Levy, Bruce A.

Background: Arthroscopic treatment of excessive acetabular coverage with pincer morphology or coxa profunda can be challenging. In patients with excessive acetabular coverage with nondistractible hips, an outside-in capsuolotomy can be considered to gain safe and efficient intra-articular access to the hip. Indications: The indications for an outside-in capsulotomy include patients with acetabular retroversion, a lateral center-edge angle >40°, coxa profunda or protrusio, or stiff, older male patients who remain hip preservation candidates. Technique Description: The outside-in capsulotomy is performed once it is recognized that traction on the operative extremity will not provide adequate working space for safe intra-articular access. Traction is taken off the operative extremity, and an anterolateral portal is localized to the 12:00 position on the hip joint with the use of fluoroscopy. The camera is then placed in a juxta-capsular location, and a modified anterior portal is created under direct arthroscopic visualization. We then proceed with extracapsular dissection to identify the indirect head of the rectus. An outside-in capsulotomy is then performed parallel to the indirect head of the rectus, approximately 5 mm distal to its insertion on the acetabular rim. Prior to deep completion of the capsulotomy, the hip joint is flexed to 30° to protect the articular cartilage of the femoral head. Once intra-articular access is obtained, traction can be reapplied, and one can proceed with hip arthroscopy in a standard fashion. Results: This technique decreases the traction time needed, given that the capsulotomy is performed without traction applied. Additionally, the amount of force required for hip distraction is decreased once the capsuolotomy has been completed, through usual sectioning of the iliofemoral ligament. The presented technique is both safe and efficacious, with no published difference in complications as compared to standard inside-out access. A published series of patients with severe pincer morphology and lateral overcoverage who undergo hip arthroscopy with outside-in access demonstrates satisfactory postoperative improvements in patient-reported outcome measures. Discussion/Conclusion: The outside-in capsulotomy provides a means for safe access to the hip joint in otherwise limited or nondistractible hips.

Purpose To compare clinical and functional outcomes (including range of motion, clinical laxity, reoperation/revision rates, and patient‐reported outcome measures) of combined anterior cruciate ligament/posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR/PCLR) with and without suture tape (ST) augmentation via a propensity‐matched cohort analysis. Methods A retrospective review was performed to identify all patients who underwent simultaneous primary ACLR/PCLR between 2001 and 2022. A 1:1 propensity match was performed using patient sex, Schenck classification grade, age ±8 years, and body mass index ±10 to produce 2 cohorts: ACLR/PCLR with and without (control) ST augmentation. Clinical outcomes (visual analog scale [VAS], range of motion, Tegner activity scale, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score) were analyzed. Results The propensity match produced a final cohort of 50 ACLR/PCLR patients: 25 with ST augmentation and 25 nonaugmented controls. Most patients had a KD3M injury (12 in each cohort), and no significant differences were noted in concomitant neurovascular, meniscal, or chondral injuries between the groups. Forty patients (80%) completed follow‐up at a mean of 4.7 years for the ST cohort and 8.5 years for the control cohort ( P > .05). Postoperative ST versus control values for outcome measures including VAS at rest (0.9 vs 1.5; P = .71), VAS with use (3.0 vs 2.2; P = .24), International Knee Documentation Committee (75.7 vs 76.3; P = .37), Lysholm (81.8 vs 77.6; P = .91), and Tegner activity (4.8 vs 5.4; P = .37) scores showed no differences ( P > .05 for all). There were no differences in excessive postoperative clinical laxity between ST and control cohorts (ST n = 1 vs control n = 2, Lachman 2+, P = .140; ST n = 3 vs control n = 1, posterior drawer 2+, P = .122). The total number of patients who underwent reoperation was 7 of 25 (28%) for the ST cohort and 8 of 25 (32%) for the control cohort ( P = .76). Conclusions Concomitant ACLR/PCLR utilizing ST augmentation showed similarly satisfactory postoperative clinical outcomes at a minimum 2‐year follow‐up compared to a matched cohort without ST. The use of an independent ST did not limit motion or increase the incidence of complications or revision surgery. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative case series.