scholarly journals Allocation of Anchors During Labral Repair: A Multicenter Cohort Analysis of Labral Treatment in Hip Arthroscopy

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 232596712098198
Author(s):  
Ryan P. McGovern ◽  
John J. Christoforetti ◽  
Benjamin R. Kivlan ◽  
Shane J. Nho ◽  
Andrew B. Wolff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Cohort Analysis ◽  
Arthroscopic Surgery ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Fixation Method ◽  
Entire Group ◽  
Acetabular Labrum ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Multicenter Cohort ◽  
Tear Size

Background: While previous studies have established several techniques for suture anchor repair of the acetabular labrum to bone during arthroscopic surgery, the current literature lacks evidence defining the appropriate number of suture anchors required to effectively restore the function of the labral tissue. Purpose/Hypothesis: To define the location and size of labral tears identified during hip arthroscopy for acetabular labral treatment in a large multicenter cohort. The secondary purpose was to differentiate the number of anchors used during arthroscopic labral repair. The hypothesis was that the location and size of the labral tear as well as the number of anchors identified would provide a range of fixation density per acetabular region and fixation method to be used as a guide in performing arthroscopic repair. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We used a multicenter registry of prospectively collected hip arthroscopy cases to find patients who underwent arthroscopic labral repair by 1 of 7 orthopaedic surgeons between January 2015 and January 2017. The tear location and number of anchors used during repair were described using the clockface method, where 3 o’clock denoted the anterior extent of the tear and 9 o’clock the posterior extent, regardless of sidedness (left or right). Tear size was denoted as the number of “hours” spanned per clockface arc. Chi-square and univariate analyses of variance were performed to evaluate the data for both the entire group and among surgical centers. Results: A total of 1978 hips underwent arthroscopic treatment of the acetabular labrum; the most common tear size had a 3-hour span (n = 820; 41.5%). Of these hips, 1645 received labral repair, with most common repair location at the 12- to 3-o’clock position (n = 537; 32.6%). The surgeons varied in number of anchors per repair according to labral size ( P < .001 for all), using 1 to 1.6 anchors for 1-hour tears, 1.7 to 2.4 anchors for 2-hour tears, 2.1 to 3.2 anchors for 3-hour tears, and 2.2 to 4.1 for 4-hour tears. Conclusion: Variation existed in the number of anchor implants per tear size. When labral repair involved a mean clockface arc >2 hours, at least 2 anchor points were fixated.

Impairment Tutorial: Rating Tears of the Acetabular Labrum

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 4-7
Author(s):  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
Richard E. Strain ◽  
James B. Talmage
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Limited Range ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Joint Stability ◽  
Acetabular Labrum ◽  
Complete Excision ◽  
Limited Range Of Motion

Abstract The primary function of the acetabular labrum, like that of the glenoid, is to deepen the socket and improve joint stability. Tears of the acetabular labrum are common in older adults but occur in all age groups and with equal frequency in males and females. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, is silent about rating tears, partial or complete excision, or repair of the acetabular labrum. Provocative tests to detect acetabular labrum tears involve hip flexion and rotation; all rely on production of pain in the groin (typically), clicking, and/or locking with passive or active hip motions. Diagnostic tests or procedures rely on x-rays, conventional arthrography, computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA), and hip arthroscopy. Hip arthroscopy is the gold standard for diagnosis but is the most invasive and most likely to result in complications, and MRA is about three times more sensitive and accurate in detecting acetabular labral tears than MRI alone. Surgical treatment for acetabular labrum tears usually consists of arthroscopic debridement; results tend to be better in younger patients. In general, an acetabular labral tear, partial labrectomy, or labral repair warrants a rating of 2% lower extremity impairment. Evaluators should avoid double dipping (eg, using both a Diagnosis-related estimates and limited range-of-motion tests).

