Search

Background: The indications for hip arthroscopy in patients aged ≥40 years remain controversial, as observational studies have suggested that advanced age portends poor functional outcomes, poor durability of improvement, and high rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty., Purpose: To compare hip arthroscopy versus nonoperative management for symptomatic labral tears in patients aged ≥40 years with limited radiographic osteoarthritis., Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1., Methods: This single-surgeon, parallel randomized controlled trial included patients aged ≥40 years with limited osteoarthritis (Tönnis grades 0-2) who were randomized 1:1 to arthroscopic surgery with postoperative physical therapy (SPT) or physical therapy alone (PTA). Patients who received PTA and achieved unsatisfactory improvement were permitted to cross over to SPT after completing ≥14 weeks of physical therapy (CO). The primary outcomes were the International Hip Outcome Tool-33 score and modified Harris Hip Score at 24 months after surgery, and secondary outcomes included other patient-reported outcome measures and the visual analog scale for pain. The primary analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis using linear mixed-effects models. Sensitivity analyses included modified as-treated and treatment-failure analyses., Results: A total of 97 patients were included, with 52 (53.6%) patients in the SPT group and 45 (46.4%) patients in the PTA group. Of the patients who underwent PTA, 32 (71.1%) patients crossed over to arthroscopy at a mean of 5.10 months (SD, 3.3 months) after physical therapy initiation. In both intention-to-treat and modified as-treated analyses, the SPT group displayed superior mean patient-reported outcome measure and pain scores across the study period for nearly all metrics relative to the PTA group. In the treatment-failure analysis, the SPT and CO groups showed greater improvement across all metrics compared with PTA; however, post hoc analyses revealed no significant differences in improvement between the SPT and CO groups. No significant differences were observed between groups in rates of total hip arthroplasty conversion., Conclusion: In patients ≥40 years of age with limited osteoarthritis, hip arthroscopy with postoperative physical therapy led to better outcomes than PTA at a 24-month follow-up. However, additional preoperative physical therapy did not compromise surgical outcomes and allowed some patients to avoid surgery. When surgery is indicated, age ≥40 years should not be considered an independent contraindication to arthroscopic acetabular labral repair., Registration: NCT03909178 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier)., Competing Interests: Presented at the annual meeting of the AOSSM, Denver, Colorado, July 2024.One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: The Conine Family Fund for Joint Preservation provided research support. S.D.M. has received education payments from Kairos Surgical and honoraria from Allergan. N.J.Q. has received fees from Stryker and Medical Device Business Services, grants from Arthrex, and hospitality payments from Encore Medical. K.A. has received hospitality payments from Stryker Corp. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Background: Osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip is a debilitating condition associated with inferior outcomes in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. To provide symptom relief and improve outcomes in these patients, bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) has been applied as an adjuvant therapy with the hope of halting progression of cartilage damage. The current study examined the clinical efficacy of BMAC application in patients undergoing arthroscopic acetabular labral repair by comparing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between groups with and without BMAC application., Methods: Patients who received BMAC during arthroscopic acetabular labral repair from December 2016 to June 2019 were compared with a control cohort that underwent the same procedure but did not receive BMAC from November 2013 to November 2016. Patients in both cohorts were asked to prospectively complete PROMs prior to surgery and at 3, 6, 12, and 24-month follow-up intervals; those who completed the PROMs at enrollment and the 12-month follow-up were included in the study. An a priori subgroup analysis was performed among patients with moderate cartilage damage (Outerbridge grade 2 or 3). The analyses were adjusted for any differences in baseline factors between groups., Results: Sixty-two patients with BMAC application were compared with 62 control patients without BMAC application. When compared with the no-BMAC cohort, the BMAC cohort did not report significantly different mean International Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33) scores at any postoperative time point. However, when patients with moderate cartilage damage were compared across groups, the BMAC cohort reported significantly greater mean (95% confidence interval) scores than the no-BMAC cohort at the 12-month (78.6 [72.4 to 84.8] versus 69.2 [63.3 to 75.2]; p = 0.035) and 24-month (82.5 [73.4 to 91.6] versus 69.5 [62.1 to 76.8]; p = 0.030) follow-up. Similarly, these patients reported greater score improvements at 12 months (37.3 [30.3 to 44.3] versus 25.4 [18.7 to 32.0]; p = 0.017) and 24 months (39.6 [30.4 to 48.7] versus 26.4 [19.1 to 33.8]; p = 0.029)., Conclusions: Patients with moderate cartilage injury undergoing arthroscopic acetabular labral repair with BMAC application reported significantly greater functional improvements when compared with similar patients without BMAC application., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/G751)., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although intra-articular injections are important in the management of patients who may later undergo hip arthroscopy, conflicting data are available regarding the safety of such injections when administered within 3 months of surgery. Furthermore, despite the increasing use of image-guided intra-articular hip injections, it is unknown whether the type of imaging modality used is associated with infection after hip arthroscopy., Purpose: To assess the risk of infection associated with image-guided intra-articular injections before hip arthroscopy and, secondarily, compare that risk between ultrasound (US) and fluoroscopic (FL) guidance., Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients in a large national insurance database who underwent hip arthroscopy between 2007 and 2017. Patients were required to have continuous enrollment from at least 1 year before to 6 months after hip arthroscopy. Patient age, sex, geographic region, medical history, surgical details, and hip injections were collected. Patients who underwent injection ≤3 months preoperatively and >3 to ≤12 months preoperatively were compared with patients who did not undergo preoperative injection. Bivariate analyses and multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess the association between ipsilateral preoperative hip injection and surgical site infection within 6 months of surgery., Results: We identified 17,987 patients (36.3% female; mean ± SD age, 37.6 ± 14.0 years) undergoing hip arthroscopy, 2276 (12.7%) of whom had an image-guided hip injection in the year preceding surgery (53.0% FL). Patients who underwent intra-articular injection ≤3 months preoperatively had similar infection rates to patients who did not undergo preoperative injection in the year before surgery for both the FL (0.46% vs 0.46%; P ≥ .995) and the US cohorts (0.50% vs 0.46%; P = .76). Results persisted in adjusted analysis (FL ≤3 months: OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.32-3.37; P = .94; US ≤3 months: OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.36-3.90; P = .78). Similar results were seen for patients undergoing injections >3 to ≤12 months preoperatively., Conclusion: Postoperative infection was rare in patients undergoing intra-articular hip injection ≤3 months before hip arthroscopy and was no more common than in patients not undergoing preoperative injection. Moreover, no differences were seen in infection risk between US and FL guidance. Although intra-articular hip injections should always be administered with careful consideration, these results do not suggest that these injections are uniformly contraindicated in the 3 months preceding hip arthroscopy.

