Wang, Allen S.

Background: Distal femoral osteotomy (DFO) may be performed via either a lateral opening-wedge (LOW) or medial closing-wedge (MCW) osteotomy with meaningful clinical improvements; however, the effects of each DFO technique on leg length have not been well characterized. Purpose: To (1) validate a radiographic measurement technique to predict leg length changes after DFO and (2) compare the change in leg length after DFO for the LOW and MCW techniques. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Preoperative and postoperative full-length standing radiographs obtained from patients who underwent DFO at 1 of 2 academic medical centers were evaluated. The region on the medial (for LOW) or lateral (for MCW) distal femur cortex that would be the “hinge point” during DFO was identified on the radiographs. The distance from the center of the femoral head to the hinge point ( A ), the distance from the hinge point to the center of the talus ( B ), and the resultant angle (α) were measured. The equation presented within the text was used to plot the predicted leg length changes corresponding to the change in alpha angle produced by DFO. Comparisons were made between (1) the predicted and measured leg length changes after DFO and (2) the measured leg length change after LOW versus MCW osteotomies. Results: For both LOW (n = 10) and MCW (n = 10) osteotomies, the predicted leg length change was equivalent to the true change measured on postoperative radiographs (LOW: P = .16; MCW: P = .85). There was a mean lengthening of 0.85 mm (range, 0.5-1.3 mm) for every 1° of mechanical axis correction with LOW DFO, compared to a mean shortening of 0.45 mm (range, 0.1-1.4 mm) per 1° of MCW correction. Conclusion: Preoperative radiographic imaging can be used to predict leg length change after DFO with high reliability. Surgeons can expect approximately 0.85 mm of lengthening per 1° of DFO correction when performing LOW osteotomies, compared to 0.45 mm of shortening per 1° of correction for MCW osteotomies. However, the most accurate prediction results from patient-specific calculations.

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is one of the most common orthopaedic procedures and one of the most well studied. Despite extensive research dedicated to ACLR, there is limited understanding of how chronic inflammatory systemic diseases (CIDs) such as rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus affect outcomes. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of ACLR in cohorts of patients with and without CID. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective query of a regional data set was conducted for all patients who underwent ACLR from 1990 to 2021 for traumatic ACL rupture. All patients with CID were identified and propensity matched to non-CID controls. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were identified through retrospective chart review, and patients were contacted for subjective outcomes. Results: A total of 30 patients with ACLR and a diagnosis of CID were identified. These patients were propensity matched to 120 non-CID controls. Baseline demographic and surgical characteristics demonstrated no statistical differences. Follow-up duration was similar between the CID and non-CID groups (mean, 14.6 vs 14.2 years; P = .868). The CID cohort had a higher arthrofibrosis rate (16.7% vs 4.3%; P = .031), higher osteoarthritis rate (33.3% vs 16.7%; P = .041), higher total knee arthroplasty (TKA) rate (16.7% vs 3.3%; P = .016), and earlier time to TKA (14.7 vs 23.5 years; P = .032). Knee range of motion, infection rate, retear rate, time to retear, and time to osteoarthritis were not statistically different between the cohorts. The CID cohort had higher visual analog scale pain scores (mean, 2.00 vs 1.20; P = .043) but slightly higher satisfaction (mean, 3.92 vs 3.39; P = .043). There were no differences in preinjury Tegner, postoperative Tegner, change in Tegner, or IKDC score. In a univariate Cox regression model, the CID cohort had a retear hazard ratio of 1.43 (95% CI, 0.46-4.51; P = .537). Kaplan-Meier survival revealed no significant differences in retear-free survival between the CID and non-CID cohorts at 25 years (85.7% vs 87.3%; P = .53). The CID cohort had a TKA hazard ratio of 3.94 (95% CI, 1.05-14.8; P = .042). Kaplan-Meier survival demonstrated significantly decreased TKA-free survival at 25 years in the CID cohort (64.9% vs 91.2%; P = .029). Conclusion: CID increases the incidence of arthrofibrosis, osteoarthritis, and TKA in those undergoing ACLR. Patients with CID also undergo TKA significantly sooner than non-CID counterparts. Notably, the majority of patient-reported outcome measures are no worse in patients who have a CID diagnosis. Thus, ACLR constructs themselves may not necessarily fare worse in patients with CID. Nonetheless, these patients need to be cautiously counseled on the clinical outlook after their ACLR.