Comparing Midterm Outcomes of High-Level Athletes Versus Nonathletes Undergoing Primary Hip Arthroscopy: A Propensity-Matched Comparison With Minimum 5-Year Follow-up

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110417
Author(s):  
Andrew E. Jimenez ◽  
Peter F. Monahan ◽  
David R. Maldonado ◽  
Benjamin R. Saks ◽  
Hari K. Ankem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Arthroscopic Surgery ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
High Level

Background: High-level athletes (HLAs) have been shown to have better short-term outcomes than nonathletes (NAs) after hip arthroscopy. Purpose: (1) To report midterm outcomes of HLAs after primary hip arthroscopy and (2) to compare their results with a propensity-matched cohort of NA patients. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed between February 2008 and November 2015 for HLAs (professional, college, or high school) who underwent primary hip arthroscopy in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). HLAs were included if they had preoperative, minimum 2-year, and minimum 5-year follow-up data for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and Hip Outcome Score Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS). Radiographic and intraoperative findings, surgical procedures, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and return to sport were reported. The HLA study group was propensity-matched to a control group of NA patients for comparison. Results: A total 65 HLA patients (67 hips) were included in the final analysis with mean follow-up time of 74.6 ± 16.7 months. HLAs showed significant improvement in all PROs recorded, achieved high rates of MCID and PASS for mHHS (74.6% and 79.4%, respectively) and HOS-SSS (67.7% and 66.1%, respectively), and returned to sport at high rates (80.4%). When compared with the propensity-matched NA control group, HLAs reported higher baseline but comparable postoperative scores for the mHHS and NAHS. HLA patients achieved MCID and PASS for mHHS at similar rates as NA patients, but the HLA patients achieved PASS for HOS-SSS at higher rates that trended toward statistical significance (66.1% vs 48.4%; P = .07). NA patients underwent revision arthroscopic surgery at similar rates as HLA patients (14.9% vs 9.0%, respectively; P = .424). Conclusion: Primary hip arthroscopy results in favorable midterm outcomes in HLAs. When compared with a propensity-matched NA control group, HLAs demonstrated a tendency toward higher rates of achieving PASS for HOS-SSS but similar arthroscopic revision rates at minimum 5-year follow-up.

In Revision Hip Arthroscopy, Labral Reconstruction Can Address a Deficient Labrum, but Labral Repair Retains Its Role for the Reparable Labrum: A Matched Control Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (14) ◽  
pp. 3437-3445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Itay Perets ◽  
Danil Rybalko ◽  
Brian H. Mu ◽  
David R. Maldonado ◽  
Gary Edwards ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Total Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Visual Analog Scale ◽  
Hip Arthroplasty ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Acetabular Labrum ◽  
Analog Scale ◽  
Total Hip

Background: Revision hip arthroscopy is increasingly common and often addresses acetabular labrum pathology. There is a lack of consensus on indications or outcomes of revision labral repair versus reconstruction. Purpose: To report clinical outcomes of labral reconstruction during revision hip arthroscopy at minimum 2-year follow-up as compared with pair-matched labral repair during revision hip arthroscopy (control group) and to suggest a decision-making algorithm for labral treatment in revision hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction were matched 1:2 with patients who underwent revision arthroscopic labral repair. Patients were matched according to age, sex, and body mass index. Outcome scores, including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score–Sport-Specific Subscale, and a visual analog scale for pain, were collected preoperatively and at minimum 2-year follow-up. At latest follow-up, patient satisfaction on a 0-10 scale and the abbreviated International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) were collected. Complications, subsequent arthroscopies, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty were collected as well. Results: A total of 15 revision labral reconstructions were pair matched to 30 revision labral repairs. The reconstructions had fewer isolated Seldes type I detachments ( P = .008) and lower postoperative lateral center-edge angle, but there were otherwise no significant differences in demographics, radiographics, intraoperative findings, or procedures. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in all outcomes and visual analog scale at minimum 2-year follow-up. The revision repairs trended toward better preoperative scores: mHHS (mean ± SD: 59.3 ± 16.5 vs 54.2 ± 16.0), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (61.0 ± 16.7 vs 51.2 ± 17.6), Hip Outcome Score–Sport-Specific Subscale (39.6 ± 25.1 vs 30.5 ± 22.1), and visual analog scale (5.8 ± 1.8 vs 6.2 ± 2.2). At follow-up, the revision repair group had significantly higher mHHS (84.1 ± 14.8 vs 72.0 ± 18.3, P = .043) and iHOT-12 (72.2 ± 23.3 vs 49.0 ± 27.6, P = .023) scores than the reconstruction group. The magnitudes of pre- to postoperative improvement between the groups were comparable. The groups also had comparable rates of complications: 1 case of numbness in each group ( P > .999), subsequent arthroscopies (repair: n = 2, 6.5%; revision: n = 3, 20%; P = .150), and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (1 patient in each group, P > .999). Conclusion: Labral reconstruction safely and effectively treats irreparable labra in revision hip arthroscopy. However, labral repair is another treatment option for reparable labra, yielding similar magnitude of improvement. A proposed algorithm may assist in surgical decision making to achieve optimal outcomes based on the condition and history of each patient’s acetabular labrum.

