scholarly journals Treatment of Full-Thickness Acetabular Chondral Flaps During Hip Arthroscopy: Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Versus Microfracture

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 232596712110591
Author(s):  
Michael P. Kucharik ◽  
Paul F. Abraham ◽  
Mark R. Nazal ◽  
Nathan H. Varady ◽  
Christopher T. Eberlin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Bone Marrow Aspirate ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Full Thickness ◽  
Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: The optimal treatment strategy for patients with full-thickness chondral flaps undergoing hip arthroscopy is controversial. Purpose: To compare functional outcomes of patients who underwent bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) application with those of patients who underwent microfracture. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This was a retrospective case series of prospectively collected data on patients who underwent arthroscopic acetabular labral repair by 1 surgeon between June 2014 and April 2020. The inclusion criteria for this study were age ≥18 years, preoperative radiographs of the pelvis, arthroscopic acetabular labral repair, exposed subchondral bone with overlying chondral flap seen at the time of hip arthroscopy, microfracture or BMAC to address this lesion, and completed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (International Hip Outcome Tool–33 [iHOT-33], Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living [HOS-ADL], Hip Outcome Score–Sports Subscale [HOS-Sport], modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS], and visual analog scale [VAS] for pain) at enrollment and 12-month follow-up. Clinical outcomes were assessed using PROM scores. Results: A total of 81 hips with full-thickness chondral flaps were included in this study: 50 treated with BMAC and 31 treated with microfracture. There were no significant differences between groups in age, sex, body mass index, tear size, radiographic osteoarthritis, or radiographic femoroacetabular impingement. In the BMAC cohort, all PROM scores improved significantly from preoperatively to follow-up: 41.7 to 75.6 for iHOT-33, 67.6 to 91.0 for HOS-ADL, 41.5 to 72.3 for HOS-Sport, 59.4 to 87.2 for mHHS, and 6.2 to 2.2 for VAS pain ( P < .001 for all). In the microfracture cohort, the score improvements were 48.0 to 65.1 for iHOT-33 ( P = .001), 80.5 to 83.3 for HOS-ADL ( P = .275), 59.2 to 62.4 for HOS-Sport ( P = .568), 70.4 to 78.3 for mHHS ( P = .028), and 4.9 to 3.6 for VAS pain ( P = .036). Regarding clinically meaningful outcomes, 77.6% of the BMAC group and 50.0% of the microfracture group met the minimal clinically important difference for iHOT-33 at the 12-month follow-up ( P = .013). Conclusion: Patients with full-thickness chondral flaps at the time of hip arthroscopy experienced greater improvements in functional outcome scores at the 12-month follow-up when treated with BMAC as opposed to microfracture.

scholarly journals Prospective Randomized Comparison of Capsule Management Techniques During Hip Arthroscopy

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3_suppl2) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kostas John Economopoulos ◽  
Christopher Y. Kweon
Keyword(s):  
Activities Of Daily Living ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Daily Living ◽  
Alpha Angle ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Management Techniques

Objectives: Capsular management during hip arthroscopy remains controversial. Studies evaluating this topic consist mostly of retrospective comparative reviews of prospectively gathered data on a large series of patients. The purpose of this study was to perform a prospective randomized trial to comparatively assess three commonly performed capsule management techniques. It was hypothesized that capsular closure during hip arthroscopy would result in superior outcomes compared to non-closing capsulotomy management techniques. Methods: Patients undergoing hip arthroscopy were randomly assigned into three groups at the time of surgery: 1) T-capsulotomy without closure (TC), 2) interportal capsulotomy without closure (IC), and 3) interportal capsulotomy with closure (CC). Inclusion criteria included patients with labral tear on advanced imaging, cam lesion with alpha angle greater than 55 degrees, center-edge angle less than 40 degrees, and Tönnis grade 0 or 1. Patients younger than 18, older than 55, or those with signs of clinical hip hypermobility or radiographic dysplasia were excluded from the trial. All patients underwent labral repair and femoral osteoplasty. Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) was obtained preoperatively and at intervals up to 2 years. Other outcomes obtained included need for future hip surgery. Results: 50 patients were randomly allocated into each group. Patient demographics, preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and radiographic measures of impingement were similar between all three groups. Revision hip arthroscopy was performed in 5 TC patients, 2 IC patients and 0 CC patients (p=0.17). Conversion to hip arthroplasty occurred in 4 patients in the TC group, none in the IC or CC groups (p=0.48). All three groups showed increased PRO scores postoperatively compared to preoperative values (p<0.01). The CC group when compared to the TC group demonstrated superior mHHS (86.2 vs 76), HOS-ADL (85.6 vs 76.8), and HOS-SSS (74.4 vs 65.3) at the final 2 year follow up (p<0.001). The IC group demonstrated more modest improvements in outcomes compared to the TC group. The CC group showed greater improvement in HOS-SSS compared to the IC group at early follow up (65.6 vs 55.1, p>.001) that was not maintained at 2 years (74.4 vs 71.4, p=.28). Conclusion: Patients undergoing capsular closure during hip arthroscopy showed improved patient-reported and surgical outcomes compared to those with unrepaired T-capsulotomy or interportal capsulotomy. These results suggest that repair after capsulotomy may be a favorable arthroscopic capsule management technique, especially in respect to optimizing postoperative activities of daily living.

