Isolated arthroscopic treatment of intra-articular pathologies in mild hip dysplasia: a short-term case control study

Purpose The aim is to compare the results of isolated hip arthroscopy in patients with borderline dysplasia with Lateral center edge angle (LCEA) between 18° and 25° with a control group of patients with normal LCEA (> 25°). Methods Fifty hip arthroscopies performed in 45 patients were retrospectively evaluated. Exclusion criteria were: age > 40, hip arthritis > grade 2 according to Tonnis classification, femoral head avascular necrosis, pediatric’s orthopaedics conditions and true dysplasia with LCEA < 18°.Two groups were identified: group A with 15 hips with LCEA between 25° and 18° and Group control B made of 35 hips with LCEA > 25°. Results The groups were homogeneous for demography and pre-operative WOMAC and HOOS. Osteoplasty for CAM were performed in 100% of patients in both groups, only in 12 hips (34.4%) in group B we had both femoral and acetabular osteoplasty. Labral repair was performed in 86% of patients in group A, in 60% of patients in group B, capsular plication in 93% of group A, in 5% of case of group B. WOMAC and HOOS statically significant improved in both groups at final follow-up (24 months). No cases in both groups required conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Clinical outcomes of study group were comparable to the control group. Conclusion Even if the present small series is not conclusive, we suggest isolated arthroscopic management of patients with FAI and LCEA between 18° and 25°, but capsular plication and careful labral management are strongly recommended. Level of evidence Level IV.

Achieving Successful Outcomes in High-Level Athletes With Borderline Hip Dysplasia Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy With Capsular Plication and Labral Preservation: A Propensity-Matched Controlled Study

Background: Return to sports (RTS) rates and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after hip arthroscopy in athletes with borderline dysplasia (BD) have not been established. Purpose: (1) To report minimum 2-year PROs and RTS rates in high-level athletes with BD who underwent hip arthroscopy for labral pathology in the setting of microinstability and (2) to compare clinical results with those of a matched control group of athletes with normal acetabular coverage. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were reviewed for surgery performed between January 2012 and July 2018. Patients were considered eligible if they received a primary hip arthroscopy in the setting of BD (lateral center-edge angle, 18°-25°) and competed in professional, collegiate, or high school sports. Inclusion criteria included preoperative and minimum 2-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris Hip Score, Non-arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score–Sport Specific Subscale, and visual analog scale for pain. Athletes with BD were matched to a control group of athletes with normal acetabular coverage (lateral center-edge angle, 25°-40°). Results: A total of 65 patients with BD were included in the study with a mean ± standard deviation follow-up of 47.5 ± 20.4 months. Athletes with BD showed significant improvement in all outcome measures recorded, demonstrated high RTS rates (80.7%), and achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the Hip Outcome Score–Sport Specific Subscale at high rates (MCID, 90.8%; PASS, 75.4%). When compared with a propensity-matched control group with normal acetabular coverage, capsular plication was performed more commonly in the BD group (93.8% vs 82.7%; P = .037). PROs and RTS, PASS, and MCID rates were similar between the BD and control groups ( P > .05). Conclusion: High-level athletes with BD who undergo primary hip arthroscopy for labral pathology in the setting of microinstability may expect favorable PROs and RTS rates at minimum 2-year follow-up. These results were comparable with those of a control group of athletes with normal coverage.

Comparison Between Hip Arthroscopic Surgery and Periacetabular Osteotomy for the Treatment of Patients With Borderline Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip: A Systematic Review

Background: The treatment for borderline developmental dysplasia of the hip (BDDH) has historically been arthroscopic surgery or periacetabular osteotomy (PAO). As orthopaedic surgery is constantly evolving, a lack of comparison of outcomes for these 2 treatment methods could potentially be stalling the progression of treatment for patients with BDDH. Purpose: To evaluate the existing literature on patient characteristics, procedures, clinical outcomes, and failure rates for patients with BDDH and to determine whether PAO or hip arthroscopic surgery is a better treatment method for patients with BDDH. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Studies included were found using the following search words: “hip” and “borderline dysplasia,” “osteotomy” or “arthroscopy,” and “outcome” or “procedure.” Articles were included if they detailed participants of all sexes and ages, reported on isolated hips, and had patients diagnosed with BDDH. Results: A search was conducted across 3 databases, resulting in 469 articles for consideration, from which 12 total studies (10 on arthroscopic surgery and 2 on PAO) were chosen for a review. There were 6 studies that included patients with a lateral center-edge angle of 18° to 25°, while the remainder included patients with a lateral center-edge angle of 20° to 25°. All the studies reviewing arthroscopic surgery reported concomitant/accessory procedures, while the articles on the topic of PAO did not. It was determined that, whether treated using arthroscopic surgery or PAO, outcomes improved across all patient-reported outcome measures. Revision surgery was also common in both procedures. Conclusion: There is a lack of consensus in the literature on the best treatment option for patients with BDDH. Preoperative patient characteristics and concomitant injuries should be considered when evaluating which surgical procedure will result in the most favorable outcomes.