Background: Bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMTs) are a common subtype of meniscal tears that represent a clinical challenge. Arthroscopic inside-out repair has been considered the gold standard in treatment; however, an all-inside approach has gained widespread popularity, with limited long-term evidence. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to (1) compare long-term clinical outcomes and rates of failure after surgical repair of BHMTs using the all-inside versus inside-out technique, and 2) identify risk factors for failure at long-term follow-up. It was hypothesized that clinical outcomes and rates of failure would be similar between the 2 techniques. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who had undergone surgical repair of BHMTs between 2003 and 2013 at a single institution were identified. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed preoperatively and at the latest follow-up using the Tegner scale, International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, and visual analog scale pain at rest and with activity. A univariate Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify predictors for repair failure, defined as revision meniscal surgery and/or documented meniscal retear. Results: In total, 63 patients were included (37 with inside-out repair, 26 with all-inside repair). At a mean follow-up of 11.2 years, the survival rate for BHMT repair was 63% overall, 70% for all-inside repairs, and 60% for inside-out repairs ( P = .37). The mean time to failure was 2.6 years for all-inside repairs and 2.5 years for inside-out repairs ( P = .98). PROM scores were not significantly different between the 2 repair groups ( P > .22). Univariate Cox proportional hazards model for failure demonstrated that increasing age at surgery was associated with lower failure rates (hazard ratio, 0.91 change per 1-year increase in age; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98) and medial meniscus repair was associated with higher failure rates (hazard ratio, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.14-8.77). Conclusion: Long-term follow-up of BHMT repair demonstrated satisfactory clinical outcomes and failure rates. In appropriately selected patients, the all-inside technique did not compromise outcome as compared with the inside-out repair techniques. For both methods, older age was associated with lower failure rates and medial meniscus repair was associated with increased failure.

Background: Value-based decision-making regarding nonoperative management versus early surgical stabilization for first-time anterior shoulder instability (ASI) events remains understudied. Purpose: To perform (1) a systematic review of the current literature and (2) a Markov model–based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing an initial trial of nonoperative management to arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) for first-time ASI. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A Markov chain Monte Carlo probabilistic model was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of 1000 simulated patients (mean age, 20 years; range, 12-26 years) with first-time ASI undergoing nonoperative management versus ABR. Utility values, recurrence rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined based on the typical patient undergoing each treatment strategy at the authors’ institution. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: The Markov model with Monte Carlo microsimulation demonstrated mean (± standard deviation) 10-year costs for nonoperative management and ABR of $38,649 ± $10,521 and $43,052 ± $9352, respectively. Total QALYs acquired over the 10-year time horizon were 7.67 ± 0.43 and 8.44 ± 0.46 for nonoperative management and ABR, respectively. The ICER comparing ABR with nonoperative management was found to be just $5725/QALY, which falls substantially below the $50,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The mean numbers of recurrences were 2.55 ± 0.31 and 1.17 ± 0.18 for patients initially assigned to the nonoperative and ABR treatment groups, respectively. Of 1000 samples run over 1000 trials, ABR was the optimal strategy in 98.7% of cases, with nonoperative management the optimal strategy in 1.3% of cases. Conclusion: ABR reduces the risk for recurrent dislocations and is more cost-effective despite higher upfront costs when compared with nonoperative management for first-time ASI in the young patient. While all these factors are important to consider in surgical decision-making, ultimate treatment decisions should be made on an individual basis and occur through a shared decision-making process.

Background: The number of hip arthroscopies performed in the United States has grown significantly over the past several decades, with evolving indications and emerging techniques. Purposes: To (1) examine the evolution of hip arthroscopy at 3 tertiary referral centers between 1988 and 2022 and (2) quantify trends in patient demographics and procedures performed. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy at 3 academic centers between 1988 and 2022. Demographic data were collected using standardized forms and operative notes, and intraoperative images were manually reviewed for each patient to determine the specific procedures performed at the time of the hip arthroscopy. Surgical procedures were plotted over time to evaluate trends. Patients were divided into 3 time periods for comparison: early hip arthroscopy from 1988 to 2008, 2009 (the time of the first labral repair in our cohort) to 2015, and 2016 to 2022. Results: A total of 3000 patients (age, 35.7 ± 13.8 years; age range, 10-89 years; female sex, 2109 (70.3%); body mass index, 27.4 ± 6.3 kg/m 2 ) underwent arthroscopic hip procedures between 1988 and 2022. The mean number of cases increased from a mean of 3.2 per year in 1988-2008 to 285.9 per year in 2016-2022 ( P < .001). Labral treatment at the time of primary hip arthroscopy evolved from 100% debridement and 0% repair in 1988-2008 to 5.0% debridement, 94.0% repair, and 1.0% labral reconstruction in 2016-2022 ( P < .001). Cam resection increased from 4.1% in 1988-2008 to 86.9% in 2016-2022 ( P < .001). By 2022, 45 out of 325 cases (13.8%) were revisions. The rate of capsular repair at the time of primary hip arthroscopy increased from 0.0% in 1988-2008 up to 81.0% in 2016-2022. Conclusion: There has been a significant growth of hip arthroscopy volumes as well as a significant transition from use as a tool for diagnosis and labral debridement to procedures restoring native anatomy including labral repair, cam resection, capsular repair, periacetabular osteotomy, and gluteal repair.

