they were older than 40 years and had preoperative data for the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale, and visual analog scale score for pain. MAs reported participating in organized sports competition within 1 year before surgery and were propensity matched to a control group of patients who did not report participating in organized sports competition (NAs). Patient characteristics, radiographic and intraoperative findings, surgical procedures performed, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were reported and compared between the groups. The rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold were recorded. Results: A total of 366 hips were eligible; 328 (89.6%) had adequate follow-up data. 328 patients met inclusion criteria but 88 were not included due to the restrictions of the propensity score match ratio. Of these, 80 hips (76 patients) were classified as MAs (mean age, 48.9 ± 6.2 years) and were propensity matched 1:2 to an NA control group. Groups were comparable for baseline demographic and radiographic parameters, intraoperative findings, and procedures performed. MAs had significantly better baseline and minimum 2-year PROM scores (P < .05), higher satisfaction (P = .01), and higher rates of achieving clinically meaningful improvement across all the outcome tools used (P < .05). MAs, when compared with NAs, had lower rates of secondary arthroscopy (0% vs 7.5%, respectively; P = .001) and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (12.5% vs 26.9%, respectively; P = .011). Conclusion: MAs demonstrated favorable outcomes after primary hip arthroscopy. When compared with a propensity score–matched control group of NA patients, MAs demonstrated better preoperative and postoperative PROMs, higher rates of clinically meaningful improvement, and lower rates of secondary arthroscopy and conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Absolute improvements in PROM scores were similar between the groups.

Minimum 5-Year Outcomes After Primary Segmental Labral Reconstruction for Irreparable Labral Tears in the Hip With Hamstring Grafts: With a Subanalysis Comparing Autograft Versus Allograft

Background: Comparable short-term outcomes have been obtained using hamstring allografts versus autografts after primary segmental labral reconstruction (SLR). Midterm results have not yet been determined. Purpose: (1) To evaluate minimum 5-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores in patients who underwent primary SLR with hamstring grafts in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and irreparable labral tears and (2) to compare the outcomes of hamstring autografts versus allografts in a subanalysis using propensity-matched groups. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy between September 2010 and November 2015. Patients were included if they underwent SLR using hamstring autografts or allografts and had preoperative and minimum 5-year PROs. The exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions, dysplasia, or Tönnis grade >1. Patients with autograft SLR were propensity matched 1 to 1 based on age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) to patients who underwent SLR using hamstring allografts. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were calculated. Results: Overall, 48 patients (N = hips 48) were eligible to be included in this study, and 41 patients (n = 41 hips [85.4%]) had a minimum 5-year follow-up reporting significant improvements in all PROs. Within the entire cohort, 9.8% required a secondary arthroscopy, with a mean time of 19 ± 1.8 months, and survivorship was 82.9%. Of the 41 included patients, 15 underwent an SLR with a hamstring autograft and were matched to 15 patients with labral reconstruction using a hamstring allograft. Groups were similar for sex (P > .999), age (P = .775), and BMI (P = .486). The mean follow-up times were 80.8 ± 25.5 and 66.1 ± 8.3 months (P = .223) for the autograft and allograft groups, respectively. Baseline PROs, preoperative radiographic measurements, surgical findings, and intraoperative procedures were similar. The groups achieved significant and comparable improvements for all PROs (P < .0001), satisfaction (P = .187), and the rate of achieving the MCID and the PASS. However, a tendency for higher postoperative PROs favoring allograft reconstruction was found. Conclusion: At a minimum 5-year follow-up, patients who underwent primary arthroscopic SLR in the context of FAIS and irreparable labra, with either autograft or allograft hamstring tendons, reported significant improvements and comparable postoperative scores for all PROs, patient satisfaction, MCID, and PASS.