scholarly journals Return to Play After Hip Arthroscopy Among Tennis Players: Outcomes with Minimum Five-Year Follow-up

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R. Maldonado ◽  
Mitchell J. Yelton ◽  
Philip J. Rosinsky ◽  
Jacob Shapira ◽  
Mitchell Meghpara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Cartilage Damage ◽  
Arthroscopic Surgery ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Return To Play ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Tennis Players ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background: Playing tennis is associated with various movements that can lead to labral injuries and may require arthroscopic surgery. While hip arthroscopies have demonstrated good outcomes in athletes, there is limited literature reporting Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) and return to play in competitive or recreational tennis players after hip arthroscopic surgery. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to (1) report minimum five-year PROs and return to sport in tennis players who underwent hip arthroscopic surgery and (2) compare outcomes between recreational and competitive tennis players.Methods: Data for patients who underwent hip arthroscopy surgery in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and labral tears between March 2009 and January 2014 and who played tennis at any level within one-year of surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with preoperative and minimum five-year postoperative scores for the following PROs were included: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patients with preoperative Tönnis osteoarthritis Grade >1, Workers’ Compensation claims, age > 60 years old, or previous ipsilateral hip surgeries or conditions were excluded. Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (PASS) and Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) for mHHS and HOS-SSS were calculated. Results: Of 28 patients, 31 hips met all inclusion and exclusion criteria of which 28 (90.3%) had minimum 5-year follow-up (mean: 72.8 ± 13.9 months). There were 3 professional, 3 collegiate, 2 high school, 2 organized amateur, and 18 recreational level tennis players. All PROs significantly improved at latest follow-up: mHHS from 67.0 to 86.7 (P < 0.001), NAHS from 65.9 to 87.2 (P < 0.001), HOS-SSS from 50.0 to 77.9 (P = 0.009), and VAS from 5.4 to 1.8 (P < 0.001). There was a 75.0% return to sport rate. Additionally, 66.7% of patients achieved MCID and 83.3% achieved PASS for mHHS, and 63.6% achieved MCID and 58.3% achieved PASS for HOS-SSS.Conclusion: Regardless of the level of participation, tennis players who underwent hip arthroscopic surgery reported statistically significant PRO improvements. A favorable rate of return to sport was also achieved by players with a continued interest in playing. The severity of cartilage damage was shown to not influence rate of returned to sport nor PROs in this population. The data here may be useful in counseling tennis players of various levels who are considering arthroscopic treatment of a hip injury. Level of Evidence: IV

Is Microfracture Necessary? Acetabular Chondrolabral Debridement/Abrasion Demonstrates Similar Outcomes and Survival to Microfracture in Hip Arthroscopy: A Multicenter Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (7) ◽  
pp. 1670-1678 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Hevesi ◽  
Christopher Bernard ◽  
David E. Hartigan ◽  
Bruce A. Levy ◽  
Benjamin G. Domb ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Treatment Technique ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Acetabular Cartilage ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Cartilage Lesions ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Grade 3

