Search

Background: The aims of this systematic review were: (1) to investigate the prophylactic effect of radiotherapy (RT) and NSAIDs in high-risk patients following total hip arthroplasty (THA); and (2) to compare the efficacy of non-selective and COX-II selective NSAIDs in preventing post-THA HO, utilising a meta-analysis of randomised control studies. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were searched for articles regarding HO following THA in March 2019. Studies were included if they contained data regarding HO incidence after THA or contained data regarding HO prophylaxis comparison of NSAIDs and/or RT in terms of dosage or duration. Results: 24 studies reported on populations that were not at high-risk for HO. These studies reported between 47.3% and 90.4% of their patient populations had no HO formation; between 2.8% and 52.7% had mild formation; and between 0.0% and 10.4% had severe formation. A total of 13 studies reported on populations at high-risk for HO. Studies analysing RT in high-risk patients reported between 28.6% and 97.4% of patients developed no HO formation; between 1.9% and 66.7% developed mild HO formation; and between 0.0% and 11.9% developed severe HO formation. Studies analysing NSAID treatment among high-risk populations reported between 76.6% and 88.9% had no HO formation; between 11.1% and 23.4% had mild HO formation, and between 0.0% and 1.8% had severe HO formation. 9 studies were identified as randomised control trials and subsequently used for meta-analysis. The relative risk for COX-II in developing any HO after THA was not significantly different compared to non-selective NSAIDs (RR 1.00; CI, 0.801–1.256; p = 0.489). Conclusions: NSAIDs prophylaxis for HO may have better efficacy than RT in high-risk patients following THA. Non-selective and COX-II selective NSAIDs have comparable efficacy in preventing HO. Factors such as medical comorbidities and side-effect profile should dictate the prophylaxis recommendation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hip arthroscopy in patients with borderline dysplasia continues to be surrounded by controversy. Even more controversial is the management of the failed hip arthroscopy in this population. There is a paucity of studies in contemporary literature regarding outcomes after arthroscopic revision surgery. Purpose: (1) To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores in patients with borderline dysplasia who underwent revision hip arthroscopy and (2) to compare these PRO scores with those of a propensity-matched control group without dysplasia who underwent revision hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were prospectively collected between August 2009 and November 2017. Inclusion criteria were revision arthroscopic surgery, capsular plication, and baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up for the following PROs: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patients with Tönnis grade >1 or previous hip conditions were excluded. Two groups were created: a study group with borderline dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA], 18°-25°) and a control group without dysplasia (LCEA, 25°-40°). Groups were propensity-matched in a 1:3 ratio for sex, age, body mass index, and follow-up time. Results: A total of 22 revision borderline dysplastic hips (21 patients) had a minimum 2-year follow-up during the study period. Patients in this group reported significant improvements for all PROs from baseline and achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the mHHS at a rate of 70%. Moreover, 21 borderline dysplastic hips (21 patients) were matched to 63 control hips (63 patients). Mean LCEA for the study and control groups was 22.6 ± 1.7 and 32.0 ± 5.0, respectively. Both groups reported similar improvement in all PROs. The rate for achieving the MCID for the mHHS and VAS was similar between groups; however, the control group had higher rates of meeting the MCID for the HOS-SSS and NAHS (P =.042 and P =.025, respectively). The rates of conversion to hip arthroplasty were 7.9% (n = 5) in the control group and 23.8% (n = 5) in the borderline dysplasia propensity-matched group (P =.052). The rate of re-revision arthroscopy was 11.1% (n = 7) in the control group and 19.0% (n = 4) on the borderline dysplasia group (P =.350). Conclusion: After revision hip arthroscopy, significant improvement was obtained for all PROs in patients with borderline dysplasia at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Moreover, outcomes, patient satisfaction, the rate for achieving the MCID for the mHHS and VAS, and the rate for secondary surgery were similar to those of a propensity-matched control group without dysplasia. Nevertheless, there was a nonsignificant trend toward higher secondary procedures in the study group; therefore, arthroscopic revision surgery in the borderline patients should be approached with measured prognosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Combined transfer of the gluteus maximus and tensor fasciae latae (TFL) has been acknowledged as a treatment for irreparable full-thickness gluteus medius tears; yet, there is a paucity of reports on outcomes for this topic in the current literature. The purpose of the present study was to report short-term patient-reported outcome scores in patients who underwent combined transfer of the gluteus maximus and TFL in the setting of an irreparable gluteus medius tear., Methods: Data for patients who underwent hip preservation and hip arthroplasty between July 2011 and November 2017 were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. Patients were considered for this study if they had undergone combined transfer of the gluteus maximus and TFL for irreparable gluteus medius tears. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who had a minimum 1-year follow-up for the modified Harris hip score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score Sports Specific Subscale, visual analog scale score for pain, and patient satisfaction. The exclusion criterion was Workers' Compensation status., Results: The study included 18 hips in 18 patients who underwent combined transfer of the gluteus maximus and TFL, with a mean follow-up of 39.75 months (range, 12.04 to 93.88 months). The average age was 68.48 ± 11.05 years, the average body mass index was 29.54 ± 6.23 kg/m 2 , and 13 patients were female. Abductor strength improved in 7 of 17 patients, with abduction data unavailable for 1 patient. Significant improvements were observed in modified Harris hip score from 49.73 ± 16.85 to 74.94 ± 17.91 (p < 0.001), Non-Arthritic Hip Score from 55.02 ± 22.53 to 72.78 ± 19.17 (p = 0.032), and visual analog scale for pain from 5.42 ± 3.42 to 1.57 ± 1.68 (p = 0.0004). No secondary surgeries were reported., Conclusions: Significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes were observed in patients who underwent combined transfer of the gluteus maximus and TFL for the treatment of irreparable full-thickness gluteus medius tears at short-term follow-up., Level of Evidence: Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., Competing Interests: Disclosure: One author (B.J.D.) was partially supported by the American Orthopaedic Association. On the Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms, which are provided with the online version of the article, one or more of the authors checked “yes” to indicate that the author had a relevant financial relationship in the biomedical arena outside the submitted work; “yes” to indicate that the author had a patent and/or copyright, planned, pending, or issued, broadly relevant to this work; and “yes” to indicate that the author had other relationships or activities that could be perceived to influence, or have the potential to influence, what was written in this work (http://links.lww.com/JBJSOA/A225)., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated. All rights reserved.)