Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To compare patient-reported outcomes, progression of radiographic arthritis, revision rates, and complications for hips with acetabular retroversion treated by open versus arthroscopic methods. METHODS:The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched in August 2016 for literature on the open and arthroscopic techniques using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) method. All studies published in the English language that focused on the surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement caused by retroversion were included. All arthroscopic procedures, such as acetabuloplasty and labral repair, and open procedures, including anteverting periacetabular osteotomy and surgical dislocation with osteoplasty, were included. Articles that did not describe how retroversion was defined were excluded, as were studies with less than 6 months' follow-up and fewer than 5 patients. Two authors screened the results and selected articles for this review based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All results were scored using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. RESULTS:There were 386 results returned and 15 articles that met the inclusion criteria of this study. Among the studies, 11 reviewed arthroscopic techniques and 4 reviewed open surgical procedures. Both techniques yield good results based on patient-reported outcomes with minimal progression of osteoarthritis and low complication rates. CONCLUSIONS:This review showed statistically and clinically significant improvements for the treatment of acetabular retroversion based on patient-reported outcomes, with low progression of radiographic arthritis, revision rates, and complications using both open and arthroscopic methods. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic labral debridement in the hip can be an effective treatment for labral tears but has demonstrated inferior outcomes compared with labral repair. Thus, the role for labral debridement has become unclear. Hypothesis/Purpose: The purpose was to evaluate the outcomes of a selective debridement with labral preservation (SDLP) group with a minimum 5-year follow-up. It was hypothesized that, with narrow indications, SDLP would produce statistically improved patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores, comparable with those of a matched-pair labral repair control group. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data were collected on all patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery between February 2008 and September 2011. Exclusion criteria were acetabular or femoral head Outerbridge grade 4 chondral damage, preoperative Tnnis grade >/=2, workers' compensation claims, previous hip conditions, severe dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <18 degrees ), or previous ipsilateral hip surgery. Patients who underwent arthroscopic labral debridement and had preoperative and minimum 5-year PRO scores, including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) as well as the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, were included. In a nested matched-pair comparison, the SDLP group was matched 1:1 to an arthroscopic labral repair control group based on age +/-5 years, body mass index +/-5 kg/m2, sex, and Seldes tear type. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five hips were eligible for inclusion, of which 101 (80.8%) hips had a minimum 5-year follow-up. All PRO scores were significantly improved ( P < .001) at latest follow-up (mHHS, 63.4 to 82.4; NAHS, 57.4 to 83.6; HOS-SSS, 44.2 to 74.5). The mean VAS score decreased from 5.8 to 2.3 ( P < .001). The mean patient satisfaction score was 8.1. Four (4.0%) patients underwent second-look arthroscopic surgery (mean, 18.5 months), and 14 (13.9%) patients converted to total hip arthroplasty (mean, 46.9 months). In the matched-pair comparison, 69 in the SDLP group were matched 1:1 with those undergoing labral repair. Outcomes at latest follow-up of the SDLP group were comparable with those of the control group, respectively: mHHS, 83.0 vs 86.1 ( P = .084); NAHS, 85.0 vs 85.4 ( P = .415); HOS-SSS, 74.8 vs 76.8 ( P = .219); VAS, 2.3 vs 2.0 ( P = .277); international Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12), 73.8 vs 76.4 ( P = .136); Short Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12) mental, 57.4 vs 55.1 ( P = .031); SF-12 physical, 48.7 vs 48.9 ( P = .357); Veterans RAND Health Survey-12 (VR-12) mental, 61.6 vs 59.8 ( P = .160); VR-12 physical, 50.1 vs 50.2 ( P = .340); and patient satisfaction, 8.0 vs 8.3 ( P = .211). CONCLUSION: In select cases of stable labral tears, SDLP may allow the preservation of a functional labrum. At a minimum 5-year follow-up, SDLP using narrow indications produced favorable outcomes comparable with a matched-pair labral repair group.