Objectives: Radial tears of the meniscus are increasingly treated with repair instead of partial meniscectomy, with satisfactory short-term clinical outcomes. There remains a paucity of mid- and long-term outcomes data for this preservation technique. The purpose of this study was to 1) evaluate the mid- to long-term clinical outcomes and reoperation rate of radial meniscal repair versus bucket-handle meniscal repair and 2) evaluate the outcomes of both surgeries overtime. We hypothesized that radial repair would provide similar outcomes and reoperation rates to that of bucket-handle meniscal repair in this propensity-matched cohort. Methods: A previously identified cohort of radial meniscal tears without concurrent root injuries undergoing surgical repair at a single institution between 2011 and 2015 were reviewed. Inclusion criteria was patients undergoing repair of full-thickness radial tears. Exclusion criteria were patients who had 1) not consented for research follow-up, 2) <2 year of follow-up, 3) high-grade (Outerbridge grade 3 or 4) chondromalacia, 4) knee dislocations or combined anterior cruciate ligament and posterior cruciate ligament injuries, 5) repair of posterior meniscal root tears, and 6) repair of partial radial tears. Propensity matching was performed based on age at surgery, sex, laterality, body mass index (BMI), and concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a comparison pool of 70 bucket-handle meniscal repairs (BHMR). Reoperation-free survival rates, Tegner Activity Score, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores were analyzed. Results: Twenty-four patients (18 males, 6 females, age 22.8 ± 11.9 years, BMI 26.5 ± 5.8) with radial meniscal repair were included in this study. Eighteen of these patients were successfully propensity matched to 18 bucket-handle meniscal tears for an overall mean follow-up of 10.2 ± 1.7 years (range, 7.3-13.5) (Table 1). The 24 radial tear repairs demonstrated significant and durable postoperative improvements at mean 10.2 years across VAS at rest (3.0 ± 2.5 vs 0.5 ± 1.0, p < 0.001), VAS for pain at use (5.8 ± 2.9 vs 1.4 ± 1.9, p < 0.001) Tegner (2.6 ± 1.4 vs 6.8 ± 2.0, p < 0.001) and IKDC (39.8 ± 12.3 vs 84.1 ± 16.5, p < 0.001) (Table 1). Of patients not undergoing reoperation (19), 100% reported being “Satisfied” 4/19 (21%) or “Very Satisfied” 15/19 (79%). When the 18 radial tear repairs were compared to the 18 BHMT repairs, there was no significant difference across VAS for pain at rest (0.6 ± 1.2 vs 0.3 ± 0.7, p = 0.48), VAS for pain at use (1.6 ± 2.1 vs 1.1 ± 1.3, p = 0.48) Tegner (6.9 ± 2.2 vs 6.4 ± 2.1, p = 0.51) and IKDC (83.4 ± 17.4 vs 82.1 ± 14.1, p = 0.83) (Table 2). Importantly, survival without reoperation rates were not statistically different between the 2 groups at 10-year follow-up (14/18 (78%) vs 16/18 (89%), p = 0.37) (Figure 1). There was no significant difference between clinical outcomes (Tegner and IKDC) at final follow-up in the radial repair group as compared to the 4-year mid-term outcomes (p = 0.58 and 0.19 respectively). For the BHMR group, Tegner scores were not significantly different (p = 0.60) compared with their 4-year timepoint; however, IKDC scores at the final timepoint were significantly lower 93.4 ± 3.4 vs 82.1 ± 14.1 (p = 0.01). Notably, both the radial repair and bucket-handle repairs groups reported final follow-up Tegner scores that were not significantly different from their preinjury Tegner scores (p = 0.70 for the radial group and p = 0.62 for the bucket-handle group). Conclusions: At mean 10-year follow-up, significant clinical improvements and high rates of satisfaction were observed for radial meniscal tear repair. When propensity matched, radial and BHMR demonstrated durable improvements in postoperative VAS for pain, IKDC, and Tegner scores, as well as similar, acceptable reoperation rates. [Figure: see text]

Objectives: Medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) render the meniscus essentially non-functional, resulting in increased peak contact pressures, reduced forced dissipation, and increased risk of early osteoarthritis. Transtibial root repair has shown promise at restoring meniscus function and improving clinical outcomes; however, a paucity of literature exists evaluating the prognostic clinical and radiographic factors for poor outcomes following isolated meniscus root repair. The purpose of this study was to 1) describe the patient reported clinical outcomes after isolated MMPRT repair at minimum 2-year follow-up, 2) determine the retear and conversion to arthroplasty rates, and 3) identify prognostic factors for clinical outcomes and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) achievement. Methods: Isolated MMPRT repairs from 2010-2020 at three institutions in Rochester, MN; Jacksonville, FL; and Phoenix, AZ were followed prospectively