Survival and Risk Factor Analysis of Arthroscopic Ramp Lesion Repair During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Background: There is a lack of research on the management of ramp lesions associated with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. Furthermore, there has been no report of the risk factors for failure of ramp lesion sutures, linked to either the technique used (all-inside suture implant vs suture hook through a posteromedial portal) or the type of lesion (location in the red zone or meniscocapsular junction, longitudinal extension, partial- or full-thickness tear). Purpose: To evaluate the results of arthroscopic repair of ramp lesions and determine the risk factors associated with ramp lesion repair failure, with special focus on their subtype and the suture technique. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: All patients who underwent arthroscopic ramp lesion repair in association with ACL reconstruction between November 2015 and January 2018 were evaluated retrospectively. The following parameters were studied: demographics; clinical history; clinical findings including International Knee Documentation Committee score, complications, time from injury to surgery, side-to-side laxity, and pivot shift; and surgical findings including subtype, surgical management, and type and number of sutures. Failure of the ramp lesion repair was defined at secondary arthroscopy. Results: Among the 248 lesions analyzed, 18 (7.3%) failures were documented. The failures occurred in 21.1% of repairs managed with the all-inside device versus 4.3% of sutures managed with the suture hook (P = .003). Among the 6 factors included in the Cox model, the only one identified as a risk factor for failure was the type of repair (P = .003), with a risk for the all-inside device that was >5-fold higher than that for the suture hook repair (corresponding hazard ratio, 5.1 [95% CI, 1.8-14.5]). No other complications involving the surgical technique or device were registered. Conclusion: An arthroscopic all-inside technique of meniscal repair of ramp lesions appeared to be safe and effective. It provided excellent healing of the repaired meniscus, with an overall failure rate of 7.3%. The type of suture was associated with failure of the ramp lesion repair, with a significantly higher risk with the all-inside device than with suture hook repair sutures.

Second-look arthroscopic findings and clinical outcomes after management of intra-articular lesions in acute ankle fractures with arthroscopy

BackgroundAnatomically surgical reduction of ankle fractures does not always result in a clinically favorable outcome. Arthroscopic examination combined with treatment of intra-articular lesion may related to clinical outcomes ObjectivesThe purpose of the present study was to review initial and second look arthroscopic finding of acute ankle fracture and to evaluate clinical outcomes. ResultsLauge-Hansen classification system of ankle fractures included supination-external rotation type (n = 24), supination-adduction type (n = 3), pronation-external rotation type (n = 7), and pronation-abduction type (n = 6), total 40 ankles. Osteochondral lesions were found in 25 ankles (62%) with an initial arthroscopic finding of acute ankle fracture. Newly discovered chondral lesions in secondary arthroscopy were found in 17 cases. According to the Ferkel and Cheng staging at secondary arthroscopy, 4 of 25 ankles with osteochondral lesions of the talus were deteriorating (more than stage D). In terms of ICRS overall repair grades, 5 ankles (20%) were abnormal (grade III). Diffuse synovitis and arthrofibrosis were found in 12 and 7 ankles, respectively, in secondary arthroscopy, and correlations were found between AOFAS scores, VAS and intra-articular lesions. ConclusionSecond-look arthroscopic examination combined with treatment of intra-articular lesion such as arthrofibrosis and osteochondral lesion arising from ankle fracture surgery may consider to improve clinical outcomes.

Isolated biceps tenodesis by double row for pulley lesions

Objective: To explore clinical outcome of isolated arthroscopic biceps tenodesis by double row for pulley lesions. Methods: Forty-nine patients with pulley lesions were treated from July 2017 to June 2018 in the Department of Sport Medicine, the Affiliated Zhongshan Hospital of Dalian University by isolated arthroscopic biceps tenodesis by double row. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the intraoperative damage of the pulley system. In group A, there were 16 patients with isolated superior glenohumeral ligament/coracohumeral ligament (SGHL/CHL) complex lesions, including 9 males and 7 females, aged (55±6) years. In group B, there were 33 patients (15 males and 18 females, aged (57±8) years) with SGHL/CHL complex and adjacent supraspinatus tendon and/or subscapularis tendon articular-side partly tears. Patients in two groups were treated with different isolated arthroscopic biceps tenodesis by double row. Constant-Murley shoulder score and pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score were assessed before operation and 3, 6, 12 months after the operation. Postoperative complications were also recorded in two groups. The t test was used to compare the quantitative data within and between two groups. Results: All 49 patients were followed up for 12 to 24 months with an average of (17±6) months. The first-stage healing was achieved in all incisions in the two groups. No surgical complications related to revision, infection, Popeye syndrome and cramping pain were observed in either group. There was 1 case treated by secondary arthroscopy for retrauma in group B. The Constant-Murley shoulder score in group A before the operation was 46±10, and it was increased to 89±9 at the 12 months post operation(t=-22.637, P<0.05); and it was 39±10 and 87±8 before and 12 months after the operation respectively in group B (t=-44.849, P<0.05). The VAS scores in the two groups were both decreased significantly at the 12 months post operation when compared with those before the operation (0.68±0.70 vs 5.25±0.27 and 0.72±0.83 vs 5.69±0.84, respectively) (t=29.007, 37.079, both P<0.05). Conclusion: Isolated arthroscopic biceps tenodesis by double row can relieve pain, recover functions of shoulder joint effectively, and achieve a satisfactory outcome in the treatment of pulley lesions.