Prospective Randomized Comparison of Capsular Management Techniques During Hip Arthroscopy

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 395-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kostas J. Economopoulos ◽  
Anikar Chhabra ◽  
Christopher Kweon
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Management Technique ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Radiographic Measurements ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Management Techniques

Background: Capsular management during hip arthroscopy remains controversial. Studies evaluating this topic consist mostly of retrospective comparative reviews of prospectively gathered data on a large series of patients. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to perform a prospective randomized trial to comparatively assess 3 commonly performed capsular management techniques. It was hypothesized that capsular closure during hip arthroscopy would result in superior outcomes when compared with unclosed capsulotomy management techniques. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients (N = 150) who had hip arthroscopy with labral repairs and femoral osteoplasties performed by the senior author were randomly assigned into 3 groups at the time of their surgery: T-capsulotomy without closure (TC), interportal capsulotomy without closure (IC), and interportal capsulotomy with closure (CC). All patients underwent labral repair and femoral osteoplasty. Patient-reported outcomes were obtained preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Other outcomes obtained included the need for future hip surgery. Results: Patient demographics, preoperative patient-reported outcomes, and radiographic measurements were similar among all 3 groups. Revision hip arthroscopy was performed in 5 TC cases, 2 IC cases, and 1 CC case ( P = .17). Conversion to hip arthroplasty occurred in 4 patients in the TC group and none in the IC and CC groups ( P = .02). The CC group showed higher modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) at the 2-year follow-up when compared with the IC group ( P = .003 and P < .001, respectively). When compared with the TC group, the CC group demonstrated superior mHHS (86.2 vs 76), HOS-ADL (85.6 vs 76.8), and HOS-SSS (Hip Outcome Score–Sports-Specific Subscale; 74.4 vs 65.3) at the final 2-year follow-up ( P < .001). At the 2-year follow-up, the IC group had a higher mHHS (81.7 vs 76), HOS-ADL (82 vs 76.8), and HOS-SSS (71.4 vs 65.3; P > .001) as compared with the TC group. Conclusion: Patients undergoing complete capsular closure during hip arthroscopy showed improved patient-reported and surgical outcomes when compared with those with unrepaired T-capsulotomy or interportal capsulotomy. These results suggest that repair after capsulotomy may be a favorable arthroscopic capsular management technique.

Predictors of Clinical Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy: A Prospective Analysis of 1038 Patients With 2-Year Follow-up

