Ahmad, Rana A.

Purpose To compare short‐term outcomes of intratunnel anchor fixation versus transtibial pull‐through repair for meniscus root tears with a minimum of 12‐month follow‐up. Methods Patients who underwent primary meniscus root repair between 2011 and 2024 at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria consisted of primary medial or lateral meniscus root repair using either intratunnel anchor fixation or transtibial pull‐through repair, availability of preoperative radiographs, and completion of postoperative patient‐reported outcome measures with a minimum of 12‐month follow‐up. The groups were propensity‐matched by age, sex, body mass index, operative side, root laterality, and concomitant procedures. Baseline radiographic characteristics (hip‐knee‐ankle angle and posterior tibial slope) were measured. Outcomes included Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, Tegner activity score (preoperative and postoperative), Visual Analog Scale for pain at rest and with activity, satisfaction, subjective surgical outcome, and reoperations. Results Fifty patients who underwent intratunnel anchor fixation (mean age, 44 years) were propensity‐matched to 100 patients who underwent transtibial pull‐through repair (mean age, 41 years). Mean follow‐up was 1.5 years (range, 1.0‐2.3) in the intratunnel anchor group and 6.1 years (range, 2.7‐13.7) in the transtibial pull‐through group. Reoperation rates were 8% and 14%, respectively ( P = .43), with repair failure occurring in 4% and 6% ( P > .99). Preoperative and postoperative Tegner scores were similar between groups. Tegner minimal clinical important difference was 0.8, and 26.5% of intratunnel anchor patients achieved this compared with 0% of transtibial pull‐through patients. Patients in the intratunnel anchor cohort reported slightly lower Visual Analog Scale pain with activity (1.8 vs 2.5, P = .02). Postoperative Lysholm (87 vs 83, P = .05) and International Knee Documentation Committee scores (79 vs 76, P = .09) were comparable between groups. A greater proportion of intratunnel anchor patients achieved Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State compared with transtibial pull‐through patients for Visual Analog Scale with activity (74% vs 56%, P = .03) and Lysholm (66% vs 47%, P = .01). Most patients in both cohorts rated their outcome as “much better” or “slightly better” ( P = .49), and satisfaction scores were high. Conclusions At short‐term follow‐up, both the intratunnel anchor and transtibial pull‐through techniques showed high patient satisfaction and comparable overall clinical outcomes. There were no differences in reoperation rates between techniques. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative case series.

ABSTRACT The hip capsule is a dense, fibrous structure that plays a crucial role in providing hip stability. Its biomechanical function is tied to its complex anatomy, which includes the iliofemoral, pubofemoral, and ischiofemoral ligaments, along with the circumferential fibers of the zona orbicularis. Anatomic and biomechanical studies with advanced imaging and arthroscopic techniques have provided better understanding of the capsular morphology and its contribution to hip stability. Additionally, these studies provide insight into how capsulotomy and subsequent capsular management at the time of hip arthroscopy can potentially influence postoperative outcomes. Growing clinical evidence supports capsular preservation and repair at the time of primary hip arthroscopy and demonstrates the potential negative outcomes of capsular deficiency, such as pain, dysfunction, and instability. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the gross, arthroscopic, radiologic, and biomechanical anatomy of the hip capsule.

Purpose To investigate outcomes among patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty after hip arthroscopy (HA‐THA) compared with a matched cohort undergoing primary THA without prior arthroscopy (Only‐THA). Methods Patients who underwent THA after primary hip arthroscopic labral repair from 2009 to 2022 at a single institution were identified. Cases were propensity‐matched 1:4 to primary THA controls by age at THA, sex, body mass index (BMI), surgical approach, and year of surgery. At minimum 2‐year follow‐up, patient‐reported outcomes (PROs)—Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Pain (HOOS‐Pain)—were analyzed. Results Sixty‐two hips (age: 47.5 ± 9.3 years, BMI: 29.7 ± 6.2 kg/m 2 ) were matched to 248 Only‐THA hips (age: 47.9 ± 10 years, BMI: 29.5 ± 5.8 kg/m 2 ). Although both HA‐THA and Only‐THA patients showed significant ( P < .001) postoperative improvements in PROs, HA‐THA patients reported significantly lower postoperative FJS, mHHS, HOOS‐Pain, and inferior Visual Analog Scale pain scores ( P < .001) compared with Only‐THA controls. A cohort‐specific minimal clinical important difference for mHHS was calculated as 9.6 points, with 75.7% of HA‐THA and 87.5% Only‐THA patients achieving this threshold ( P = . 077). At mean 6.6 ± 3.3 years follow‐up, HA‐THA patients with preoperative Tönnis grades 1 reported significantly decreased FJS, mHHS, and HOOS‐Pain compared with HA‐THA patients with preoperative Tönnis grade 2‐3 ( P ≤ .05). HA‐THA patients with Tönnis grade 1 also exhibited worse PROs ( P < .001) compared with Only‐THA controls. Although there were no differences in complication rates between HA‐THA and Only‐THA patients (8% vs. 5%, P = .49), all‐cause reoperation was greater amongst HA‐THA (10% vs. 2%, P = .01). Conclusions Patients undergoing THA after prior hip arthroscopy showed modestly inferior subjective outcomes at mid‐term follow up compared with an age‐matched cohort without prior arthroscopy. Although both groups showed meaningful improvement, a smaller proportion of HA‐THA patients achieved the cohort‐specific MCID for mHHS compared with Only‐THA controls. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Background: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the treatment of choice for end-stage knee osteoarthritis in many patients. In younger patients with predominantly medial compartment disease, high tibial osteotomy (HTO) is performed as a joint-preserving treatment. However, concerns remain regarding potentially compromised outcomes of TKA after previous HTO given the axial deviation, osteotomy site, secondary surgery, previous hardware, and instrumentation. Therefore, this study compared long-term implant survival, revision, and infection rates, and patient-reported outcomes between patients undergoing TKA after HTO and matched TKA-only controls. Methods: Postoperative complications and revision surgeries were prospectively recorded in patients who underwent TKA from 2000 to 2023 at a single academic center. Patients with previous ipsilateral HTO formed the study group and were propensity matched 1:2 to TKA-only patients without a previous osteotomy based on age, sex, and body mass index. Knee Society Scores (KSS) were collected prospectively. Implant survivorship was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: The study included 134 HTO-TKA and 268 matched TKA-only patients, with a mean follow-up of 10.5 ± 6.4 years (range: 0-24 years) after TKA. Both groups showed significant postoperative improvements in KSS (p < 0.02) with comparable clinical outcomes (HTO-TKA: 79.0 (6.0), TKA-only: 79.0 (11.8)). Revision arthroplasty rates were 5.2% for HTO-TKA and 4.5% for TKA-only (p = 0.69); the mean time to revision was 8.1 ± 8.7 years vs. 4.4 ± 3.5 years, respectively (p = 0.30). Infection rates were 2.2% and 1.1%, respectively (p = 0.74). Conclusions: Revision and infection rates were comparable between HTO-TKA and matched TKA-only patients, with no statistically significant differences. Our findings demonstrate comparable patient-reported outcomes in both groups. These findings indicate that a previous HTO does not adversely affect TKA implant longevity or clinical outcomes when compared with matched primary TKA patients within the US population. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.