Comparison of Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate and Allogeneic Human Umbilical Cord Blood-derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells in Patients with Kissing Lesion on Initial Arthrocopy After High Tibial Osteotomy in Medial Unicompartmental Osteoarthritis of Knee

Purpose:The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of cartilage regeneration between bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) augmentation and the stem cell-based medicinal product (a composite of culture-expanded allogeneic hUCB-MSCs and hyaluronic acid hydrogel [Cartistem]) in medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis of kneeMethods:Out of 81 cases underwent for second look arthroscopy who treated for medial unicompartmental osteoarthritis between 2016 and 2019, 31 cases were kissing lesion which was shown full thickness cartilage defect(over ICRS grade 3B) in medial femoral cartilage and medial tibial cartilage at initial surgery. We retrospectively compared clinical outcomes, including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Knee Society Score (KSS) pain and function, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score between BMAC group comprising of 25 cases and Cartistem group comprising of 14 cases at minimum of 1 year follow up. Also, cartilage regeneration was graded by International Cartilage Repair Society Cartilage Repair Assessment (ICRS CRA) grading system at secondary arthroscopy. Radiologic measurement including Hip-Knee-Ankle (HKA) angle, posterior tibial slope angle, and correction angle were assessed.Results:At the final follow-up, clinical outcomes were improved. However, there were no statistical significances between two groups in clinical outcome and radiologic outcome(p>0.05). Regarding the findings of second-look arthroscopy, Cartistem group was significantly better than BMAC group in medial femoral cartilage and medial tibial cartilage(p=0.002, 0.000). About medial femoral cartilage, grade I cartilage regeneration was found in 0 case, grade II in 10 cases (40%), grade III in 6 cases (16%), grade IV in 9 cases (36%) in BMAC group and grade I cartilage regeneration was found in 1 case (7.1%), grade II in 11 cases (85.7%), and grade III in 1 case (7.1%) in Cartistem group. About medial tibial cartilage, grade I cartilage regeneration was found in 0 case , grade II in 8 cases (32%), grade III in 4 cases (16%), grade IV in 13 cases (52%) in BMAC group and grade I cartilage regeneration was found in 0 case, grade II in 12 cases (85.7%), and grade III in 1 case(7.1%), grade IV in 1 case (7.1%) in cartistem group.Conclusion:Clinical outcomes were improved regardless of which augmentation was administered. However, microfracture with Cartistem is more effective for cartilage regeneration than microfracture with BMAC in medial unicompartmental OA. Keywords : High tibial osteotomy, Unicompartmental osteoarthritis, Microfracture, Cartilage regeneration, Bone marrow aspirate concentrate, Cartistem.

Does failure to meet threshold scores for mHHS and iHOT-12 correlate tosecondary operations following hip arthroscopy?

