Scott, Parker

Objective The incidence of hip osteoarthritis (OA) is increasing with the aging population, leading to interest in intra-articular orthobiologic injections to alleviate symptoms and potentially slow disease progression. This systematic review aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes associated with six orthobiologic therapies for hip OA: hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), autologous cells therapy (ACT), microfragmented adipose tissue (MFAT), and bone marrow aspirate (BMA) and its concentration (BMAC). Methods We conducted a literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included in our review if they used at least one of the four orthobiologic therapies and reported on the clinical outcome using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). Since there is a large variability among clinical outcomes, we focused on the three most utilized PROMs (VAS, WOMAC, and HHS) and the latest follow-up time point. Results Of the 716 studies reviewed, thirty-six studies (n=36) fit inclusion criteria. There were 21 studies examining HA, 11 on PRP, 3 for MFAT, 2 for ACT, and 3 on BMA/BMAC. Eight studies were randomized controlled trials and 28 were cohort studies. The mean age of the patient population ranged from 45 ± 17.0 to 74 ± 8.0. The baseline grade of osteoarthritis ranged from 1-4 but was most reported as moderate (2-3). Overall, there was an improvement in PROMs at the latest follow-up after receiving orthobiologic interventions. Discussion Orthobiologic injections have shown promise for improving PROMs in patients with hip OA. Future studies should evaluate long-term efficacy and include randomized trials to establish efficacy.

Purpose Hip arthroscopy is a minimally invasive procedure which has been increasingly used among athletes for several hip joint related pathologies as it allows for a faster recovery. However, objective return to sport criteria have not been described previously among this population. Objective To systematically review the literature to evaluate and describe the objective return-to-sport (RTS) criteria to release patients back to sport following hip arthroscopy. Methods We conducted a comprehensive literature search according to the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included in the review if patients underwent a hip arthroscopy procedure and the study described criteria for their patients to RTS. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion and extracted study characteristics and objective RTS criteria. Results Of the 306 that were a part of our original search, 6 studies fit our inclusion criteria. There were 250 athletes (average age: 26.1) and 263 hips which underwent hip arthroscopy surgery. Of these athletes, the cohort was on average 46.5% female and an average of 91.2% of athletes returned to sport about 6 months following surgery. The primary sports these athletes participated in were soccer, swimming, skiing/snowboarding, and hockey. The objective RTS measures that were generally described included sport specific tests, range-of-motion, hip strength, and performance-based criteria. Conclusion There are minimal studies who described objective RTS criteria to release patients back to sport following hip arthroscopy procedures. Sports specific tests, hip strength, and performance-based criteria were mentioned as objective criteria to release patients back to sport.

Background: Diagnostic delay and error represent pervasive problems in healthcare with grave implications for treatment and prognosis. Though characteristic of human cognition, cognitive biases commonly contribute to delays in the physician decision-making process, particularly in atypical or complex presentations in youth. Methods: We present a case series of three adolescent athletes with varied clinical presentations whose diagnostic conceptualization and treatment were delayed in part due to cognitive biases with consequences for overall health and development, as well as return to sport. Results: The first case depicts how an atypical presentation of celiac disease was attributed to growing pains, illustrating the contribution of anchoring bias and confirmation bias in medical decision making. The second case represents the misattribution of chronic exertional compartment syndrome pain to growing pains and post-exercise soreness, highlighting the influence of ascertainment bias on the initial misdiagnosis. The third case describes how a vertebral mass was misdiagnosed as a left shoulder strain from weightlifting, depicting the contribution of anchoring bias and ascertainment bias in medical decision making. Conclusions: Early recognition of cognitive biases, including confirmation bias, anchoring bias, and ascertainment bias, is crucial for improving medical decision making, particularly in cases of rare or atypical presentations, reducing unnecessary diagnostic delays, and setting more realistic patient expectations. Through discussion of these cases, we highlight concrete steps to manage bias to facilitate timely diagnosis within the primary care and sports medicine setting.

Abstract Background: Intra-articular corticosteroid injections (ICSI) have been shown to be an effective symptomatic non-operative treatment for hip osteoarthritis (OA) and other joint-related pain. There has been recent dispute over the true risk of complications from ICSI specifically when injected into the hip. Avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head has been reported to occur in up to 30.5% of patients after undergoing hip ICSI, and up to 50.6% of patients experiencing osteoarthritis progression in as little as 3 months following injection. Purpose: To analyze the current protocol of hip ICSIs performed by two fellowship-trained non-operative sports medicine physicians and assess the rate of femoral head avascular necrosis. We hypothesized that the rate of AVN will be less than what has been recently reported in the literature. Study Design: Retrospective chart review Methods: Patients that underwent at least one intra-articular corticosteroid hip injection by two fellowship trained non-operative sports medicine physicians at this institution were identified using an institutional database. Exclusion criteria included injections with contrast dye used for imaging, injections that administered orthobiologics to the intra-articular, and non-intra-articular injections. Procedure notes were reviewed for anesthetic and steroid type, dosage, and needle size. Each chart was screened for demographic information, post-injection infections, AVN diagnosis, and subsequent hip replacement. 10 patients were identified with an AVN diagnosis. Their MRNs were sent to a board-certified radiologist at the same medical institution. The radiologist was blinded to the patient’s chart and instructed to identify the first radiograph with evidence of AVN. Patients were excluded if the reviewer did not agree with the diagnosis as it appeared in the medical chart or the AVN developed post-traumatically. Results: 449 patients, 530 hips, underwent 1.8 ± 1.4 ICSIs and 16.3% underwent THA at an average of 2.2 ± 2.3 years following their first injection. Of the 530 hips that underwent ICSI, only 1 hip demonstrated findings of AVN on radiographs following the first injection, and this patient had been taking oral prednisone for over 20 years. Conclusions: Intra-articular corticosteroid injections are a relatively safe symptomatic treatment option for hip pain secondary to both OA and non-OA pathology to be considered when other non-operative treatment options have failed. While the use of steroids comes with an inherent risk of osteonecrosis and cartilage damage, these results demonstrate that, when performed properly with ultrasound guidance and sterile technique, the risk of femoral head avascular necrosis is minimal.