Background: Hip arthroscopy is becoming more advanced and commonly performed. However, significant controversy exists regarding whether high-grade acetabular cartilage lesions should be treated with debridement/abrasion or microfracture. In addition, patients treated with microfracture are subject to extended protected weightbearing rehabilitation to mitigate risk of subchondral plate fracture and to protect fibrocartilage tissue formation. Purpose: To determine the midterm patient-reported outcomes and failure rate of patients with grade 3 and 4 acetabular labrum articular disruption (ALAD) lesions managed with debridement/abrasion or microfracture. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Primary arthroscopic labral repair cases at 2 centers from November 2008 to April 2016 were reviewed for patients aged <55 years with unipolar ALAD grade 3 and 4 chondrolabral acetabular delamination. Patients undergoing microfracture and debridement/abrasion were compared using the visual analog pain scale (VAS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Hip Outcome Score–Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) to determine predictors of outcomes and failure. Results: A total of 113 hips in 110 patients (66 males, 44 females; mean age, 34.5 ± 1.1 years) undergoing debridement/abrasion (n = 82) or microfracture (n = 31) were followed for a mean of 4.9 years (range, 2.0-8.5 years). Lesion size was not statistically different between the debridement/abrasion (1.3 ± 1.0 cm2) and microfracture cohorts (1.4 ± 1.0 cm2) ( P = .47). Patients undergoing debridement/abrasion achieved 3.6-point mean improvements in VAS ( P < .01), 21.2-point improvements in mHHS ( P < .01), and 25.4-point improvements in HOS-SSS ( P < .01), which were not significantly different from those observed in microfracture patients ( P≥ .20). The 5-year rate of survival free of revision surgery was 84.0% in the debridement/abrasion group and 85.6% in the microfracture group ( P = .78). The cartilage treatment technique was found not to be predictive of revision risk during both univariate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; P = .98) and multivariate (HR, 0.93; P = .90) analysis accounting for patient age, lesion grade, and acetabular coverage. Conclusion: Patients undergoing debridement/abrasion of high-grade unipolar acetabular cartilage lesions demonstrate similar outcome scores and revision rates compared with those of patients undergoing microfracture. These outcomes support the consideration of preferential debridement/abrasion at the discretion of the treating surgeon to optimize recovery while maintaining established positive outcomes after hip arthroscopy.

Multicenter Analysis of Midterm Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Labral Repair in the Hip: Minimum 5-Year Follow-up

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 280-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario Hevesi ◽  
Aaron J. Krych ◽  
Nick R. Johnson ◽  
John M. Redmond ◽  
David E. Hartigan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Periacetabular Osteotomy ◽  
Arthroscopic Surgery ◽  
Hip Surgery ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Multicenter Analysis ◽  
Tönnis Grade

Background: The technique of hip arthroscopic surgery is advancing and becoming more commonly performed. However, most current reported results are limited to short-term follow-up, and therefore, the durability of the procedure is largely unknown. Purpose: To perform a multicenter analysis of mid-term clinical outcomes of arthroscopic hip labral repair and determine the risk factors for patient outcomes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Prospectively collected data of primary hip arthroscopic labral repair performed at 4 high-volume centers between 2008 and 2011 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively with the visual analog scale (VAS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Hip Outcome Score–Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) at a minimum of 5 years’ follow-up. Factors including age, body mass index (BMI), Tönnis grade, and cartilage grade were analyzed in relation to outcome scores, and revision rates were determined. Failure was defined as subsequent ipsilateral hip surgery, including revision arthroscopic surgery and open hip surgery. Results: A total of 303 patients (101 male, 202 female) with a mean age of 32.0 years (range, 10.7-58.9 years) were followed for a mean of 5.7 years (range, 5.0-7.9 years). Patients achieved mean improvements in VAS of 3.5 points, mHHS of 20.1 points, and HOS-SSS of 29.3 points. Thirty-seven patients (12.2%) underwent revision arthroscopic surgery, and 12 (4.0%) underwent periacetabular osteotomy, resurfacing, or total hip arthroplasty during the study period. Patients with a BMI >30 kg/m2 had a mean mHHS score 9.5 points lower and a mean HOS-SSS score 15.9 points lower than those with a BMI ≤30 kg/m2 ( P < .01). Patients aged >35 years at surgery had a mean mHHS score 4.5 points lower and a HOS-SSS score 6.7 points lower than those aged ≤35 years ( P = .03). Patients with Tönnis grade 2 radiographs demonstrated a 12.5-point worse mHHS score ( P = .02) and a 23.0-point worse HOS-SSS score ( P < .01) when compared with patients with Tönnis grade 0. Conclusion: Patients demonstrated significant improvements in VAS, mHHS, and HOS-SSS scores after arthroscopic labral repair. However, those with Tönnis grade 2 changes preoperatively, BMI >30 kg/m2, and age >35 years at the time of surgery demonstrated significantly decreased mHHS and HOS-SSS scores at final follow-up.

scholarly journals Use of Biologics as an Adjunct Therapy to Arthroscopic Surgery for the Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. 232596711989067
Author(s):  
Patrick G. Robinson ◽  
Iain R. Murray ◽  
Julian Maempel ◽  
Conor S. Rankin ◽  
David Hamilton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Arthroscopic Surgery ◽  
Acid Growth ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Associated Lesions ◽  
Chondrocyte Implantation