The purpose of this study was to determine (i) if failing to achieve a patient-reported outcome (PRO) threshold at 1 year was associated with secondary operations at minimum 2-year follow-up and (ii)what outcome measure and threshold has the highest association with future surgeries. Inclusion criteria for this study were cases of primary hip arthroscopy between July 2014 and April 2017. Included patients had recorded pre-operative and 1-year post-operative modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and 12-item international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) scores. Patients were classified based on their ability to achieve minimal clinical important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for each PRO and the status of secondary operations at minimum 2-year follow-up. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio for these thresholds were calculated. Of 425 eligible cases, 369 (86.8%) had minimum 2-year follow-up. Of the included patients, 28 underwent secondary operations (7.59%), with 14 undergoing secondary arthroscopies (3.79%) and 14 converting to total hip arthroplasty (3.79%). For mHHS, 267 (72.4%), 173 (46.9%) and 277 (75.1%) hips met MCID, SCB and PASS, respectively. For iHOT-12, 234 (63.4%), 218 (59.1%) and 280 (75.9%) hips met the respective thresholds. The highest specificity, sensitivity and accuracy were identified as for iHOT-12 MCID (0.79), iHOT-12 PASS (0.79) and iHOT-12 MCID (0.77), respectively. Patients not attaining MCID and PASS for mHHS and iHOT-12 at 1-year post-operatively are at increased risk of secondary operation. The most accurate threshold associated with secondary operation (0.77) is not achieving iHOT-12 MCID. Level of evidence: retrospective case series: level IV.

Cannulated screw fixation versus high-strength suture fixation in arthroscopy of tibial intercondylar fracture

Objective To compare the cannulated screw fixation versus high-strength suture fixation in arthroscopy of tibial intercondylar fracture. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed of the 31 patients with tibial intercondylar fracture who had been treated from February 2015 to February 2018 at Department of Orthopaedics, Beijing Renhe Hospital. They were 18 males and 13 females with an average age of 34.3 years (range, from 21 to 51 years). Arthroscopic cannulated screw fixation was conducted in 13 patients (screwing group), 5 of whom were McKeever type Ⅱ and 8 of whom McKeever type Ⅲ. Arthroscopic high-intensity suture fixation was used in 18 patients (suture group), 6 of whom were McKeever type Ⅱ and 12 of whom McKeever type Ⅲ. The 2 groups were compared postoperatively in terms of operation time, hospitalization time, fracture healing time, Lysholm knee scores and rate of secondary operation. Results The 2 groups were comparable because there were no significant differences in preoperative general data between them (P>0.05). All the patients were followed up for 12 to 44 months (mean, 24.8 months). For the screwing and suture groups, respectively, operation time was 91.6 min±7.6 min and 91.9 min±7.4 min, hospitalization time 11.5 d±2.9 d and 11.4 d±2.3 d and fracture healing time 3.3 mon±0.5 mon and 3.3 mon±0.6 mon, showing no significant differences between the 2 groups (P>0.05). By the Lysholm scores at 12 months after operation, the screwing group scored from 65 to100 points with an excellent and good rate of 92.3% (12/13), and the suture group from 60 to 100 points with an excellent and good rate of 94.4% (17/18), showing no significant difference between the 2 groups (P>0.05). Ten patients (76.9%) in the screwing group had secondary arthroscopy to remove the implants but none in the suture group did. Conclusions Both cannulated screw fixation and high-strength suture fixation can achieve satisfactory clinical results in the arthroscopy of tibial intercondylar fractures, but the latter may lead to a lower rate of secondary operation. Key words: Arthroscopy; Fracture fixation, internal; Bone nails; High strength suture; Tibial eminence fracture

Comparison of autologous osteoperiosteal cylinder and osteochondral graft transplantation in the treatment of large cystic osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs): a protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial

IntroductionLarge cystic osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs) have been shown to have inferior clinical outcomes after reparative techniques such as bone marrow stimulation. Autologous osteochondral transplantation has been viewed...

Do Larger Acetabular Chondral Defects Portend Inferior Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Acetabular Microfracture? A Matched-Controlled Study