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (6) ◽  
pp. 1324-1330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin G. Domb ◽  
Timothy J. Martin ◽  
Chengcheng Gui ◽  
Sivashankar Chandrasekaran ◽  
Carlos Suarez-Ahedo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Predictive Factors ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Multivariate Analyses ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Outcome Instrument ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: As hip arthroscopy has expanded in popularity and volume, more information is needed about indications for the procedure and the predictive factors of clinical outcomes. Purpose: To evaluate clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopy in a prospective study and to analyze the cohort to identify factors that are predictive of improvement. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were collected prospectively on all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy between February 2008 and June 2012. We included all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy who agreed to participate and who completed 4 patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments at a minimum 2-year follow-up: the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and Hip Outcome Score–Sport-Specific Subscale. The NAHS was selected as our primary outcome instrument. All patients with any previous hip conditions were excluded. We analyzed 34 preoperative and intraoperative variables using bivariate and multivariate analyses compared with NAHS. Results: The cohort consisted of 1038 patients with a mean follow-up of 30.1 months (range, 24.0-61.2 months). Mean age was 36.4 years (range, 13.2-76.4 years). All postoperative PRO scores showed significant improvement ( P < .001) at 2 years compared with preoperative scores. Bivariate analysis identified 15 variables (7 categorical and 8 continuous) and multivariate analysis identified 10 variables that were predictive of 2-year postoperative NAHS. Preoperative NAHS, preoperative HOS-ADL, preoperative mHHS, age, duration of symptoms, body mass index (BMI), and revision hip arthroscopy were identified as predictive factors in both bivariate and multivariate analyses. The predictive value of preoperative NAHS was accentuated for patients with higher BMI. Conclusion: This study reports favorable clinical outcomes in the largest cohort of hip arthroscopies with a minimum 2-year follow-up in the literature to date. Factors identified as predictive in both bivariate and multivariate analyses included preoperative NAHS, HOS-ADL, and mHHS; age; duration of symptoms; BMI; and revision hip arthroscopy. These predictive factors may be useful to the clinician in determining prognosis and operative indications for hip arthroscopy.

scholarly journals Preoperative Symptom Duration Is Associated With Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-137 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryce A. Basques ◽  
Brian R. Waterman ◽  
Gift Ukwuani ◽  
Edward C. Beck ◽  
William H. Neal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Outcome Scores

Background: Prolonged disease chronicity has been implicated as a cause of suboptimal clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS), possibly due to disease progression, deconditioning, and the development of compensatory pathomechanics. Purpose: To evaluate the effect of increasing duration of preoperative symptoms on patient-reported outcomes, reoperation, and clinical failure of hip arthroscopy for FAIS. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed to identify all patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy between January 1, 2012, and July 30, 2014, by a single surgeon, with minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patient demographics, comorbid medical conditions, and preoperative outcome scores were compared between patients with preoperative symptoms lasting less than 2 years and those with symptoms lasting 2 years or longer. Multivariate regressions were used to compare Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score Sport-Specific (HOS-SS), and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) between the 2 cohorts at 2 years of follow-up. Results: A total of 624 patients were included, with an average age of 34.0 ± 13.5 years; 235 (37.7%) patients had experienced preoperative symptoms 2 years or longer. Patients with symptoms lasting less than 2 years had statistically significant higher outcome scores than those with symptoms lasting 2 or more years for the HOS-ADL (86.3 ± 16.4 vs 80.3 ± 19.9, respectively), HOS-SS (75.0 ± 25.3 vs 65.1 ± 29.0), and mHHS (79.1 ± 16.6 vs 74.0 ± 18.8), as well as higher satisfaction (82.1 ± 30.7 vs 71.1 ± 31.6) and lower pain scores (2.6 ± 2.3 vs 3.5 ± 2.6). On multivariate analysis, patients with symptoms 2 years or longer had significantly higher visual analog scale–Pain score (β = 0.6, P = .039) and lower HOS-ADL (β = −3.4, P = .033), HOS-SS (β = −6.3, P = .012), and satisfaction (β = −6.7, P = .028) at 2-year follow-up. Patients with longer duration of symptoms also demonstrated less improvement in HOS-SS (β = −10.3, P = .001) at 2 years after surgery. Patients with symptoms for 2 years or longer were significantly less likely to achieve a patient acceptable symptomatic state for HOS-ADL (relative risk [RR] = 0.8, P = .024) and HOS-SS (RR = 0.8, P = .032) at 2 years of follow-up. Patients with symptoms 2 years or longer also demonstrated significantly higher rates of revision arthroscopy (RR = 10.1, P = .046). Conclusion: Patients with untreated, FAIS-related symptoms lasting 2 years or longer before arthroscopic management had significantly worse patient-reported outcomes and higher rates of reoperation at 2 years after surgery when compared with those patients with a shorter duration of preoperative symptoms.

scholarly journals Outcomes Following the Treatment of Talar Osteochondral Lesions with BioCartilage and Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Mixture

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473011418S0004
Author(s):  
Ashraf Fansa ◽  
Mark Drakos ◽  
Taylor Cabe ◽  
Peter Fabricant
Keyword(s):  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Bone Marrow Aspirate ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Osteochondral Lesions ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Mean