for postoperative Tegner Activity Scale, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, IKDC, Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), subjective improvement and knee preference, and subsequent surgeries at minimum 2-year follow up. PASS for IKDC was set at 69. Demographics, injury characteristics, and surgical details were collected. Results: Eighty-four patients were included in this study (age: 49.7 ± 11.0 years [range: 13-76]; sex: 75.0% female; BMI: 31.6 ± 6.9 kg/m 2 [MH1] ). Forty-five patients (53.6%) had BMI >30 kg/m 2 , and 14 patients (16.7%) reported a history of active smoking (Table 1). Mean medial compartment Outerbridge grade was 2.0 ± 1.1, with 73.8% of patients having grade ≥2 changes. Mean preinjury Tegner score, preoperative VAS at rest, and preoperative VAS with use were 4.6 ± 2.4, 3.6 ± 2.7, and 6.5 ± 2.5, respectively. At final follow-up (mean 3.9 ± 2.0 years), mean Tegner score was 4.3 ± 1.8, mean VAS at rest was 1.2 ± 2.0, and mean VAS with use was 2.3 ± 2.2. There was no significant difference in preinjury vs. postoperative Tegner scores (p = 0.208), and preinjury Tegner was significantly positively correlated with postoperative Tegner (p < 0.001). Significant (p < 0.001) postoperative improvements in both VAS at rest and with use were observed. Mean postoperative IKDC score was 73.3 ± 17.0, and mean FJS was 59.6 ± 27.9 at final follow-up. When asked to rate their knee at final follow-up compared to before surgery on a scale from 0-5 (0 = “significantly worse”, 1 = “mildly worse”, 3 = “unchanged”, 4 = “mildly improved”, 5 = “significantly improved”), the mean score 4.6 ± 0.8. Forty-one patients (74.5%) reported significant improvement, 8 (14.5%) reported mild improvement, 3 (5.5%) reported no change, and 3 (5.5%) reported mild worsening. No patients reported significant worsening. When asked which knee they preferred, 13 patients (26.0%) reported preferring their operated knee, compared to 18 (36.0%) who preferred their nonoperated knee. The remaining 19 patients (38.0%) had no preference for one knee over the other. A summary of all patient reported outcomes is reported in Table 2. At the time of final follow-up, 16 (19.0%) of patients had reached a clinical endpoint. Twenty-nine patients (34.5%) underwent postoperative MRIs at an average of 1.5 ± 1.7 years (range: 0.3-5.9 years) after surgery[MH1] . Twelve of the MRIs (41.4%) were ordered for evaluation of continued pain, while 7 (24.1%) were ordered for new pain or injury, and 10 (34.5%) were ordered for research purposes. Five patients (6.0%) had MRI-confirmed retears of the MMPRT repair at an average of 1.1 ± 1.3 years (range: 0.3-3.4) after surgery[HMMP2] , one of which was in an asymptomatic patient who received a follow-up MRI for research purposes. No patients underwent revision MMPRT repair surgery, and 7 patients (8.3%) progressed to arthroplasty (6 TKA, 1 UKA) at an average of 3.4 ± 4.3 years (range 0.6-12.6), one of whom also sustained a root retear. Therefore, the surgical failure was noted in 11 patients, corresponding to a surgical failure rate of 13.1% in this cohort. Of note, three of the five patients with MRI-confirmed retears had not received any further surgical intervention[MH3] [BA(M4] at the time of final follow-up 2.7, 3.8, and 8.5 years after surgery. Additionally, there were six non-MMPRT revision, non-arthroplasty subsequent surgeries in five patients, and there were three patients (3.6%) who sustained new medial meniscus tears 2.8-, 3.6-, and 5.9-years postoperatively, respectively. A concise summary of clinical endpoints can be found in Table 3 and Table 4. Significantly more females experienced surgical failures than males (17.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.040), and significantly more patients with medial compartment Outerbridge grades ≥2 experienced surgical failure than those with grades <2 (17.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.034). Additionally, patients who failed did have significantly higher mean KL grades than those who did not (1.4 ± 0.9 vs. 0.7 ± 0.7, p = 0.012). There were no other significant differences in the demographic or pathologic characteristics of patients who experienced surgical failure and those who did not. Of note, 37% of patients failed to achieve IKDC PASS, with smoking status associated with a 15-point reduction in IKDC (p=0.010) Conclusions: Patients undergoing transtibial root repair demonstrate restoration of pre-injury activity levels, significant clinical improvements in pain and function, and low surgical failure rates at minimum 2-year follow-up, with 89% of patients reporting subjective improvement after surgery. However, only 63% of patients were able to achieve PASS thresholds, suggesting that while effective, additional research on root repair technical and clinical optimization is warranted.