To elucidate the effect, if any, of acetabular chondral defect size on surgical outcomes after arthroscopic microfracture was performed with concomitant treatment for labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome. The study period was between February 2008 and November 2014. Data were collected on patients who underwent hip arthroscopy. The inclusion criteria were acetabular microfracture; concomitant treatment for labral tears and FAI syndrome; and preoperative modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, and visual analog scale. Exclusion criteria were Workers' Compensation, preoperative Tönnis grade >1, or previous ipsilateral hip surgeries or conditions. Patients were grouped based on smaller chondral defects (SCDs) or larger chondral defects (LCDs), then matched 1:1 by age at surgery ±10years, sex, body mass index ±5, labral treatment, capsular treatment, acetabuloplasty, and femoroplasty. Outcomes, secondary arthroscopies, and conversions to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were documented. Of 131 eligible cases, 107 (81.7%) had minimum 2-year follow-up. Before matching, the conversion rate to THA was higher for LCDs (24.6%) than for SCDs (12.0%). Thirty-five patients were matched for each group. Mean follow-up time was 47.9months (range, 24.0, 84.1) for the matched LCD group and 46.1months (range, 24.0, 88.1) for the matched SCD group. Ligamentum teres debridement (P= .03) was performed more frequently in the LCD group. No other differences were found regarding demographics, intraoperative findings, procedures, traction time, preoperative scores, or follow-up scores. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in all scores. Rates of revision or conversion to THA were similar between groups. The relative risk for conversion to THA was 2.33 for patients with defects ≥300mm2 compared with patients with defects ≤250mm2 (P= .13). Deep vein thrombosis occurred in 3 (5.3%) patients with LCDs. Matched patients with either SCDs or LCDs undergoing arthroscopic acetabular microfracture with concomitant treatment for labral tears and FAI syndrome demonstrated similar improvements at minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients with chondral defects approaching 300mm2 or greater may have a higher propensity toward conversion to THA. Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Midterm Outcomes of Iliopsoas Fractional Lengthening for Internal Snapping as a Part of Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement and Labral Tear: A Matched Control Study

To report minimum 5-year outcomes and rate of painful snapping resolution for patients who underwent iliopsoas fractional lengthening (IFL) as a part of hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and labral tear. In addition, to match this group to a group of patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAI and labral tear without internal snapping. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they underwent hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAI and labral tear with concomitant IFL for painful snapping and had preoperative baseline scores for modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale, and visual analog scale for pain. The exclusion criteria for this study were preoperative Tönnis grade >0, active workers' compensation claims, or previous ipsilateral hip conditions. These patients were matched to a control group of patients who did not have snapping or undergo IFL but who otherwise satisfied the same inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were 57 eligible cases (80.3% follow-up). Mean follow-up time was 69.3months (from 60.0 to 91.9). All patient-reported outcomes measures demonstrated statistically significant improvements between preoperative and latest follow-up scores for the following measures (P<.001): modified Harris Hip Score (from 64.3 to 84.9), Nonarthritic Hip Score (from 61.7 to 85.2), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (from 47.0 to 75.0), and visual analog scale (from 6.5 to 2.2). Mean satisfaction was 8.1 out of 10. Painful snapping was resolved in 80.7% of cases. Ten hips (17.5%) required secondary arthroscopy at a mean of 30.5months. Three hips (5.3%) required total hip arthroplasty at a mean of 57.5months. One case (1.8%) had minor postoperative complications. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in outcomes, complications, and secondary surgeries. IFL as part of hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAI and labral tears demonstrated similar favorable improvement, complication rates, and secondary surgeries, when compared with a control group that did not undergo IFL. Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Arthroscopic Labral Treatment in Adolescents: Clinical Outcomes With Minimum 5-Year Follow-up