Background: While patients may report painful or prominent hardware after tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO), little is known about the frequency, associated factors, and outcomes after removal of symptomatic hardware. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to investigate the incidence of hardware removal after TTO due to pain or complications, factors associated with hardware removal, and postoperative outcomes after removal. It was hypothesized that clinical outcomes would be similar between patients who underwent TTO without hardware removal and those who underwent TTOs and subsequently hardware removal. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent TTO at a single institution from 2000 to 2023. Age at the time of the index surgery, sex, race, body mass index, number and size of screws, tibial tubercle–trochlear groove distance, and reason for hardware removal were collected retrospectively. Knee radiographs were reviewed for measurement of soft tissue–hardware distance. Patients were contacted via email to capture final patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). A univariate logistic regression model was used to determine factors associated with hardware removal. Results: A total of 152 patients representing 171 knees were included. Of the overall cohort, 38 knees (22.2%) in 32 patients underwent TTO with subsequent hardware removal. The most common reason for hardware removal was anterior knee pain (79%). Compared with patients aged 11 to 20 years, patients aged 21 to 30 years demonstrated higher odds of undergoing hardware removal (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.51-9.44; P = .009). Compared with a soft tissue–hardware distance of 0 to 4.9 mm, a distance of 10.0 to 14.9 mm demonstrated lower odds of hardware removal (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07-0.84; P = .027). Visual analog scale scores (0-10 scale) improved by a mean of 3.6 points after hardware removal ( P = .003). In patients undergoing hardware removal for pain, no difference in final PROMs was found compared with patients who underwent TTO without hardware removal. Conclusion: Hardware removal in patients undergoing TTO was mainly attributed to hardware-related pain/irritation. On average, pain scores improved after hardware removal. There was no difference in final PROMs between patients who had their hardware removed due to pain (eg, without any clinically relevant concomitant pathology) and patients who did not require hardware removal. Size and number of screws were not associated with a subsequent hardware removal procedure. The thickness of the soft tissue envelope overlying implanted hardware was inconsistently associated with lower odds of hardware removal.

Background: Managing patients with recurrent anterior shoulder instability and glenoid bony deficiency remains a challenge. Multiple graft options, including iliac crest, distal clavicle, coracoid, and distal tibia allograft have been used. There is a growing body of evidence that supports distal tibia allograft for glenoid restoration in patients with shoulder instability due to its ability to restore the articular surface as well as the glenoid depth and curvature. Indications: Surgical indications for anterior glenoid reconstruction with distal tibia allograft combined with open capsular shift include patients with recurrent shoulder instability and glenoid bone loss. Technique Description: A deltopectoral interval is utilized and the subscapularis is split in lines with its fibers. The subscapularis and capsule are split together in a horizontal fashion and tagged together. Any prior hardware is then removed utilizing appropriate removal sets, a burr, and a broken screw set if necessary. The anterior glenoid is then prepared and the defect is measured. Bone marrow aspirate is then harvested from the proximal humerus using a vortex needle. The distal tibia allograft is then cut to size and prepared utilizing pulsed lavage, pressurized sterile carbon dioxide, and the bone marrow aspirate. The allograft is then fixed with solid stainless steel 3.5-mm cortical screws with washers. The medial, glenoid based capsular repair it completed by placing 1.8-mm knotless FiberTak anchor at the bottom of the distal tibia allograft. A free needle is utilized to place a horizontal mattress stitch from the anchor to the inferior capsule, which is then loaded onto a shuttling suture, to repair it to the anterior inferior glenoid. A knotless anchor is then placed right off the chondral margin of the humeral head, and this is used to repair both the capsule and subscapularis in the correct position by passing through both inferior and superior leaflets. This is then loaded onto the knotless anchor and reduced, which shifts the subscapularis and capsule laterally. The remainder of the subscapularis split is then closed. Patients are then placed in a sling with an abduction pillow with no shoulder range of motion for 6 weeks. They can then progress their therapy with a goal of returning to sport at 6 months. Results: Several large systemic reviews have shown that return to sport rates after anterior glenoid reconstruction range between 80% and 90%, with returning to the same level of play in the 70% range. Discussion: Anterior glenoid reconstruction utilizing distal tibia allograft combined with an open capsular shift is a durable surgical option for patients presenting with shoulder instability and glenoid bone loss. Patient Consent Disclosure Statement: The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication.