Search

Acetabular retroversion may predispose to more severe femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and early labral damage given impaction of the femoral head-neck junction on the retroverted acetabular rim. The cross-over sign (COS), posterior wall sign (PWS), and ischial spine sign (ISS) are markers of acetabular retroversion (AR) on plain radiographs.Patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS from January 2012 to December 2018 with a positive PWS were matched in a 1:1 ratio by age, gender, and body mass index (BMI) to controls with a negative PWS. Preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs; HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, mHHS, and iHOT-12) were compared using independent t-tests. Achievement of a Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) or Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) was compared using Fisher's exact test.Two hundred and seventy five patients with a positive PWS and 275 controls were included in the final analysis. Most patients (64%) were female, with average age, and BMI of 37.6 (SD 8.6) and 25.1 (SD 4.4), respectively. PROs improved significantly for both groups from preoperatively to 2 years postoperatively. There were no statistically significant differences (P ≥ .05) in PROs or achievement of MCID or PASS. On a subgroup analysis, patients with all three positive signs had significantly lower postoperative PROs and lower rates of achievement of MCID and PASS.Patients with an isolated PWS achieve similar outcomes following hip arthroscopy at 2 years. However, patients with a concomitant PWS, ISS, and COS demonstrate less favorable outcomes, suggesting the need for increased perioperative counseling and potential evaluation for planned concurrent or serial open procedures such as periacetabular osteotomy.

Background: There is a paucity of information in the literature on midterm outcomes from the arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) with concomitant labral treatment in patients with mild osteoarthritis (OA) using modern surgical techniques. Purpose: To compare outcomes of hip arthroscopy for the treatment of FAIS between patients with mild OA (Tönnis grade 1) and patients without OA (Tönnis grade 0) at minimum 5-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients were identified who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS with routine capsular closure between January 2012 and December 2015. Patients with Tönnis grade 1 were matched 1:3 by age, sex, and body mass index to patients without OA. The Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), HOS–Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score, and 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool were collected preoperatively and at 5 years postoperatively and compared between groups using an independent t test. Survivorship rate and percentage achievement of a Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) or minimal clinically important difference (MCID) were compared using a Fisher exact test. Results: A total of 50 patients (54 hips) with Tönnis grade 1 were matched to 162 patients (162 hips) with Tönnis grade 0. The mean ± SD age and body mass index of the Tönnis grade 1 group were 44.5 ± 9.6 years and 28.5 ± 5.5, respectively. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores improved significantly for both groups from presurgery to 5 years postoperatively for all PROs ( P≤ .03). There were no significant differences in preoperative PROs between the groups. Patients with Tönnis grade 1 had significantly lower postoperative scores on the HOS-ADL (74.7 ± 22.6 vs 83.0 ± 20.1; P = .04) and HOS-SS (58.8 ± 33.7 vs 71.8 ± 29.3; P = .03) than patients with grade 0. Patients with Tönnis grade 1 also had significantly lower rates of achievement of the MCID (57.1% vs 80.2%; P < .01) and PASS (34.1% vs 53.4%; P = .03) for any PRO when compared with patients with Tönnis grade 0. Gross survivorship was significantly lower for Tönnis grade 1 versus grade 0 (77.8% vs 96.9%; P < .001). Conclusion: Patients with Tönnis grade 1 arthritis experienced significant improvement in PROs after hip arthroscopy for the treatment of FAIS. However, they had significantly lower postoperative HOS-ADL and HOS-SS scores with significantly lower rates of achievement on the MCID and PASS, with a significantly lower gross survivorship rate at a minimum 5 years postoperatively in comparison with those with Tönnis grade 0 changes.

Background: Patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) may frequently have co-existing sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain. It is known that patients with lower back pain undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) have inferior outcomes; however, it is unclear what the effect of SIJ pain is on outcomes after hip arthroscopy. Purpose: To determine whether patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with SIJ pain either subjectively or on physical examination achieve similar postoperative improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) compared with patients without SIJ pain at 2-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS with SIJ pain were matched in a 1:2 ratio to controls without SIJ pain. Baseline demographics, as well as postoperative PROs and rates of achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) or Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at 2-year follow-up were compared between the 2 groups. Results: A total of 73 patients (75 hips) with SIJ pain were matched to 150 control patients (150 hips) without SIJ pain. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement in all PROs at 2 years ( P < .05 for all). Patients with SIJ pain had significantly lower postoperative PRO scores for the Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) (SIJ pain: 80.4 ± 22.4 vs no SIJ pain: 88.0 ± 15.1; P = .006), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) (SIJ pain: 73.2 ± 22.8 vs no SIJ pain: 80.0 ± 17.3; P < .001), and International Hip Outcome Tool–12 questionnaire (iHOT-12) (SIJ pain: 61.7 ± 25.9 vs no SIJ pain: 73.7 ± 23.7; P = .008). There were no statistically significant differences in improvement (delta) in PRO scores between the 2 groups ( P > .05 for all). The SIJ pain group had significantly lower achievement of MCID for the HOS-ADL (SIJ pain: 65.2% vs no SIJ pain: 80.5%; P = .044) but not HOS-SS, mHHS, or iHOT-12 ( P > .05 for all). The SIJ pain group had significantly lower achievement of PASS for the mHHS (SIJ pain: 27.5% vs no SIJ pain: 45.3%; P = .030) and iHOT-12 (SIJ pain: 31.0% vs no SIJ pain: 56.0%; P = .010) but not the HOS-ADL and HOS-SS ( P > .05 for both). Only 4.1% of patients with SIJ pain and 2.4% of controls required revision surgery or converted to THA at the time of final follow-up ( P = .69). Conclusion: Patients with FAIS and SIJ pain on history or physical examination experience significant improvement in PROs at 2 years after hip arthroscopy. However, they may be less likely to achieve the MCID or PASS and have significantly lower postoperative PROs compared with a matched cohort of patients without SIJ pain. Overall rates of revision and conversion to THA were similarly low in both groups.

