Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE:To identify differences in the time taken to achieve the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) following primary hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) among patients of different body mass index (BMI) categories. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective comparative study of hip arthroscopy patients with minimum 2-year follow-up. BMI categories were defined as normal (18.5 ≤ BMI < 25.0), overweight (25.0 ≤ BMI <30.0), or class I obese (30.0≤BMI<35.0). All subjects completed the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) prior to surgery and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperative. MCID and SCB cutoffs were defined as pre-to-postoperative increases in mHHS by ≥8.2 and ≥19.8, respectively. PASS cutoff was set at postoperative mHHS ≥74. Time to achievement of each milestone was compared using the interval-censored EMICM algorithm. The effect of BMI was adjusted for age and sex using an interval-censored proportional hazards model. RESULTS:285 patients were included in the analysis: 150 (52.6%) normal BMI, 99 (34.7%) overweight, and 36 (12.6%) obese. Obese patients had lower mHHS at baseline (P = .006) and at 2-year follow-up (P = .008). There were no significant intergroup differences in time to achievement for MCID (P = .92) or SCB (P = .69), but obese patients had longer time to PASS than normal BMI patients (P = .047). Multivariable analysis found obesity to be predictive of longer time to PASS (HR = .55; P = .007) but not MCID (HR = 0.91; P = .68) or SCB (HR = 1.06; P = .30). CONCLUSIONS:Class I obesity is associated with delays in achieving a literature-defined PASS threshold after primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Level III, retrospective comparative study.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of our study was to compare clinical outcomes at 2 years following primary hip arthroscopy (HA) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) between patients with and without low-grade lumbosacral transitional vertebra (LSTV). METHODS:We performed a retrospective matched-cohort analysis of patients who underwent primary HA for FAIS from 2011-2018 with minimum 2-year follow-up. LSTV was graded on preoperative radiographs using the Castellvi classification. Patients with grades I and II LSTV were matched 1:1 with controls on age, sex, and BMI. Radiographic markers of FAIS morphology were measured. Pre-to-postoperative improvement in the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and 2-year achievement rates for the Minimum Clinically-Important Difference (MCID), Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were compared between patients with versus without LSTV. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for intergroup mean comparisons and the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for categorical variables. RESULTS:58 patients with LSTV were matched to 58 controls. Among LSTV patients, 48 were Castellvi type 1 (82.8%) and 32 (55.2%) had bilateral findings. No significant differences were found between groups with respect to radiographic markers of FAIS, including alpha angle (p=0.88), lateral center edge angle (LCEA) (p=0.42), or crossover sign (p=0.71). While LSTV patients had greater improvement in NAHS at 2-year follow-up compared to controls (p=0.04), there were no significant differences in mHHS improvement (p=0.31) or achievement of the MCID (p=0.73), SCB (p=0.61), or PASS (p=0.16). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with low-grade LSTV had greater 2-year improvement in NAHS than controls, while no significant differences were observed in achievement of clinical thresholds at 2-year follow-up. There were no differences between groups with respect to any measured radiographic markers of FAIS morphology. Importantly, the findings of this study are underpowered and should be viewed with caution in the greater context of the LSTV literature. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III; Retrospective comparative study.

Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is the gold standard procedure for patients with significant hip dysplasia. Hip arthroscopy is the gold standard procedure for repairing labral tears. In the past, open PAO procedures were performed without any concomitant labral repair surgery with successful outcomes. Nevertheless, with advances in hip arthroscopy, better outcomes can be achieved by repairing the labrum, as well as performing PAO to achieve bony correction of the deformity. Whether staged or combined, hip arthroscopy plus PAO most successfully treats hip dysplasia. Fix the bony deformity, but also fix the structural damage. Repairing the labrum, combined with PAO, will lead to better outcomes.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The aim of our study was to identify differences in the time taken to achieve the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) following primary hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) among patients of different body mass index (BMI) categories. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective comparative study of hip arthroscopy patients with minimum 2-year follow-up. BMI categories were defined as normal (18.5 ≤ BMI < 25.0), overweight (25.0 ≤ BMI <30.0), or class I obese (30.0≤BMI<35.0). All subjects completed the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) prior to surgery and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperative. MCID and SCB cutoffs were defined as pre-to-postoperative increases in mHHS by ≥8.2 and ≥19.8, respectively. PASS cutoff was set at postoperative mHHS ≥74. Time to achievement of each milestone was compared using the interval-censored EMICM algorithm. The effect of BMI was adjusted for age and sex using an interval-censored proportional hazards model. RESULTS:285 patients were included in the analysis: 150 (52.6%) normal BMI, 99 (34.7%) overweight, and 36 (12.6%) obese. Obese patients had lower mHHS at baseline (P = .006) and at 2-year follow-up (P = .008). There were no significant intergroup differences in time to achievement for MCID (P = .92) or SCB (P = .69), but obese patients had longer time to PASS than normal BMI patients (P = .047). Multivariable analysis found obesity to be predictive of longer time to PASS (HR = .55; P = .007) but not MCID (HR = 0.91; P = .68) or SCB (HR = 1.06; P = .30). CONCLUSIONS:Class I obesity is associated with delays in achieving a literature-defined PASS threshold after primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS. However, future research should consider incorporating PASS anchor questions to determine whether obesity truly carries a risk of delayed achievement of a satisfactory state of health as it pertains to the hip. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III, retrospective comparative study.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To assess clinical outcomes among patients aged 50 years or older after primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) with or without labral tears compared with a matched control group of younger patients aged 20 to 35 years old at minimum 5-year follow-up. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective comparative prognostic study using a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent hip arthroscopy with minimum 5-year follow-up. Subjects completed the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS) before surgery and at 5-year follow-up. Patients aged ≥50 years were propensity score matched on sex, body mass index, and preoperative mHHS to controls aged 20 to 35 years. Pre- to postoperative changes in mHHS and NAHS were compared between groups using the Mann-Whitney U test. Hip survivorship rates and minimum clinically important difference achievement rates were compared between groups using the Fisher exact test. P values <.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS:In total, 35 older patients (mean age 58.3 years) were matched to 35 younger controls (mean age 29.2 years). Both groups were mostly female (65.7%) and had equal mean body mass index (26.0). Acetabular chondral lesions of Outerbridge grades III-IV were more prevalent in the older group (older 28.6% vs younger 0%, P < .001). Five-year reoperation rates were not significantly different between the groups (older 8.6% vs younger 2.9%, P = .61). There were no significant intergroup differences in 5-year improvement in mHHS (older 32.7 vs younger 30.6, P = .46) or NAHS (older 34.4 vs younger 37.9, P = .70) or in 5-year minimum clinically important difference achievement rates for the mHHS (older 93.6% vs younger 93.6%, P = 1.00) or NAHS (older 87.1% vs younger 96.8%, P = .35). CONCLUSIONS:There are no significant differences in reoperation rates and patient-reported outcomes between patients aged ≥50 years versus matched controls aged 20 to 35 years after primary hip arthroscopy for FAI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III, retrospective comparative prognostic study.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The indications for surgical treatment of proximal hamstring ruptures are continuing to be refined. The purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients who underwent operative or nonoperative management of proximal hamstring ruptures. METHODS:A retrospective review of the electronic medical record identified all patients who were treated for a proximal hamstring rupture at our institution from 2013 to 2020. Patients were stratified into two groups, nonoperative or operative management, which were matched in a 2:1 ratio based on demographics (age, gender, and body mass index), chronicity of the injury, tendon retraction, and number of tendons torn. All patients completed a series of PROs including the Perth Hamstring Assessment Tool (PHAT), Visual Analogue Scale for pain (VAS), and the Tegner Activity Scale. Statistical analysis was performed using multi-variable linear regression and Mann-Whitney testing to compare nonparametric groups. RESULTS:Fifty-four patients (mean age = 49.6 ± 12.9 years; median: 49.1; range: 19-73) with proximal hamstring ruptures treated nonoperatively were successfully matched 2:1 to 27 patients who had underwent primary surgical repair. There were no differences in PROs between the nonoperative and operative cohorts (n.s.). Chronicity of the injury and older age correlated with significantly worse PROs across the entire cohort (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:In this cohort of primarily middle-aged patients with proximal hamstring ruptures with less than three centimeters of tendon retraction, there was no difference in patient-reported outcome scores between matched cohorts of operatively and nonoperatively managed injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To determine whether the presence of spine pathology affects clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) in the setting of hip-spine syndrome (HSS). METHODS:A systematic review of PUBMED and Cochrane was conducted. Primary research articles evaluating patient-reported outcomes (PRO) after hip arthroscopy for FAIS in the presence of concomitant spine pathology were considered. RESULTS:Literature review identified twelve studies meeting criteria. In 