Background: The success of hip arthroscopy has led to increased application in younger populations. However, hip arthroscopy remains a challenging procedure, and its safety and efficacy in the adolescent population have been controversial. Most existing literature on outcomes in such patients contains only short-term follow-up, and a paucity of evidence is available regarding long-term outcomes in adolescents. Purpose: To report on clinical outcomes at a minimum 5-year follow-up in patients younger than 18 years who underwent arthroscopic treatment of labral tears. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed on all patients younger than 18 years who underwent hip arthroscopy in a tertiary hip preservation setting at a single institution. Patients were excluded if they had previous ipsilateral hip conditions or surgery. All patients underwent either labral repair or debridement for treatment of a labral tear. Patient-reported outcome measures were recorded at 3 months and at 1, 2, or a minimum of 5 years. These included the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), visual analog scale, and patient satisfaction. Additionally, the abbreviated International Hip Outcome Tool and Short Form Health Survey were collected at latest follow-up. Results: The study included 44 hips in 32 patients that underwent arthroscopic labral repair (86.4%) or labral debridement (13.6%) between April 2008 and April 2011, with latest follow-up at a mean of 69.2 months (range, 60.0-89.9 months) postoperatively. The average age at surgery was 16.3 years (range, 14.2-17.9 years), and 39 hips from female patients. Statistically significant improvements were seen in all patient-reported outcome measures from preoperative to minimum 5-year follow-up. Improvements were noted at 1-year follow-up and maintained at minimum 5-year follow-up. At the latest follow-up, the Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State was achieved in 95.5% of patients for the mHHS and 72.7% for the HOS-SSS. Two patients subsequently underwent secondary arthroscopy on the ipsilateral hip; however, the survivorship of all hips was 100%. Conclusion: Hip arthroscopy for the treatment of labral tears in adolescents remains a technically challenging procedure that should be approached with appropriate caution. The results of the present study on a population treated in a specialized hip preservation center demonstrate that hip arthroscopy is a safe procedure with stable improvement in patient-reported outcome measures at 5 years.

Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement and Labral Tears in Patients Younger than 50 Years: Minimum Five-year Outcomes, Survivorship, and Risk Factors for Reoperations

There is a paucity of literature on mid-term outcomes for hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement and labral tears. Inclusion criteria were age at surgery <50 years and documented preoperative patient-reported outcomes. Patients with a Tönnis grade >0 or previous ipsilateral hip conditions were excluded. Of 407 eligible cases, 327 hips (295 patients) had minimum 5-year follow-up. Mean age was 32.4 years. All mean patient-reported outcomes and visual analog scale improved at follow-up (P < 0.001). Mean satisfaction was 7.9. Thirty-eight hips (11.6%) required secondary arthroscopy at a mean of 25.1 months. Survivorship at minimum 5 years was 92.4%. The complication rate was 7.0%. Hip arthroscopy for management of femoroacetabular impingement and labral tears in patients aged <50 demonstrates favorable and safe mid-term outcomes. Several risk factors for conversion to total hip arthroplasty in this age group warrant cautious patient selection for arthroscopy.

Arthroscopic Reconstruction of the Irreparable Acetabular Labrum: A Match-controlled Study

To report clinical outcomes of arthroscopic labral reconstruction in the hip at minimum 2-year follow-up in comparison to a pair-matched labral repair group. Patients were included in this study if they underwent labral reconstruction during hip arthroscopy and had minimum 2-year follow-up data available. Exclusion criteria were active workers' compensation claims or previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions. Reconstruction patients were matched 1:2 to patients that underwent arthroscopic labral repair but otherwise metall inclusion and exclusion criteria. Matching criteria were age within 5years, sex, body mass index within 5, same capsular treatment, and whether there was chondral damage of Outerbridge grade II or greater. Three patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were recorded preoperatively and at a minimum of 2years postoperatively. International Hip Outcome Tool and patient satisfaction were also collected at latest follow-up. Thirty-four reconstruction patients were matched to 68 repair patients. There were no significant differences in age (P= .941), sex (P > .999), body mass index (P= .935), or any other demographics between groups. A statistically significant increase was seen in PROs for both the reconstruction group (Modified Harris Hip Score, P= .002; Hip Outcome Score - Sports Subscale, P<.001; Non-arthritic Hip Score, P<.001) and the repair group (Modified Harris Hip Score, P<.001; Hip Outcome Score - Sports Subscale, P < .001; Non-arthritic Hip Score, P<.001) at minimum 2-year follow-up. Significant decrease was shown for VAS for both groups (reconstruction VAS, P<.001; repair, P<.001) at minimum 2-year follow-up. There were no significant differences in rates of postoperative complications (P>.999), secondary arthroscopy (P>.999), or conversion to total hip arthroplasty (P=.728) between groups. Arthroscopic labral reconstruction is associated with significant improvement in PROs and a low incidence of secondary surgery within 2-year follow-up. Improvements in PROs, VAS, patient satisfaction, and incidence of secondary procedures were comparable to a match control treated with labral repair. Although there were no differences shown in the 2 groups with respect to complication rate, secondary arthroscopy, or conversion to total hip arthroplasty, the study was not powered to compare these outcome parameters. Based on this evidence, either labral repair or reconstruction may be selected depending upon the clinical scenario. Level III; retrospective comparative study.