Objectives: Wrestling is a physically demanding sport with young athletes prone to traumatic shoulder instability (SI). However, there is a paucity of data evaluating the results of shoulder instability surgery (SIS) in this cohort of athletes. The purpose of this study is to assess reoperation rates, patient-reported outcomes (PRO), and return to wrestling (RTW) following SIS in a cohort of competitive wrestlers. Methods: All competitive wrestlers with a history of SI and subsequent surgery at a single institution between 1996 and 2020 were identified. All directions of SI (anterior SI [ASI], posterior SI [PSI], and traumatic multidirectional SI [TMDI]) were analyzed. Exclusion criteria included revision SIS and less than 2 years of clinical follow-up. Patients were contacted for determination of reinjury rates, return to wrestling (RTW), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index (WOSI) scores. Results: Ultimately, 104 wrestlers were included at a mean follow-up of 5.2 years (range, 2.0 – 22.0). Fifty-eight (55.8%) wrestlers presented for evaluation after a single SI event while 46 (44.2%) sustained multiple events prior to presentation. ASI was the most common direction (n = 79; 76.0%) followed by PSI (n = 14; 13.4%), and TMDI (n = 11; 10.6%). Surgical treatment was most commonly an arthroscopic soft tissue stabilization (n = 88; 84.6%), followed by an open soft tissue repair (n = 13; 12.5%) and open bony augmentation (n = 3; 2.9%) (Table 1). RTW occurred in 57.3% of wrestlers at a mean of 9.8 ± 9.6 months. Recurrent instability was the most common complication in 18 (17.3%) wrestlers. Revision SIS was performed in 15 (14.6%) wrestlers (Table 2). Across the entire cohort, Kaplan-Meier survivorship free from recurrent instability (Figure 1) and revision surgery (Figure 2) was 91.4% and 98.1% at 1 year, 90.4% and 92.5% at 2 years, 71.9% and 70.7% at 5 years, and 71.9% and 66.5% at 10 years, respectively. Pre-operative recurrent instability was an independent risk factor for post-operative recurrent instability (Hazard ratio [HR], 3.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33 – 11.03; P = .012). Conclusions: Anterior shoulder instability was the most common direction among competitive wrestlers presenting for SIS. Wrestlers with multiple dislocations prior to initial clinical presentation were 3.8 times more likely to experience post-operative recurrent instability.

