Kweon, Christopher Y.

Case: This case highlights the utility and outcomes of an Achilles tendon bone-block allograft in reconstructing the patellar tendon of a 44-year-old man in the setting of a high-riding, irreducible patella after a chronic patellar tendon rupture of 14 years. Conclusion: In cases of a neglected patellar tendon rupture with an irreducible high-riding patella, an Achilles tendon bone-block allograft can provide the length and tissue necessary to reconstruct the extensor mechanism. Although reconstruction may not be anatomic, patients can still experience great subjective and objective functional improvement with restoration of the extensor mechanism even after delayed reconstruction.

Background: Recent literature has suggested that capsular closure following hip arthroscopy restores native hip-joint kinematics and may lead to better patient-reported outcomes, especially in high-level athletes 1–4 . Description: Capsular closure of the hip occurs following standard hip arthroscopy, which typically includes labral repair and osteoplasty of the femoral neck and/or acetabulum accessed through an interportal capsulotomy. Viewing through an anterolateral portal with use of a 70° scope, a suture-passing device loaded with a #2 FiberWire (Arthrex) is passed down into the mid-anterior portal. The suture is then passed through the anterior aspect of the proximal leaflet of the capsulotomy. The suture-passing device is then passed through the distal leaflet, and the previously passed suture is grasped and brought out of the cannula. The capsular bites are typically made 1 cm from the edge of the capsule. This process is repeated 1.5 cm posteriorly to the initially placed suture. Typical capsular closure takes 2 to 3 sutures for complete closure. Once the sutures are passed, they are tied with use of half-hitches and excess suture is cut. Alternatives: Alternatives include capsular plication, which is more frequently performed in the setting of capsular laxity preoperatively or connective-tissue disorders 5,6 . Additionally, there is evidence suggesting that leaving the capsulotomy unrepaired may lead to similar results in select populations 7 . Rationale: This procedure is performed largely secondary to the restoration of native anatomy and kinematics of the hip joint 3,8 . Arthroscopy of the hip requires a capsulotomy in order to access the joint, unlike other, more superficial joints such as the shoulder. Capsular closure is often technically challenging and adds length to the procedure. However, recent literature has shown improved patient-reported outcomes with routine capsular closure specifically among high-level athletes 9,10 . Expected Outcomes: Routine capsular closure has been associated with good mid-term patient-reported outcomes 10 . Patients who undergo hip arthroscopy and routine capsular closure can expect to meet the minimal clinically important difference and the patient acceptable symptomatic state for the modified Harris hip score and the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living component. Patients who participate in high-level sports activities may experience a quicker return to play and more normal kinematics with routine capsular closure. Important Tips: Clear off the capsule immediately following the capsulotomy. Utilize an over-the-top view to better visualize the capsule. Place the sutures from anterior to posterior.

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.

Purpose To define a distraction distance (pull length) cut‐off that would differentiate those patients with hip microinstability and those without the disorder, called the Pull‐Out Test. Methods In total, 100 consecutive patients undergoing hip arthroscopy were included in the study. Patients were separated into a hip microinstability group (HMI) and non‐hip microinstability group (NHI) based on the results of Beighton's score, the abduction–extension–external rotation test, hip extension–external rotation examination, and the prone instability test. Inclusion criteria were patients with an magnetic resonance imaging‐proven labral tear who did not respond to conservative treatment and underwent hip arthroscopy. Exclusion criteria included those patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy, had a previous surgery on the ipsilateral hip, or had severe arthritis in the hip. The Pull‐Out Test was performed before surgery with the hip in 30° of abduction and the foot in 30° of external rotation. A blinded examiner places gross axial traction on the leg until a firm end point is reached. The distraction distance between the femoral head and acetabulum is the pull length. Results In total, 32 patients made up the HMI group whereas 68 patients were in the NHI group. The average pull length for the NHI group was 0.9 ± 0.1 cm and 1.7 ± 0.4 cm for the HMI group ( P < .001). Subtracting the standard deviation from the HMI group average, when defined a cut off for hip microinstability as 1.3 cm. Using this value, we found the Pull‐Out Test to have a sensitivity of 0.91 and specificity of 0.96. The positive predictive value for the Pull Test was 0.91 and the negative predictive value 0.97. Conclusions The Pull‐Out Test is a useful test in identifying and confirming the presence of hip microinstability in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. A pull‐length of 1.3 cm or greater is consistent with the presence of microinstability with a specificity of 94% and a sensitivity of 96%. Level of Evidence Level IV, diagnostic, case‐control study.