Category: Arthroscopy Introduction/Purpose: With reported incidence rates ranging from 40% to 70% post ankle sprains and fractures, osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLT) are not uncommon. However, management of such defects remains challenging. Microfracturing is considered the standard treatment for symptomatic OLTs.Larger lesions however typically require more invasive restorative procedures such as autologous osteochondral transplantation. Microfracture results are variable due to the fact that the resulting reparative fibrocartilage is weaker and biomechanically inferior to native hyaline cartilage. In this study, we examine the functional and radiological outcomes following use of a new arthroscopic technique utilizing a mixture of micronized allograft cartilage matrix (BioCartilage) (Arthrex, Naples, FL) soaked in Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate (BMAC) to fill OLTs. Methods: Eighty-six consecutive patients treated for OLT using arthroscopic debridement and BioCartilage matrix soaked in BMAC were identified. All patients were treated by a single fellowship-trained sports medicine and foot and ankle surgeon. Functional outcomes were assessed using the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). This information was obtained from a prospective registry at the authors’ institution. Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to determine statistical significance between pre and postoperative clinical scores. Additionally, an attending radiologist assessed the reparative cartilage morphology on postoperative MRI scans. This was evaluated and scored using a modified magnetic resonance observation of cartilage tissue (MOCART) scoring system. Results: Thirty-one patients (19 Females; 12 Males) with a mean age of 37.8 years (Range 15–54) had a minimum follow-up duration of 12 months and were thus included in this review. Mean follow-up duration was 15.8 months (Range 12 –25.7). The mean patient BMI was 27.4 (Range 19.6 – 39.4), while the average osteochondral lesion size was 85.9 mm2 (Range 35 – 220). The Physical Function domain of the PROMIS score, demonstrated statistically significant change, improving from 40.63 ±8.31 to 48.31 ±10.07 (p=0.02). The Pain Intensity domain also improved significantly from 49.06 ±9.32 to 42.14 ±9.38 (p=0.03). The Pain Interference domain and FAOS scores did improve but not reaching statistical significance. The mean MRI MOCART score was 69 ±13.34 with 13.3 months average follow-up duration. Conclusion: Achieving the longest duration possible of symptom-free functioning postoperatively is the main goal of any cartilage repair procedure. Augmentation of an articular lesion’s infill with BioCartilage and BMAC may help enhance the biomechanical properties of the reparative fibrocartilage construct and its longevity. Our initial findings demonstrate favorable patient-reported outcomes. Moreover, postoperative MRIs demonstrate the majority of the lesions showed either complete or hypertrophic infill, complete or hypertrophic integration, homogenous repair tissue, and isointense signals. Long-term studies prospectively assessing the effectiveness of this technique in maintaining pain-free-function of the ankle joint are warranted.

scholarly journals Minimum 5-Year Outcomes of Arthroscopic Hip Labral Reconstruction with Nested Matched-Pair Benchmarking Against a Labral Repair Control Group

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (7_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0043
Author(s):  
Benjamin G. Domb ◽  
Muriel R. Battaglia ◽  
Itay Perets ◽  
Ajay C. Lall ◽  
Austin Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Matched Pair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Labral Tears ◽  
Point Increase ◽  
Patient Reported

Objectives: Labral reconstruction has demonstrated short-term benefit for the treatment of irreparable labral tears. Nonetheless, there is a scarcity of evidence for mid-term outcomes of this treatment. The purpose of our study was to report 5-year outcomes in patients who underwent segmental labral reconstruction. In addition, we compared 5-year outcomes of patients who underwent primary segmental labral reconstruction (PLRECON) with a matched-pair control group that underwent primary labral repair (PLREPAIR). We hypothesized that arthroscopic segmental reconstruction in the setting of irreparable labral tears would show improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and high patient satisfaction at minimum 5-year follow-up. Secondly, PLRECON would experience similar improvement in PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up when compared to a matched-pair PLREPAIR control group. Methods: Data from February 2008 to April 2013 was retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if they underwent hip arthroscopy for segmental labral reconstruction in the setting of irreparable labral tear and femoro-acetabular impingement (FAI), with minimum 5-year follow-up for modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis osteoarthritis grade >1, prior hip conditions, or Workers’ Compensation claims. PLRECON were matched in a 1:3 ratio to a PLREPAIR group based on age ±5 years, gender, and body mass index (BMI) ±5 kg/m2. Results: Twenty-eight patients were eligible for the study, of which 23 (82.14%) had minimum 5-year follow-up. We found significant improvement from preoperative to latest follow-up in all outcome measures recorded: 17.8-point increase in mHHS (P=0.002), 22-point increase in NAHS (P<0.001), 25.4-point increase in HOS-SSS (P=0.003), and a 2.9-point decrease in VAS pain ratings (P<0.001). Average patient satisfaction was 7.1 out of 10. In the nested matched-pair analysis, 17 PLRECON were matched to a control group of 51 PLREPAIR patients. PLRECON demonstrated comparable survivorship and comparable improvements in all PROs with the exception of patient satisfaction. Conclusion: Hip arthroscopy with segmental labral reconstruction resulted in significant improvement in PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up. PLRECON reached comparable functional outcomes when compared to a benchmark PLREPAIR control group, but demonstrated lower patient satisfaction at latest follow-up. [Figure: see text]