Background: There has been a recent increase in the use of biologics in hip arthroscopy to assist in the management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Purpose: To analyze the current use of biologics for the treatment of FAI and its associated lesions. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A search of the PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE databases was performed in March 2019 with use of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The criterion for inclusion was observational, published research articles studying the therapeutic use of biologics as an adjuvant therapy during arthroscopic surgery for FAI; treatments included bone marrow aspirate concentrate, mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), hyaluronic acid, growth factors, and autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) or autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC). Results: There were 9 studies that met the inclusion criteria, and a total of 674 patients were included across all studies. FAI was studied in all articles. Further, 7 studies (78%) also analyzed chondral injuries, and 3 studies also analyzed labral tears (33%). ACI or AMIC was used in 56% of studies and showed superior functional outcomes at short- and midterm follow-up versus debridement or microfracture. PRP did not improve the outcome of labral repairs at short-term follow-up. Conclusion: The current literature regarding biologic adjuncts in hip arthroscopy is varied in quality, with only one level 1 study. The use of ACI/AMIC for medium-sized chondral lesions showed promising results in individual studies; however, these were of lower quality. To enable comparisons among future studies, investigators must ensure accuracy in the reporting of biologic preparations and formulations used and homogeneity in the type and severity of lesion treated.

Multicenter Outcomes After Revision Hip Arthroscopy: Comparative Analysis of 2-Year Outcomes After Labral Repair Versus Labral Reconstruction

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110305
Author(s):  
Blake M. Bodendorfer ◽  
Thomas D. Alter ◽  
Andrew B. Wolff ◽  
Dominic S. Carreira ◽  
John J. Cristoforetti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Cartilage Damage ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Center Edge ◽  
Labral Tears ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: There is a paucity of literature evaluating patient outcomes in patients undergoing revision labral repair and labral reconstruction. Purpose: To compare outcomes in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for treatment of labral tears by labral repair or labral reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multicenter database of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy was performed. An a priori power analysis determined that a total of 62 patients were required. Patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for labral tears with completed 2-year outcome scores were included. Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy, labral debridement, concomitant gluteal repair, and patients with hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <20°) were excluded. Patients were grouped into revision labral repair and labral reconstruction groups. Patient demographics and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including Hip Outcome Score – Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score – Sport Subscale, modified Harris Hip Score, international Hip Outcome Tool-12, visual analog scale for pain and satisfaction, and achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were analyzed. Results: A total of 40 patients underwent revision labral repair and 55 patients underwent labral reconstruction. Patients undergoing revision labral repair were younger (mean age, 30.0 ± 10.7 years vs 34.4 ± 9.7 years; P = .048), had lower rates of labral degeneration (25.0% vs 62.7%; P = .004), and had lower rates of severe complexity of tears (21.1% vs 66.0%; P = .003). However, the labral repair group had higher rates of articular cartilage damage (62.5% vs 33.3%; P = .009). There were no differences in any preoperative or 2-year postoperative PROs. Furthermore, no differences were seen in achievement of MCID or PASS in any PRO. Conclusion: In this multicenter study on revision hip arthroscopy, patients undergoing revision labral repair were younger and had better labral characteristics but greater cartilage damage compared with patients undergoing labral reconstructions. Despite these differences, patients who underwent labral repair reported similar outcomes to those undergoing labral reconstruction.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Arthroscopic Femoroacetabular Impingement Surgery in the National Football League