Arthroscopic acetabuloplasty involves trimming of bone from the acetabular rim. Although early techniques often involved detachment of the labrum prior to bone resection, recent studies have reported on acetabuloplasty without labral detachment. This method has the benefit of preserving the labro-osseous junction, but visualization of the acetabular rim may be more difficult. Compromised visualization can lead to incomplete resection and residual impingement. We describe an arthroscopic perspective called the "bird's eye" and "upper deck" views that facilitates optimal visualization of the acetabuloplasty without labral detachment.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To critically evaluate the existing literature on hip capsule biomechanics, clinical evidence of instability, and outcomes of capsular management to answer the following question: Should the capsule be repaired or plicated after hip arthroscopy for labral tears associated with femoroacetabular impingement or instability? METHODS:We used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines to find articles using PubMed and Embase. Included studies were Level I through V studies and focused on hip capsule biomechanics, postarthroscopic instability, and clinical outcomes. Articles were excluded if they discussed treatment of the hip capsule during arthroplasty, dislocations without a history of arthroscopy, and pre-existing conditions. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used for quality assessment of clinical outcome studies. RESULTS:A total of 34 articles were included: 15 biomechanical studies, 9 instability case reports, and 10 outcome studies. There is consensus from biomechanical studies that the capsule is an important stabilizer of the hip and repairing it provides better stability than when unrepaired. Case reports of instability have raised concerns about capsular management during the index procedure to decrease the complications associated with this problem. Furthermore, outcome studies suggest that there may be an advantage of capsular closure versus capsulotomy during hip arthroscopy for nonarthritic patients. CONCLUSIONS:Short-term outcome studies suggest that capsular closure is safe and effective in nonarthritic patients undergoing hip arthroscopic procedures and may yield superior outcomes compared with unrepaired capsulotomy. Moreover, biomechanical evidence strongly supports the role of capsular repair in maintaining stability of the hip. In patients with stiffness or inflammatory hip disorders, a release may be appropriate. In patients who have signs and symptoms of instability, there is existing evidence that capsular plication may be associated with significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes. Although the multiple procedures performed in combination with capsular treatment present confounding variables, current evidence appears to support routine capsular closure in most cases and to support capsular plication in cases of instability or borderline dysplasia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level IV, systematic review of Level II through IV studies.

BACKGROUND:Arthroscopic labral base repair (LBR) in the hip is a previously described technique designed to restore the native functional anatomy of the labrum by reproducing its seal against the femoral head. LBR has been shown to have good short-term outcomes. Hypothesis/Purpose: The purpose was to evaluate clinical outcomes of an LBR cohort with a minimum 5-year follow-up. It was hypothesized that patients who underwent LBR would continue to have significant improvement from their preoperative scores and maintain scores similar to their 2-year outcomes. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS:Data for patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery with LBR from February 2008 to May 2011 with a minimum 5-year follow-up were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. Patients with preoperative Tonnis osteoarthritis grade ≥2, previous hip conditions (slipped capital femoral epiphysis, avascular necrosis, Legg-Calv-Perthes disease), severe dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <18°), or previous ipsilateral hip surgery were excluded. Statistical equivalence tests evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and patient satisfaction (0-10 scale; 10 = very satisfied). RESULTS:Of the 70 patients (74 hips) who met inclusion and exclusion criteria, 60 (85.7%) patients (64 hips) were available at a minimum 5-year follow-up. All PRO scores significantly improved from preoperative values with a mean follow-up of 67.8 ± 7.4 months (range, 60.0-89.7 months). The mean mHHS increased from 64.4 ±13.8 to 85.3 ± 17.7 ( P < .001), the mean NAHS from 63.7 ± 17.0 to 87.0 ± 14.7 ( P < .001), and the mean HOS-SSS from 47.1 ± 23.2 to 76.5 ± 25.9 ( P < .001). The mean VAS score decreased from 5.9 ± 2.4 to 2.0 ± 2.1 ( P < .001). The mean patient satisfaction score was 8.1 ± 2.0. The improvement in PRO scores was sustained from 2- to 5-year follow-up. At 2 and 5 years, survivorship rates were 96.9% and 90.6%, respectively, and the respective secondary arthroscopic surgery rates were 10.9% (7/64) and 17.2% (11/64). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:At a minimum 5-year follow-up, arthroscopic LBR continued to be a successful procedure and valid technique based on 3 PROs, the VAS, patient satisfaction, and survivorship. Significantly improved outcome scores were maintained compared with preoperative values and showed no signs of deterioration from the 2-year scores. The long-term survivorship of hip arthroscopic surgery has yet to be determined; however, these midterm results demonstrate the rates of additional procedures (both secondary arthroscopic surgery and conversion to total hip arthroplasty), that may be necessary after 2 years.