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.

Hip Arthroscopy in the High-Level Athlete: Does Capsular Closure Make a Difference?

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (10) ◽  
pp. 2465-2470
Author(s):  
Jeffrey D. Hassebrock ◽  
Justin L. Makovicka ◽  
Anikar Chhabra ◽  
Matthew B. Anastasi ◽  
Heather M. Menzer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Return To Play ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Sample Population ◽  
Return To Sports ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
High Level

Background: Hip arthroscopy has been shown to be effective in athletes who have femoral acetabular impingement and labral tearing. The effect of complete capsular closure versus nonclosure on return to play is unknown. Hypothesis: Complete capsular closure after hip arthroscopy would lead to a higher rate and faster return to sports in high-level athletes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A nonrandomized retrospective review was performed of high school, collegiate, and professional athletes undergoing hip arthroscopy by a single high-volume hip arthroscopic surgeon. Athletes were divided into those undergoing complete capsular closure (CC group) and non–capsular closure (NC group) after hip arthroscopy. Rate and time to return to play were determined between the 2 groups. Patient-reported outcomes including modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and Hip Outcome Score Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) were obtained at a minimum of 2 years. Results: A total of 111 athletes with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included in the study. There were 62 in the CC group and 49 in the NC group. A higher percentage of athletes in the CC group returned to play compared with that in the NC group (90.3% vs 75.5%, respectively; P = .03). The CC group returned to play at a mean ± SD of 4.7 ± 1.9 months compared with 5.8 ± 2.6 months in the NC group ( P < .001). Patients in the CC group met the minimal clinically important difference for the mHHS, HOS-ADL, and HOS-SSS patient-reported outcomes at higher percentages: mHHS, 98.3% vs 87.7% for CC vs NC, respectively ( P = .02); HOS-ADL, 98.3% vs 87.7% ( P = .02); and HOS-SSS, 96.7% vs 89.7% ( P = .13). The difference between groups was statistically significant for mHHS and HOS-ADL. Conclusion: Complete capsular closure after hip arthroscopy was associated with faster return to play and a higher rate of return compared with that of nonclosure of the capsule in this sample population of high-level athletes. At a minimum 2-year follow-up, complete capsular closure was associated with significantly higher patient-reported outcomes compared with those of nonclosure in athletes who underwent hip arthroscopy.

Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement in Adolescents: 10-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Travis J. Menge ◽  
Karen K. Briggs ◽  
Michael D. Rahl ◽  
Marc J. Philippon
Keyword(s):  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement ◽  
Revision Surgery ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Labral Repair ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Duration Of Symptoms ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated hip arthroscopy to be an effective treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in individuals 18 years of age and older. Long-term outcome data in the adolescent population, however, are limited. Purpose: To report 10-year outcomes after hip arthroscopy in adolescents with symptomatic FAI. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Prospectively collected data were analyzed on adolescent patients younger than 18 years of age who had hip arthroscopy between March 2005 and 2009 with a minimum 10-year follow-up. Patients were included if they were diagnosed with symptomatic FAI and an associated labral tear that was treated with repair. Patients were excluded if they had previous hip procedures, acetabular dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle, <20°), avascular necrosis, previous hip fracture or dislocation, or Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, or refused to participate. The primary patient-reported outcome measure was the Hip Outcome Score (HOS) Activities of Daily Living (ADL) subscale. In addition, the HOS—Sport, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), and patient satisfaction were collected. Failure was defined as patients having to undergo revision arthroscopy. Results: There were 60 patients (70 hips) who met inclusion criteria and had a 10-year follow-up. The mean age of the cohort was 16 ± 1.2 years, with 21 male and 49 female hips. Seven hips (10%) required revision hip arthroscopy. All revisions occurred in female patients and were associated with global laxity as well as longer duration of symptoms before time of surgery. At a mean follow-up of 12 years (range, 10-14 years), patients who did not undergo revision surgery had significant improvements from preoperatively to postoperatively in HOS-ADL (from 64 to 92; P < .01), HOS–Sport (from 40 to 86; P < .01), mHHS (from 56 to 88; P < .01), and SF-12 Physical Component Summary (from 41 to 54; P < .01). The median patient satisfaction was 10 out of 10 (very satisfied). Conclusion: Hip arthroscopy for FAI with labral repair resulted in excellent patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction at a minimum of 10 years of follow-up. There was a 10% rate of revision surgery, which was associated with global laxity and longer duration of symptoms before surgery, which should be considered in patient selection.