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedict U. Nwachukwu ◽  
Asheesh Bedi ◽  
Ajay Premkumar ◽  
Pete Draovitch ◽  
Bryan T. Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Femoroacetabular Impingement ◽  
National Football League ◽  
Arthroscopic Surgery ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Return To Play ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Football Players ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Previous studies have reported that hip abnormalities may account for 10% of injuries in professional football players. The effect of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and arthroscopic FAI surgery in National Football League (NFL) athletes has not been well studied. Purpose: To investigate the effect of arthroscopic FAI surgery on return to play (RTP) and RTP performance in NFL players. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: NFL athletes undergoing arthroscopic FAI surgery at a single institution between 2006 and 2014 were identified. Medical records were reviewed for demographic, clinical, and operative variables. RTP and RTP performance were assessed based on a review of publicly available NFL player statistics. RTP and RTP performance data included time to RTP; games played before and after the injury; yearly total yards and touchdowns for offensive players; and yearly total tackles, sacks, and interceptions for defensive players. The offensive power rating (OPR = [total yards/10] + [total touchdowns × 6]) and defensive power rating (DPR = total tackles + [total sacks × 2] + [total interceptions × 2]) were calculated. Paired t tests comparing preinjury and postinjury seasons were performed. A matched cohort of NFL players was created to compare trends for OPR, DPR, and career longevity. Results: Forty-eight hips in 40 NFL players (mean age, 25.6 years) with symptomatic FAI were included; 8 players underwent staged bilateral hip arthroscopic procedures. The majority of players were offensive (n = 24; 60.0%), with offensive lineman (n = 11; 27.5%) being the most common of all positions. Of the 48 included hips, all had labral tears, and 41 (85.4%) underwent labral repair. Forty-two of the 48 hips (87.5%) underwent cam decompression, and 10 (20.8%) underwent rim decompression. Of the 40 included players, 37 (92.5%) achieved RTP to professional competition after their hip arthroscopic surgery at a mean of 6.0 months. Before the injury, included patients played in a mean of 11.0 games compared with 9.5 games in their postoperative season ( P = .26). The mean OPR and DPR demonstrated a nonsignificant decline in the postoperative season (preinjury OPR, 40.2; postinjury OPR, 32.3; P = .34) (preinjury DPR, 49.6; postinjury DPR, 36.4; P = .10). A similar decline in the OPR and DPR across seasons was observed in the control group. NFL athletes played, on average, 3.3 ± 1.5 seasons after undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery; this was not significantly different from the controls (2.5 ± 1.5 seasons; P = .47). There was no significant difference in mean annual salaries based on contracts negotiated before the injury and the first negotiated contract after surgery ($3.3 million vs $3.6 million, respectively; P = .58). Conclusion: There was a very high rate of RTP in the NFL after arthroscopic FAI surgery; this rate is higher than what has been previously reported for other orthopaedic procedures in NFL athletes. Additionally, these NFL athletes achieved RTP at a faster time frame (6 months) than previously reported for other procedures. These findings have important implications for counseling elite football players about the expected outcome of arthroscopic FAI surgery.

scholarly journals Autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis and bone marrow aspirate concentrate compared with microfracture for arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement and chondral lesions of the hip: bridging the osteoarthritis gap and facilitating enhanced recovery

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anshul S Sobti ◽  
Kwaku W Baryeh ◽  
Rex Woolf ◽  
Rishi Chana
Keyword(s):  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Bone Marrow Aspirate ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Arthroscopic Surgery ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Cartilage Defects ◽  
Survivorship Analysis ◽  
Biological Reconstruction

Abstract In an attempt to bridge the osteoarthritis (OA) gap, this study compared biological reconstruction with traditional microfracture (MF) techniques in patients with femoroacetabular impingement and focal cartilage defects. Cohorts of two groups were investigated; age, gender and Tonnis grade matched comparison for outcomes between MF and newer biological reconstruction techniques hip arthroscopy surgery using autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis and bone marrow aspirate combination. Outcomes investigated were pre-op and post-op mean iHOT-12 scores up to 18 months after surgery with a Kaplan–Meier survivorship analysis. Of 111 patients, 46 patients underwent MF and 65 biological reconstruction hip arthroscopy including cam/pincer osteoplasty and labral repair surgery. Age range was 20–69, mean age 45 years for both groups, Tonnis grading was as follows: Grade 0: 26% versus 30%, Grade 1: 52% versus 47% and Grade 2: 22% versus 23% in MF and biological reconstruction groups, respectively. The mean post-operative iHOT-12 score differences between MF and biological reconstruction were significant at 1-year minimum follow-up (P = 0.01, SD 2.8). Biological reconstruction allowed for an enhanced recovery protocol. The MF group had a 67.4% survivorship for conversion to hip replacement at 18 months (32.6% failure rate for any reason) and biological reconstruction had 100% survivorship at 18 months post-operatively with no failures for any reason. This study provides further support to the evidence base for biological reconstructive techniques as superior to MF in combination with joint preservation arthroscopic surgery, even in the face of focal cartilage defects and offers both surgeons and patients a potential bridging of the OA gap.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document