BACKGROUND:Studies on midterm outcomes of the arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and labral tears with mild osteoarthritis (OA) are limited. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate outcomes of the arthroscopic treatment of FAI and labral tears in patients with mild preoperative OA (Tönnis grade 1) at a minimum 5-year follow-up, and to perform a matched-pair comparison to a control group with Tönnis grade 0. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS:, sex, labral treatment, and capsular treatment. RESULTS:Of 356 eligible hips, 292 hips had minimum 5-year outcomes (82%). Eighty-five hips with Tönnis grade 1 were evaluated. At 5-year follow-up, patients with Tönnis grade 1 had significant improvements in all PRO and VAS scores ( P < .0001). The overall satisfaction score was 8.2. The survivorship rate with respect to conversion to total hip arthroplasty for the Tönnis grade 1 group was 69.4% at 5 years, while in the Tönnis grade 0 group, it was 88.4% ( P = .0002). Sixty-two hips with Tönnis grade 0 were matched to 62 hips with Tönnis grade 1. Both groups demonstrated improvements in all PRO and VAS scores from preoperatively to postoperatively ( P < .0001). No significant differences existed between preoperative or postoperative scores or survivorship between the groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The arthroscopic treatment of FAI and labral tears in patients with Tönnis grade 1 had good results at 5-year follow-up. After controlling for other variables using a matched-pair comparison, patients with Tönnis grade 1 had similar, durable improvements to those with Tönnis grade 0. While strict surgical indications and appropriate expectations are recommended for patients with mild OA, Tönnis grade 1 alone should not be considered a contraindication to hip arthroscopic surgery.

Blood management strategies are integral to successful outcomes in many types of orthopaedic surgery. These strategies minimize blood loss and transfusion requirements, ultimately decreasing complications, improving outcomes, and potentially eliminating risks associated with allogeneic transfusion. Practices to achieve these goals include preoperative evaluation and optimization of hemoglobin, the use of pharmacologic agents or anesthetic methods, intraoperative techniques to improve hemostasis and cell salvage, and the use of predonated autologous blood. Guidelines can also help manage allogeneic transfusions in the perioperative period. Although the literature on blood management has focused primarily on arthroplasty and adult spine surgery, pediatric spinal fusion for scoliosis involves a large group of patients with a specific set of risk factors for transfusion and distinct perioperative considerations. A thorough understanding of blood management techniques will improve surgical planning, limit transfusion-associated risks, maintain hemostasis, and optimize outcomes in this pediatric population.

Background/UNASSIGNED:is an unusual pathogen that is rarely pathogenic in humans and has never been reported as a cause of infection following open fracture. Methods/UNASSIGNED:. The patient was treated with debridement, placement of antibiotic beads, and ciprofloxacin. Results/UNASSIGNED:At 6 months following the initial debridement, the patient had no clinical evidence of infection and regained full function of the affected forearm without any residual deficits. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:, a pathogen rarely responsible for human infection.