Background: Previous observational studies have suggested poor results of arthroscopic surgery for the treatment of acetabular labral tears in patients older than 40 years., Purpose: To compare hip arthroscopy versus nonoperative management for symptomatic labral tears in patients older than 40 years who have limited radiographic osteoarthritis., Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1., Methods: In this single-surgeon, parallel randomized controlled trial, patients older than 40 years who had symptomatic, MRI-confirmed labral tears and limited radiographic osteoarthritis (Tönnis grades 0-2) were randomized 1:1 to arthroscopic surgery with postoperative physical therapy (SPT) or physical therapy alone (PTA) using an electronic randomization program. PTA patients who achieved unsatisfactory improvement were permitted to cross over to SPT after completing ≥14 weeks of physical therapy. The primary outcomes were International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) at 12 months after randomization, and secondary outcomes included other patient-reported outcome measures and the visual analog scale. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months after randomization. Primary analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis using linear mixed-effect models. Sensitivity analyses included modified as-treated analysis and treatment-failure analysis. Due to infeasibility, patients and health care providers were both unblinded., Results: The study enrolled 90 patients (46 [51.1%] SPT; 44 [48.9%] PTA); of these, 81 patients (42 [51.9%] SPT; 39 (48.1%) PTA) completed 12-month follow-up. A total of 28 of the 44 PTA patients crossed over to SPT within the study period (63.6% crossover). Intention-to-treat analysis revealed significantly greater iHOT-33 scores (+12.11; P = .007) and mHHS scores (+6.99 points; P = .04) in the SPT group than the PTA group at 12 months. Modified as-treated analysis revealed that these differences exceeded the minimal clinically important difference of 10.0 points (SPT-PTA iHOT-33, +11.95) and 8.0 points (SPT-PTA mHHS, +9.76), respectively., Conclusion: In patients older than 40 years with limited osteoarthritis, arthroscopic acetabular labral repair with postoperative physical therapy led to better outcomes than physical therapy alone. Thus, age over 40 years should not be considered a contraindication to arthroscopic acetabular labral repair., Registration: NCT03909178 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Case: A 27-year-old man with coxa profunda and a right acetabular labral tear presented for surgical re-evaluation after a postless arthroscopic labral repair was attempted at an outside institution and aborted because of inadequate distraction during portal placement. Arthroscopic labral repair with a perineal post was subsequently performed without complications., Conclusion: Indications and limitations of postless hip distraction are seldom discussed in the literature. This report examines possible limitations of postless hip distraction for a patient with coxa profunda. Careful radiographic evaluation of hip anatomy may be essential for patients with deep hip sockets to determine the best-suited distraction technique., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJSCC/B373)., (Copyright © 2021 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Purpose: To analyze mid-term outcomes after arthroscopic synovectomy of both diffuse and nodular hip pigmented villonodular synovitis (PVNS)., Methods: This is a retrospective case series of patients that underwent hip arthroscopy for hip PVNS with a single senior surgeon between 2007 and 2016. Inclusion criteria were magnetic resonance imaging evidence, arthroscopic visualization, and/or histologic confirmation of PVNS; and a minimum of 3 years of follow-up. Concomitant pathology such as femoroacetabular impingement also was treated at the time of surgery. Primary outcome measures were recurrence of hip PVNS and the rate of revision hip surgery. Secondary outcomes were complications, visual analog scale pain score, pain relief, and patient satisfaction, and 6 patient-reported outcome measures were collected at latest follow-up., Results: In a case series of 14 patients consisting of 6 (42.9%) male and 8 (57.1%) female patients, the mean operative age was 32.69 ± 12.73 years with a mean follow-up was 6.66 ± 1.87 years. PVNS type was determined intraoperatively: 5 (35.7%) patients had diffuse hip PVNS and 9 (64.3%) had nodular type. There was only 1 case (7.14%) of recurrence that was treated arthroscopically and no cases (0%) progressed to revision open synovectomy or arthroplasty. Mean patient-reported outcome measure scores were notable for a modified Harris Hip Score of 74.08 ± 16.84. The mean visual analog scale pain score decreased by 4.9 ± 1.7, which was significant with a P < .001, with a larger decrease in patients with localized type., Conclusions: This study presents a large case series of hip PVNS managed arthroscopically with mid-term follow-up of slightly over 6.5 years. The survival rate was 93%, with only 1 (7%) recurrence and 0 (0%) progression to revision open synovectomy or arthroplasty with 0 (0%) complications. We conclude that arthroscopic synovectomy is a reliable and effective treatment of hip PVNS., Level of Evidence: Case Series, Level IV., (Copyright © 2020 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)