Periacetabular osteotomy with concomitant hip arthroscopy: A case series with 24 months minimum follow-up

Purpose To describe patient-reported outcomes, radiological results, and revision to total hip replacement in patients with hip dysplasia that underwent periacetabular osteotomy as isolated treatment or concomitant with hip arthroscopy. Methods Case series study. Between 2014 and 2017, patients were included if they complained of hip pain and had a lateral center-edge angle ≤ of 20°. Exclusion criteria included an in-maturate skeleton, age of 40 or older, previous hip surgery, concomitant connective tissue related disease, and Tönnis osteoarthritis grade ≥ 1. All patients were studied before surgery with an anteroposterior pelvis radiograph, false-profile radiograph, and magnetic resonance imaging. Magnetic resonance imaging was used to assess intraarticular lesions, and if a labral or chondral injury was found, concomitant hip arthroscopy was performed. The non-parametric median test for paired data was used to compare radiological measures (anterior and lateral center-edge angle, Tönnis angle, and extrusion index) after and before surgery. Survival analysis was performed using revision to total hip arthroplasty as a failure. Kaplan Meier curve was estimated. The data were processed using Stata. Results A total of 15 consecutive patients were included; 14 (93%) were female patients. The median follow-up was 3.5 years (range, 2 to 8 years). The median age was 20 (range 13 to 32). Lateral center-edge angle, Tönnis angle, and extrusion index correction achieved statistical significance. Seven patients (47%) underwent concomitant hip arthroscopy; three of them (47%) were bilateral (10 hips). The labrum was repaired in six cases (60%). Three patients (15%) required revision with hip arthroplasty, and no hip arthroscopy-related complications are reported in this series. Conclusion To perform a hip arthroscopy concomitant with periacetabular osteotomy did not affect the acetabular correction. Nowadays, due to a lack of conclusive evidence, a case by case decision seems more appropriate to design a comprehensive treatment.

Characterization of version in the dysplastic hip and the need for subsequent femoral derotational osteotomy after periacetabular osteotomy

Hip dysplasia is a three-dimensional pathomechanical condition that is often more complex than the standard method of measuring lateral center edge angle (CEA) can quantify. Yet there is a paucity of literature examining the differences in version seen between dysplastic and non-dysplastic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) hips, the relationship of acetabular and femoral version (FV) within dysplastic hips and the contribution of each of these factors to symptoms and outcomes of dysplasia treatment. We sought to describe the acetabular version (AcetV) and FV in dysplastic hips and quantify how these measurements compared with non-dysplastic FAI hips. We also sought to analyze the association of these factors with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) and determine the need for subsequent femoral derotational osteotomy after PAO. A total of 113 dysplastic patients who underwent PAO (92% female, mean age 24) were compared with 1332 (45% female, mean age 25) non-dysplastic FAI (CEA &gt; 25°) patients. We found that dysplastic hips had a statistically higher AcetV and FV than non-dysplastic FAI hips. There was a very weak correlation between AcetV and FV in dysplastic hips, suggesting that patients with higher AcetV did not necessarily have higher FV. There was no association with AcetV or FV and patient outcomes in our very limited analysis of PROs after PAO, and only 5% of patients with excessive FV (&gt;20°) required subsequent femoral derotational osteotomy, suggesting that in a majority of patients with hip dysplasia, FV may not impact the post-operative clinical course.

Anteroinferior Hip Instability in Flexion During Dynamic Arthroscopic Examination Is Associated With Abnormal Anterior Acetabular Horn

Background: The stabilization of the femoral head is provided by the distal acetabulum when the hip is in a flexed position. However, the osseous parameters for the diagnosis of hip instability in flexion are not defined. Purpose/Hypothesis: To determine whether the osseous parameters of the distal acetabulum are different in hips demonstrating anteroinferior subluxation in flexion under dynamic arthroscopic examination, compared with individuals without hip symptoms. The hypothesis was that the morphometric parameters of the anterior acetabular horn are distinct in hips with anteroinferior instability compared with asymptomatic hips. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 30 hips with anteroinferior instability in flexion under dynamic arthroscopic examination were identified. A control group of 60 hips (30 patients), matched by age and sex, was formed from individuals who had undergone pelvis magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for nonorthopaedic reasons. Unstable and control hips were compared according to the following parameters assessed on axial MRI scans of the pelvis: anterior sector angle (ASA), anterior horn angle (AHA), posterior sector angle (PSA), posterior horn angle (PHA), acetabular version, lateral center-edge angle, acetabular inclination (Tönnis angle), and femoral head diameter. Results: The coverage of the femoral head by the anterior acetabular horn was decreased in unstable hips compared with the control group (mean ASA, 54.8° vs 61°, respectively; P < .001). Unstable hips also had a steeper anterior acetabular horn, with an increased mean AHA compared with controls (52.5° vs 46.8°, respectively; P < .001). An ASA <58° had a sensitivity of 0.8, a specificity of 0.68, a negative predictive value of 0.87, and a positive predictive value of 0.56 for anteroinferior hip instability. An AHA >50° had a sensitivity of 0.77, a specificity of 0.72, a negative predictive value of 0.86, and a positive predictive value of 0.57 for anteroinferior hip instability. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean PSA, PHA, acetabular version, lateral center-edge angle, acetabular inclination, or femoral head diameter between unstable hips and controls. Conclusion: Abnormal morphology of the anterior acetabular horn is associated with anteroinferior instability in hip flexion. The ASA and AHA can aid in the diagnosis of hip instability.

