Search

Hip arthroscopy for femoral and acetabular pathologies has increased dramatically. However, there is little literature analyzing procedures as predictors of revision arthroscopy or arthroplasty. From February 2008 to November 2015, patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for a labral tear with minimum 2-year follow-up and between 18 and 60 years old were retrospectively reviewed. Those with previous surgeries, Tönnis grade greater than 1, and previous hip conditions were excluded. Follow-up was obtained for 1118 patients (1249 hips; 81.7%) with a mean age of 38.7 years (range, 18.0–60.0 years), mean body mass index of 26.4 kg/m 2 (range, 16.3–48.9 kg/m 2 ), and mean follow-up of 50.2 months (range, 24.0–111.9 months). A total of 122 (9.8%) patients converted to total hip arthroplasty (mean, 35.3 months; range, 1.4–95.2 months). Multivariate analysis for predictors of total hip arthroplasty found age at surgery (hazard ratio, 1.064/y; P P P =.03), and notchplasty (HR, 2.128; P P P P P =.04) to be significant, with age at date of surgery (HR, 0.973/y; P P =.05) associated with higher survivorship. Understanding risk factors for conversion to total hip arthroplasty or revision is paramount during discussions with patients. [ Orthopedics . 2020;43(3):173–181.]

Robotic-assisted total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a recent platform introduced to decrease the risk of malpositioned components. The goals of this study were to determine whether intraoperative data on robotic-assisted THA acetabular component position accurately predict postoperative radiographic acetabular component position and to determine whether intraoperative data on robotic-assisted THA leg length and offset accurately predict postoperative radiographic leg length and offset data. In 146 patients, pre- and postoperative radiographs and intraoperative component measurements were reported for acetabular inclination, anteversion, leg length change, and offset change. Component position obtained by the robotic system and radiographic data were compared with subgroup analysis for the posterior and direct anterior approaches. The average difference between groups was 3.3°±3.1° for inclination, 2.9°±2.3° for anteversion, 3.0±2.3 mm for leg length change, and 4.0±3.1 mm for change in global offset. Correlation between the robotic system and postoperative radiographs was within 10° for 95.9% of cases for inclination and 99.3% for anteversion. Posterior approach correlation was within 10° for 97.1% of cases for inclination and 100% for anteversion. Anterior approach correlation was within 10° for 92.7% of cases for inclination and 97.6% for anteversion. Intraoperative data on component position obtained from the robotic system compared well with radiographic data on component position. Surgeons must remain vigilant to ensure outliers related to robotic system malfunction do not occur. [ Orthopedics. 2016; 39(3):193–199.]

Educational Objectives As a result of reading this article, physicians should be able to: 1. Discuss the kinematic relationship between the hip and lumbar spine. 2. Explain the innervation of the hip and lumbar spine and how they relate to one another. 3. Recognize the effect of hip disease on the lumbar spine in an athletic population, prior to the onset of degenerative changes. 4. Describe an algorithm for diagnosis and treatment of patients who present with concomitant hip and lumbar spine pain. The hip and lumbar spine are closely related and can create similar patterns of pain and dysfunction. Diagnosis and treatment of hip and spine–related conditions can be challenging due to symptom overlap. Successful evaluation and treatment of hip and lumbar spine conditions requires a thorough understanding the hip-spine connection. Historically the hip-spine connection has been considered in the context of arthrosis; however, the hip-spine connection also needs to be considered in a younger athletic population. The purpose of this review is to describe the hip-spine connection, discuss the clinical implications of this connection, and offer an approach to diagnosis and treatment. [ Orthopedics. 2015; 38(1):49–55.]