Background: There is a paucity of information in the literature on midterm outcomes of endoscopic gluteus medius and/or minimus repair with concomitant labral treatment using only modern surgical techniques. Purpose: To define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively for patients undergoing endoscopic hip abductor repair with routine capsular closure. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Consecutive patients who underwent primary endoscopic repair of gluteus medius and/or minimus tears between January 2012 and December 2015 by the senior author were eligible for inclusion. Patient-reported outcome scores were assessed preoperatively and at 5 years postoperatively: Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), HOS–Sport Specific (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. The MCID was uniquely calculated using the distribution method, and the PASS was determined via the anchor-based method utilizing receiver operating characteristic curves and Youden index. Results: A total of 46 patients were included in the study. The majority were female (87.0%), with a mean ± standard deviation age of 59.1 ± 8.9 years and body mass index of 27.3 ± 6.9. Significant postoperative improvements ( P < .001) in each of the 5 patient-reported outcomes were observed at 5 years postoperatively. The MCID threshold values were calculated as follows: HOS-ADL, 11.5; HOS-SS, 15.1; mHHS, 13.3; iHOT-12, 11.8; and VAS, 15.8. The PASS thresholds were calculated as follows: HOS-ADL, 75.7; HOS-SS, 79.7; mHHS, 81.2; and iHOT-12, 60.8. A majority of patients achieved a clinically significant outcome, with 96.2% of patients reaching a threshold score for the MCID or PASS for at least 1 patient-reported outcome. Conclusion: Endoscopic hip abductor repair with concomitant arthroscopic labral treatment has a high rate of achievement of clinically significant outcomes and survivorship at a minimum 5-year follow-up. We defined the MCID for the HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, mHHS, iHOT-12, and VAS outcome scores to be 11.5, 15.1, 13.3, 11.8, and 15.8, respectively. The PASS threshold scores for the HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, mHHS and iHOT-12 scores of 75.7, 79.7, 81.2, and 60.8, respectively. Future researchers and clinicians can use the MCID and PASS values established in this study to better evaluate mid-term outcomes of patients undergoing hip abductor repair.

The gluteus medius originates on the posterior face of the ilium between the posterior and anterior gluteal lines and inserts into the lateral and superoposterior facets of the greater trochanter. Because of the asymmetric nature of the muscle, tears are more likely to occur on the thinner anterolateral portion of the tendon footprint. Gluteus medius tears range from interstitial, partial thickness tears to retracted, full-thickness tears and may result from trauma, but they are more commonly the result of chronic degeneration. Patients commonly present with lateral hip pain aggravated by weight bearing and sleeping on the affected side, weakness in abduction, and the Trendelenburg sign observable on physical examination. Indications for surgery include failed conservative treatment and an ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging study demonstrating a torn tendon. Surgical intervention aims to reapproximate and secure the torn tendon to the tendon footprint on the greater trochanter via suture anchors. Both open and endoscopic techniques have shown to be effective methods for treating gluteus medius tears at short- and long-term follow-up; however, endoscopic techniques have been shown to result in fewer postoperative complications, such as retear. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis found patients with more severe fatty infiltration (FI) may experience greater improvement after open repair, whereas patients with less severe FI may benefit more from endoscopic treatment. A double-row repair maximizes contact area between tendon and bone and has shown to be superior to single-row repair with an endoscopic technique.

To compare joint distraction measured on ultrasound (US) with joint space width (JSW) measured on fluoroscopy in hip arthroscopy and to determine whether ultrasound guidance is as safe and effective as fluoroscopy, the current gold standard, for establishing arthroscopic portals.Cadaveric whole-body specimens were positioned supine and subjected to 60 lbs. of unilateral axial traction using a distal femoral Steinman pin. Joint distraction was measured via JSW on fluoroscopic and ultrasound images. A single, fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeon established anterolateral arthroscopy portals via ultrasound or fluoroscopic guidance in a randomized sequence. Total procedure time, number of times the spinal needle pierced the capsule, and iatrogenic chondral or labral injury were recorded.Twelve full-body specimens (20 hips) underwent distraction, and 17 hips underwent portal placement with fluoroscopic (n = 8) or ultrasound (n = 9) guidance. JSW measured on ultrasound was significantly less laterally (13.0 vs 9.2 mm,Joint distraction measured on ultrasound can be used to subjectively determine if the joint is adequately distracted in hip arthroscopy. Ultrasound-guided portal placement was associated with more needle insertion attempts, iatrogenic injury of the labrum, and overall procedure time in comparison to fluoroscopic guidance.Fluoroscopy is the gold standard to confirm adequate joint distraction, aid in establishing arthroscopy portals, and evaluate resection of the femoral head during hip arthroscopy but exposes the patient to ionizing radiation, requires additional operators in the operating room, and involves the need for a heavy lead shield. Alternatives to fluoroscopy are needed, but ultrasound has not proven superior in our cadaveric model.