Value of susceptibility-weighted imaging for the assessment of angle measurements reflecting hip morphology

Radiographs are the clinical first line imaging modality for evaluating hip morphology and pathology. MRI offers additional information and is the method of choice to evaluate soft tissue, bone marrow and preradiographic signs of osteoarthritis. Radiographs are used to measure the most morphometric parameters. The aim of this study was to compare susceptibility weighted MRI (SWMR) with radiographs to evaluate hip morphology. 40 Patients were examined with standard MR-sequences, coronal SWMR and radiographs in anteroposterior pelvic view. Coronal maximum intensity projection (MIP) images of both hips were automatically reconstructed on SWMR and T1weighted images. Sharp´s angle, Tönnis angle, lateral center–edge angle of Wiberg and caput-collum-diaphyseal angle were measured on coronal SWMR MIP-images, T1weighted MIP-images and radiographs. Measurements were compared by linear regression analysis and Bland-Altmann Plots, using radiographs as reference standard. Additionally, a ratio between the signal intensity of muscles and bone on SWMR and T1weighted MIP-images was calculated and compared between these two sequences. SWMR enables the reliable assessment of Sharp´s angle (SWMR: R2 = 0.80; T1weighted: R2 = 0.37), Tönnis angle (SWMR: R2 = 0.86; T1weighted: not measurable), lateral center–edge angle of Wiberg (SWMR: R2 = 0.88; T1weighted: R2 = 0.40) and caput-collum-diaphyseal angle (SWMR: R2 = 0.38; T1weighted: R2 = 0.18) compared to radiographs with a higher accuracy than conventional MR imaging. The ratio between the intensity of muscles and bone was significant higher on SWMR (2.00 and 2.02) than on T1weighted MIP-images (1.6 and 1.42; p < 0.001).

Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in the Context of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome, Labral Tear, and Acetabular Overcoverage: Minimum 5-Year Outcomes With a Subanalysis Against Patients Without Overcoverage

Background: Improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been reported in the short term after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and labral tear in the setting of acetabular overcoverage. Yet, there is a paucity of information in the literature on midterm PROs. Purpose: To (1) report minimum 5-year PROs in patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS and acetabular labral tears in the context of acetabular overcoverage and (2) compare outcomes with those of a propensity-matched control group without acetabular overcoverage. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed on all patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS and labral tears between February 2008 and November 2013. Inclusion criteria were lateral center-edge angle >40° and minimum 5-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and the Hip Outcome Score–Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS). Exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions, active workers’ compensation claims, or lack of minimum 5-year outcomes. A 1:1 propensity-matched comparison was made between the study group and a control group without acetabular overcoverage (lateral center-edge angle, 25°-40°) based on age at surgery, sex, body mass index, Tönnis grade, laterality, and follow-up time. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, and NAHS. Secondary surgical procedures were recorded. Results: A total of 54 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria for the study group, of whom 45 (83.3%; 45 hips) had a minimum 5-year follow-up and were matched without differences in age at surgery, sex, body mass index, or follow-up time. The study and control groups demonstrated significant and comparable improvements for the mHHS (mean ± SD Δ, 24.06 ± 24.19 vs 26.33 ± 17.27; P = .625), NAHS (Δ, 31.22 ± 25.31 vs 27.15 ± 17.61; P = .399), and HOS-SSS (Δ, 33.16 ± 34.73 vs 34.75 ± 26.15; P = .557). The rates for achieving the MCID were similar for the study and control groups for the mHHS (76.7% vs 84.2%; P = .399), HOS-SSS (79.1% vs 75.8%; P = .731), and NAHS (81.4% vs 84.2%; P = .738). Need for revision surgery was similar ( P = .748). A lower conversion rate to total hip arthroplasty was reported for the study than for the control group (2.2% vs 15.6%; P = .026). Conclusion: In the context of FAIS, labral tears, and acetabular overcoverage, patients who underwent hip arthroscopy reported significant improvement in several PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up. Moreover, outcomes were comparable with those of a propensity-matched control group without acetabular overcoverage. Furthermore, the rate of achieving the MCID for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, and NAHS was similar between these groups.