OBJECTIVE:To determine (1) the reliability of the standard and modified Radiographic Union Scale for Tibia fractures (RUST) score in a sheep osteotomy model, and (2) the standard and modified RUST scores that represent biomechanical union. DESIGN/METHODS:The tibia cortices in a sheep osteotomy model treated by intramedullary nails were radiographically evaluated using standard and modified RUST scores. Scores that correlated with biomechanical union, based on the torsional stiffness of the contralateral tibia, were determined. INTERVENTION/METHODS:Two groups of sheep had transverse midshaft osteotomies treated with 10-mm nails after reaming to 11.5 mm. Weight-bearing was allowed as tolerated. Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were taken at standard intervals from 4 to 12 weeks. The tibial cortices at each time interval were evaluated in a random order by 5 senior orthopaedic trauma surgeons. Each tibia was scored using the standard and modified RUST methods and was assessed for union. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was determined for standard and modified RUST scores at each time interval and for the assessment of union. The percentages of fractures that were defined as united by the surgeons were tabulated by RUST and modified RUST scores. The torsional stiffness of each tibia was tested at 12 weeks and expressed as a percentage of the contralateral side. We considered biomechanical union to be ≥90% of the torsional stiffness of the normal side. RESULTS:The modified RUST score demonstrated consistently higher ICCs than the standard RUST. All reviewers considered a standard RUST of 10 and a modified RUST of 14 to represent radiographic union. The standard RUST was 10.4 (range: 8.6-12) and modified RUST was 14.2 (range: 12.2-16) for tibiae that were biomechanically united. CONCLUSIONS:The modified RUST score has a slightly higher ICC than the standard RUST. A standard RUST of 10 and a modified RUST of 14 provide an excellent definition of union based on surgeons' opinion and biomechanical testing for a transverse fracture.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the timing, indications, and "success rates of secondary interventions, dynamization and exchange nailing, in a large series of tibial nonunions" (dynamization and exchange nailing are types of secondary interventions). SETTING: Retrospective multicenter analysis from level 1 trauma hospitals. PATIENTS: A total of 194 tibia fractures that underwent dynamization or exchange nailing for delayed/nonunion. INTERVENTION: Records and radiographs to characterize demographic data, fracture type, and cortical contact after tibial nailing were gathered. The radiographic union score for tibias (RUST) and the timing of intervention and time to union were calculated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was success of either intervention, defined as achieving union, with the need for further intervention defining failure. Other outcomes included RUST scores at intervention and union, and timing to intervention and union for both techniques. Two-tailed t tests and Fisher exact with P set at <0.05 for significance were used as indicated. RESULTS: A total of 194 tibia fractures underwent dynamization (97) or exchange nailing (97). No statistical differences were found between groups with demographic characteristics. The presence of a fracture gap (P = 0.01) and comminuted fractures (P = 0.002) was more common in the exchange group. The success rates of the interventions and RUST scores were not different when performed before versus after 6 months; therefore, data were pooled. The RUST scores at the time of intervention were not different for successful or failed dynamizations (7.13 vs. 7.07, P = 0.83) or exchanges (6.8 vs. 7.3, P = 0.37). Likewise, the time to successful versus failed dynamization (165 vs. 158 days, P = 0.91) or exchange nailing (224 vs. 201 days, P = 0.48) was not different. No cortical contact or a gap was a statistically negative factor for both exchange nails (P = 0.09) and dynamizations (P = 0.06). When combined, the success in the face of a gap was 78% versus 92% when no gap was present (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Previous literature has few reports of the success rates of secondary interventions for tibial nonunions. The indications for dynamization and exchange were similar. Comminuted fractures, and fractures with no cortical contact or "gap" present after intramedullary nailing, favored having an exchange nail performed over dynamization. Fracture gap was also found to be a negative prognostic factor for both procedures. Overall, this study demonstrates high rates of union for both interventions, making them both viable options. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.