scholarly journals Functional and Radiographic Outcomes Following Repair of Osteochondral Lesions After Ankle Fracture with Arthrex BioCartilage and Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate compared to Microfracture

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 2473011420S0045
Author(s):  
Drew N. Stal ◽  
Stephanie K. Eble ◽  
Oliver B. Hansen ◽  
Bopha Chrea ◽  
Mark C. Drakos
Keyword(s):  
Bone Marrow ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Fracture Fixation ◽  
Ankle Fracture ◽  
Bone Marrow Aspirate ◽  
Osteochondral Lesions ◽  
Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Patient Reported

Category: Arthroscopy; Basic Sciences/Biologics; Trauma Introduction/Purpose: There has been an increasing role for arthroscopy in ankle fracture fixation, particularly in assessing osteochondral lesions (OCL). Initial cartilage damage has been found to be an independent risk factor for post-traumatic ankle arthritis. Rates of osteochondral injury with ankle fracture remain varied, but have been reported up to 62-80%. Treatment for osteochondral injuries classically included debridement alone or debridement with microfracture. Recently, new biologic augments have come to market, including BioCartilage (Arthrex): a mixture of cadaveric articular cartilage extracellular matrix. This has been used in conjunction with bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC). To date, no study has evaluated the outcomes of utilizing BioCartilage in the treatment of osteochondral lesions, or in comparison to microfracture alone, in conjunction with ankle fracture fixation. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all adult patients (age > 18) undergoing operative ankle fracture or syndesmotic fixation with concomitant ankle arthroscopy utilizing our Foot and Ankle Registry. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained prior to data collection. Patient demographic data, laterality, fracture pattern and OCL size were documented. Those with full-thickness lesions requiring treatment were divided into groups based on the use of Biocartilage + BMAC or microfracture alone. Exclusion criteria included pediatric patients, distal tibia intra-articular, and open fractures. Outcome scores for pre- and postoperative patient reported outcome measures (PROMIS) were recorded, with a minimum 6- month follow up. Magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) scoring was performed for those with postoperative MRIs to evaluate OCL healing. We also included a group that had ankle fracture fixation and arthroscopy but without any osteochondral lesion to serve as a control. Results: 28 patients were treated with Biocartilage/BMAC; 19 with preoperative and 17 with postoperative PROMIS. 41 patients had microfracture; 20 with preoperative and 18 with postoperative PROMIS. 75 patients were identified in the non-OCL group; 60 with preoperative and 45 with postoperative PROMIS. Average follow-up was 20.61 months. There were no significant differences in postoperative PROMIS scores between the two treatment groups in all sub-categories. When comparing each treatment group to the control, there was a statistically significant increase in pre to postoperative global physical health scores for the non-OCL group compared to Biocartilage/BMAC. Postoperative MRIs were obtained in 12/28 patients with Biocartilage/BMAC and 10 /41 with microfracture. There was no significant difference between either group in overall MOCART scores or individual scoring categories. Conclusion: The role for arthroscopy in ankle fracture fixation is evolving, as is the treatment of identifiable osteochondral lesions. We sought to compare a novel biologic technique of Biocartilage and BMAC with microfracture for OCL management. Our results demonstrated no significant difference between treatments for postoperative PROMIS and MOCART scores. Outcome measures did not differ significantly when compared to our control group. Unfortunately, complete PROMIS and MOCART data was lacking in each group, limiting the ability to draw definitive conclusions. However, we believe this is a positive first step in understanding the role in treating osteochondral lesions associated with ankle fractures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document