Hevesi, Mario

Objectives: Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is utilized for the treatment of hip dysplasia, with a growing trend towards hip arthroscopy at the time of PAO or in a planned, staged manner prior to PAO in order to address intra-articular pathology such as labral tears. For patients with persistent or new pain following isolated PAO, a subset undergo unplanned, primary hip arthroscopy. To date, there is a paucity of available evidence regarding the risk factors for and outcomes of unplanned hip arthroscopy for persistent or new pain after PAO. The purpose of this study was to determine demographic and radiographic characteristics of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for persistent pain after PAO and also to compare radiographic parameters, surgical characteristics, and postoperative PROMs between patients that underwent hip arthroscopy following PAO and a demographically similar group of controls without acetabular dysplasia that underwent primary hip arthroscopy. Methods: An institutional database of 3014 hip arthroscopies performed between 1988 and 2022 was reviewed for patients having undergone unplanned (i.e. non-staged) first-time hip arthroscopy after PAO. These patients were propensity-matched on a 1:2 ratio with demographically similar, non-dysplastic patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with labral repair. All patients were contacted at final-follow-up to collect outcomes including subsequent procedures, progression to THA, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT), Tegner Activity Scores, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain, and surgery satisfaction. Demographics, radiographic characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were compared. All statistical analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis was performed using R software (version 4.4.1). Results: We identified 22 hips in 21 patients (17 female, 4 male; age: 24.6 ± 8.5 years; BMI: 29.3 ± 7.4 kg/m²) who underwent first-time arthroscopy after ipsilateral PAO and were followed for a mean of 7.2 ± 2.8 years (Table 1). The median post-PAO LCEA was 28° (IQR: 24.6 – 31.7) and the mean Tönnis angle was 4.2° ± 5.9. The median time from the date of PAO to date of subsequent hip arthroscopy was 1.6 years (IQR: 1.1 - 3.4). Compared to the control group, there was a significantly lower rate of femoral osteochondroplasty (50% vs, 86%, p < 0.01), as well as trends towards lower rate of labral repair (77% vs. 95% p = 0.11), and higher rate of capsular repair (64% vs. 75%, p = 0.34). No differences were found between the PAO and control groups in any of the postoperative PROMs (Table 2). Among the PAO patients, 3 (20%) progressed to total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared to 1 (9%) in the control group (p=0.62). Conclusions: Hip arthroscopy after prior PAO was associated with postoperative improvements in pain and moderate rates of conversion to THA. When patients undergoing hip arthroscopy following PAO were compared to a demographically similar matched cohort of nondysplastic hips who underwent primary hip arthroscopy without a prior PAO, similar postoperative outcome scores were observed. This data provides valuable counselling information for clinicians discussing hip arthroscopy in the setting of patients with persistent pain following PAO.

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]