2109 FAIS patients undergoing hip arthroscopy, 591 had concomitant spine pathology. Baseline PROs in the hip-spine (mHHS: 39.8-65.29 versus 56.9-78.8, 8 studies; NAHS: 42.2-51.5 versus 68.2-75.2, 4 studies; HOS-ADL: 45.9-71.1 versus 49.3-89.51, 9 studies; HOS-Sport: 22.8-49.6 versus 50.6-73.1, 3 studies; iHOT-12: 38.0 versus 66.0, 1 study; VAS Pain: 6.43-6.56 versus 1.18-3.60, 3 studies; VAS Satisfaction: 7.18-7.46 range at follow up, 2 studies) and control (mHHS: 39.3-64.9 versus 70.2-92.6, 6 studies; NAHS: 42.8-54.2 versus 74.0-87.1, 4 studies; HOS-ADL: 59.0-76.4 versus 75.4-97.1, 4 studies; HOS-Sport: 38.1-55.1 versus 60.9-93.9, 3 studies; iHOT-12: 43.4 versus 89.8, 1 study; VAS Pain: 6.18-6.22 versus 1.82-3.44, 2 studies; VAS Satisfaction: 7.74-8.22 range at follow up, 2 studies). Minimal clinically important difference threshold rates achieved in the hip-spine (44.1-86.7, 4 studies) cohorts were significantly lower than control (79.4-88.2%; 4 studies) cohorts in 3 studies. Patient acceptable symptomatic state threshold rates achieved in the hip-spine (42-63.5, 3 studies) cohorts were significantly lower than control (58.8-81.0, 3 studies) in 1 study. There was no statistical difference in complication and re-operation rates between cohorts. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:FAIS patients with concomitant HSS have improved but inferior outcomes after hip arthroscopy compared to patients without HSS.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Prior studies of hamstring tendon tears have reported varied findings on whether increased delay from injury to surgery is associated with worse outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether increased time from injury to surgical repair is associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with proximal hamstring ruptures. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Patients who underwent surgical repair of a proximal hamstring rupture from 2010 to 2019 were followed for a minimum of 24 months from surgery. A cutoff of 6 weeks from injury to the time of surgery was used to distinguish between acute and chronic ruptures. All patients completed patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) at the final follow-up. Multiple factors were analyzed for their effects on PROs including time to surgery, amount of tendon retraction, and demographics such as sex and age. RESULTS:Complete data sets were obtained for 38 patients at a mean follow-up of 4.9 years. All data is reported as a mean ± standard deviation. Patients who underwent acute repair of proximal hamstring ruptures had significantly greater Perth Hamstring Assessment Tool (PHAT) scores than those who underwent chronic repair (76.9 ± 18.8 vs 60.6 ± 18.2, p = 0.01). Increased time to surgery was significantly correlated with worse PHAT scores (ρ = - 0.47, p = 0.003). There was no difference in PROs based on the amount of tendon retraction, number of tendons torn, sex, smoking status, or BMI. CONCLUSIONS:This study found that acute repair performed within 6 weeks of injury appears to yield improved PROs compared to chronic repair. These data highlight the importance of timely and accurate diagnosis of proximal hamstring ruptures and early operative intervention for surgical candidates.

Eponyms, while inherently flawed, remain a constant in medical vernacular, especially in orthopaedic surgery. It is essential to understand how these eponyms came to be named and for whom they were named after in order to understand their correct usage and definitions. In this second part of a 2-part review, we describe the history of eponym usage in the radiography of the adult hip; who, when, what, where, and how. We hope to provide a historical perspective of interest, resolve any controversies in semantic definitions, and create a comprehensive library of eponymous terms related to adult hip radiography.

Purpose: To describe the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of heterotopic ossification (HO) excision as well as the results of a standardized HO prophylaxis protocol among a group of patients who previously underwent open or arthroscopic hip surgery. Methods: Patients who developed HO after index hip surgery and were subsequently treated with arthroscopic excision of HO and postoperative HO prophylaxis using 2 weeks of indomethacin and radiation were retrospectively identified. All patients were seen by a single surgeon and were treated with the same arthroscopic technique. Patients were also placed on a regimen of 2 weeks of indomethacin 50 mg and radiation therapy with 700 cGy in one fraction on the first postoperative day. Outcomes assessed included recurrence of HO and conversion to total hip arthroplasty by latest follow-up. Other outcomes included Modified Harris Hip Scores and Non-Arthritic Hip Scores, which were collected preoperatively and at 1-year and 2-year follow-up. Results: There were 5 female and 9 male subjects, with an average age of 39 years (range 22-66) and average body mass index of 27.1 (19.1-37.5). Average follow-up time was 46 months (range 4-136). No patients had experienced HO recurrence by latest follow-up. Only 2 patients converted to total hip arthroplasty, one at 6 months and the other at 11 months postexcision. Average outcome scores improved by 2-year follow-up (average Modified Harris Hip Scores 52.8 improved to 86.5, average Non-Arthritic Hip Scores 49.4 improved to 83.8). Conclusions: Minimally invasive arthroscopic excision of HO and postoperative prophylaxis with combined indomethacin and radiation therapy effectively treats and prevents the recurrence of HO. Level of Evidence: Level IV, case series, therapeutic.