Objectives: A DFO can be performed via two techniques: a lateral opening wedge (LOW) osteotomy and a medial closing wedge (MCW) osteotomy. Small case series have looked at how leg length is affected by a lateral opening wedge DFO, however, there is a lack of research comparing these leg length changes to medial closing DFO. Additionally, no studies have presented a model for predicting the leg length changes that will occur following DFO of either technique. Given that limb length differences can lead to accelerated osteoarthritis, back pain, hip pain, and other issues, being able to predict which technique can help prevent this pathology without a secondary procedure would be an important finding. Finally, the medial closing wedge osteotomy can allow for immediate weight-bearing while the lateral opening wedge does not and typically has associated cost with bone grafting. Therefore, we designed this study to validate a tool designed to predict leg length changes after distal femoral osteotomy (DFO) and compare changes following medial closing wedge (MCW) and lateral opening wedge (LOW) techniques. Methods: A collaborative retrospective review was performed of patients from Rush and Mayo Clinic databases who received a DFO and had full-length standing radiographs both pre-and postoperatively. For each preoperative radiograph, the region on the medial (for LOW) or lateral (for MCW) distal femur cortex that would be the “hinge point” during DFO was identified. The distances from the center of the femoral head to the hinge point (“A”), from the hinge point to the center of the tibial plafond (“B”), and the resultant angle at the hinge point (“α”) were measured (Figure 1). Figure 2 demonstrates the equation used to plot a graph of the predicted leg length changes corresponding to the change in α angle produced by DFO. Final leg length was calculated on postoperative radiographs, and the difference between predicted and true leg length changes was compared using paired Wilcoxon signed rank exact tests. Results: 10 MCW and 10 LOW patients were included. For both LOW (n=10) and MCW (n=10) osteotomies, the predicted leg length change was equivalent to the true change measured on postoperative radiographs (LOW P=0.16; MCW P=0.85). LOW DFO’s had 5.10 ± 2.77 mm (range: 1.45-10.87 mm) of leg lengthening, compared to 2.61 ± 1.25 mm (range: 0.50-4.56 mm) of leg shortening (p<0.001) for MCW (Figure 3). On average, there was 0.85 mm of lengthening (range 0.5-1.3 mm) for every 1° of mechanical axis correction with LOW DFO, compared to 0.45 mm of shortening (range: 0.1-1.4 mm) per 1° of MCW correction. Conclusions: This study presents a tool to accurately and reliably predict the leg length changes seen after both medial closing and lateral opening wedge DFO’s. Knowing what leg length changes to expect with each DFO technique is a useful tool that surgeons can utilize during surgical planning. Preoperative radiographic imaging can be used to predict leg length change following DFO with high reliability and accuracy. Surgeons can expect approximately 0.85mm of lengthening per 1° of DFO correction when performing LOW, compared to 0.45mm of shortening per 1° correction for MCW osteotomies.

Objectives: Hip arthroscopy is rapidly advancing, with literature increasingly reporting positive outcomes at short- and mid-term follow-up; however, available long-term data remains limited. The purpose of this study is to evaluate long-term outcomes of primary hip arthroscopy at minimum 10-year follow-up at two academic centers by describing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and determining reoperation, revision, and total hip arthroplasty (THA) rates. Methods: Primary hip arthroscopies performed between January 1988 and April 2013 at 2 academic centers were evaluated for postoperative PROs including Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Tegner Activity Scale score, Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living and Sport Scale (HOS-ADL/HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), surgery satisfaction, function, and reoperations. Results: Two-hundred ninety-four primary hip arthroscopies with a mean age of 40±14 years; 66% female; and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 27±6 kg/m 2 were followed for mean 12±3 years (range: 10-24). Labral debridement and repair were performed in 41% and 59% of patients, respectively. All patients underwent interportal capsulotomy and 2% underwent T-capsulotomy. Eleven percent of patients underwent capsular repair. At final follow-up, patients reported mean VAS at rest of 2±2, with use of 3±3, iHOT-12 of 68±27, NAHS of 81±18, mHHS of 79±17, HOS-ADL of 82±19, and HOS-SS of 74±25. Mean surgical satisfaction was 8.4±2.4 (Table 1). Sixty-five hips (23%) underwent THA and 33 (11%) underwent revision arthroscopy (Table 2). Risk factors for THA included older age (p<0.001), higher BMI (p<0.001), lower lateral center-edge angle (p=0.039), larger alpha angle (p=0.001), higher Tönnis grade (p=0.011), labral debridement (p=0.004), and capsular nonrepair (p=0.030). Patients undergoing combined labral and capsular repair demonstrated a THA conversion rate of 3% compared to 31% for patients undergoing combined labral debridement and capsular nonrepair (p=0.006) (Table 3). Labral repair trended towards increased 10-year THA-free survival (84% vs. 77%, p=0.085) while capsular repair demonstrated significantly increased 10-year THA-free survival (97% vs 79%, p=0.032) (Figure 1). Conclusions: At minimum 10-year follow-up, patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy demonstrated high rates of satisfaction and acceptable outcome scores. In total, 11% of patients underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery with a THA conversion rate of 23%. Conversion to THA was associated with patient factors including older age and higher Tönnis grade as well as potentially modifiable surgical factors including labral debridement and capsular nonrepair.