Do Femoral Head Osteochondral Lesions Predict a Poor Outcome in Hip Arthroscopy Patients? A Matched Control Study With Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

To determine whether the presence of femoral head (FH) lesions affects patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for labral tears. Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for labral tears at our institution from April 2008 to March 2011. Patients with FH lesions were matched to those without (control) for age, body mass index, sex, and lateral center-edge angle. The inclusion criteria were FH lesions, labral tears, and minimum 5-year follow-up. The exclusion criteria were previous hip surgery, prior hip conditions, inflammatory arthritis, Workers' Compensation claims, and Tönnis grade greater than 1. PRO scores, including the modified Harris Hip Score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, and Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores for pain and patient satisfaction were recorded. We matched 96 hips with FH lesions to 96 control hips. The FH group had slightly longer follow-up (71.4months vs 67months, P= .004). Patients with FH lesions tended to have higher-grade acetabular lesions (grade 4 acetabular labrum articular disruption and Outerbridge grade 4 acetabular lesions). All PRO scores, VAS scores, and patient satisfaction ratings were statistically improved at latest follow-up in both groups. No statistical difference in improvement (ΔPRO and ΔVAS scores) was noted between groups. However, patients with FH lesions had a higher rate of conversion to arthroplasty (32% vs 16%, P= .0027). Patients in the control group underwent more secondary arthroscopies (14% vs 5%, P= .05). Finding an FH chondral lesion at arthroscopy does not necessarily portend a worse clinical outcome or conversion to total hip arthroplasty, when controlling for other variables. Patients with FH lesions were, however, found to have worse intra-articular hip pathology. When combined with these factors, patients with FH lesions had lower outcome scores and double the rate of conversion to arthroplasty than patients without them. Level III, case-control study.

Clinical Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy for Patients With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Matched-Pair Control Study With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

This study analyzed minimum 2-year hip arthroscopy outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients and non-RA control patients. It also examined whether disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) affected RA patient outcomes. We hypothesized that patients with RA undergoing hip arthroscopy would have lower reported outcome scores. Data were prospectively collected on all hip arthroscopies performed from 2009-2013. The indications for surgery were patients with hip pain and with physical examination and imaging studies confirming intra-articular pathology in whom conservative management had failed. The exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip conditions and Tönnis grade greater than 1. Patients with at least 2years of follow-up and preoperative RA diagnoses were matched (1:2 ratio) to controls without RA (based on age ± 5years, body mass index ± 5, and lateral center-edge angle [18°-25°, 26°-39°, or >39°]). RA cases were further analyzed based on DMARD use. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores were collected preoperatively and postoperatively at 3months, as well as annually thereafter. The outcomes collected included the modified Harris Hip Score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain, satisfaction rating, future procedures, and complications. We matched 26 hips in 20 RA patients to a control group of 52 hips in 52 patients. At a minimum of 2years of follow-up, RA patients reported no significant improvements except in the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, whereas the control group significantly improved in all PRO and VAS scores. Preoperative PRO and VAS scores between the RA and control groups were not significantly different, but postoperatively, all scores were lower in RA patients at a minimum of 2years, whether they were taking DMARDs or not. Patients taking DMARDs showed slightly more improvement in PRO and VAS scores. There was a greater trend toward more secondary arthroscopy procedures for RA patients (19.2% vs 7.7%, P= .47), but total hip arthroplasty rates were similar. Complication rates were low in both groups. Patients undergoing hip arthroscopy who have a diagnosis of RA had less improvement in PRO and VAS scores and were less satisfied than a matched control group of patients without RA at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients who were taking DMARDs had slightly better improvement in their PRO and VAS scores than nonmedicated patients. With this early follow-up, we could not show a difference in the rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty, although RA patients required more revision arthroscopies than controls. Patients with a diagnosis of RA who undergo hip arthroscopy should be counseled about the potential for lesser degrees of postoperative improvement and should have their expectations managed accordingly. LEVELOF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative trial.

Patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with active workers' compensation claims do not demonstrate inferior outcomes at mid-term.

Workers' compensation (WC) claims have been associated with poor short-term outcomes after hip arthroscopy. We aim to report mid-term outcomes and return to work (RTW) among patients with WC claims. Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy between September 2008 and July 2011. Inclusion criteria were an active WC claim at time of surgery with preoperatively-documented patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Exclusion criteria were a previous hip condition and preoperative Tönnis grade >1. Patient-reported WC cases were pair-matched to non-WC cases based on body mass index (BMI) ± 5, age ± 5 years, gender, preoperative LCEA, labral treatment, and capsular treatment. 52 patients had minimum 5-year outcomes. Mean age was 40.6 (±10.6) years and a mean BMI of 27.5 (±5.3). 9 (16.7%) hips underwent secondary arthroscopies. 5 hips (9.3%) were converted to THA. There were 5 (9.3%) reports of numbness, all of which resolved spontaneously. Work status details were available for 49 patients and 47 patients (95.9%) returned to work. 42 WC hips were matched to 42 control hips. At ⩾5-year follow-up, patient-reported outcomes, visual analogue scale (VAS) and satisfaction were not different between the groups. All magnitudes in improvement were significantly higher in the WC group (p = < 0.001) except for VAS. No significant differences were found in rates of secondary arthroscopies, conversions to THA, or complications between the groups. WC patients have equal favourable mid-term outcomes as non-WC patients after hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement and labral pathology.

Arthroscopic Capsular Plication in Patients With Labral Tears and Borderline Dysplasia of the Hip: Analysis of Risk Factors for Failure

Background: Hip arthroscopy for the treatment of instability in the setting of borderline dysplasia is controversial. Capsular management in such cases is an important consideration, and plication has been described as a reliable technique, with good midterm outcomes reported when indications are appropriate. Hypothesis: Patients with borderline dysplasia who have a lower lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) and greater age will be at a higher risk of failure after arthroscopic capsular plication. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were retrospectively reviewed for all patients between 15 and 40 years of age who underwent hip arthroscopy from November 2008 to January 2015. Inclusion criteria were an LCEA between 18° and 25°, Tönnis grade ≤1, primary case with capsular plication, and minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were excluded if they had any history of ipsilateral hip procedure or conditions such as Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, rheumatologic disease, and Tönnis grade ≥2. Age, sex, and body mass index data were retrieved for each patient. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs)—including modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain (0-10)—were obtained preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively, in addition to the postoperative International Hip Outcome Tool–12. The “success” group consisted of all patients who achieved the patient acceptable symptomatic state of mHHS ≥74 and had no ipsilateral hip surgery subsequent to their index arthroscopy. The “failure” group was composed of patients who were below the patient acceptable symptomatic state at latest follow-up or required secondary arthroscopy or conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Patient satisfaction and minimal clinically important difference were also calculated. Mean age for the failure group was applied as a cutoff age for subanalysis, and relative risk for failure was determined. Results: Ninety patients (97 hips; 79.5%) met criteria for the success group, and 25 patients (25 hips) met criteria for the failure group. No significant differences in preoperative baseline scores or VAS were found. However, there did appear to be a trend that the failure group had lower mean preoperative scores for all PRO measures and a higher VAS score. The differences in preoperative mHHS and NAHS closely approached significance (P = .053). Postoperative PRO, VAS, and patient satisfaction scores of the success group were significantly higher than the failure group. The failure group was significantly older than the success group (28.5 ± 7.8 vs 23.5 ± 7.5 years, P = .005). Patients >35 years old were 2.25 times more likely to fail according to relative risk (95% CI, 1.10-4.60; P = .0266). LCEA did not differ between the groups, and no other risk factors for failure were identified. Conclusion: Stringent criteria for patient selection and meticulous repair or augmentation of the static stabilizers of the hip yielded favorable clinical outcomes in this study cohort with borderline dysplasia. Within this carefully selected group, the analysis revealed that increased age was the main risk factor for failure in the management of borderline hip dysplasia via isolated primary arthroscopic hip surgery with capsular plication.