Stake, Christine E.

Objectives: The most common reason for reoperation following arthroscopic hip surgery is conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to identify clinical and radiographic risk factors for early conversion to THA. Methods: Data were prospectively collected on all hip arthroscopy patients from January 2009 through December 2011. Inclusion criteria for the study group were patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for a labral tear who eventually converted to THA. Patients were then compared to a control group of patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for a labral tear and did not convert to THA during the same period. Exclusion criteria were patients with previous hip conditions such as Legg-Calves-Perthes, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, pigmented villonodular synovitis, and avascular necrosis. A bivariate analysis of 41 preoperative and intraoperative variables was performed. Results: A total of 792 patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 72 (9%) converted to THA. The control group consisted of 720 patients who did not convert to THA. Bivariate analysis demonstrated that the study group had significantly higher means or frequencies than the control group for the following variables: male gender, age at time of surgery, BMI, back pain, previous back surgery, Tönnis grade above 0, acetabular inclination angle, alpha angle, Seldes combined-type labral tear, labral tear size, chondral injury, traction time, labral debridement (versus repair), number of anchors used repair or reconstruction, and capsular release (versus repair). The study group had significantly lower means or frequencies than the control group for the following variables: preoperative patient reported outcome scores, crossover sign, lateral center edge angle, and psoas release. A statistically significant difference in average joint space was not observed. Conclusion: Multiple risk factors are possible preoperative and intraoperative risk factors for conversion to THA following hip arthroscopy. The clinician and patient should be aware of these variables.

Purpose To detail our early experience using concomitant hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for the treatment of acetabular dysplasia. Methods We prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed the surgical and outcome data of 17 patients who underwent concomitant hip arthroscopy and PAO between October 2010 and July 2013. Preoperative and postoperative range of motion, outcome and pain scores, and radiographic data were collected. Intraoperative arthroscopic findings and postoperative complications were recorded. Results The group consisted of 3 male and 14 female patients with a mean follow‐up period of 2.4 years. Three patients had undergone previous surgery on the affected hip. Chondrolabral pathology was identified in all 17 patients. Twelve patients underwent labral repair, and five patients underwent partial labral debridement. No patient was converted to total hip arthroplasty or required revision surgery at short‐term follow‐up. All 4 patient‐reported outcome scores showed statistically significant changes from baseline to latest follow‐up ( P < .001). An excellent outcome was obtained in 82% of patients (13 of 16). The lateral center‐edge angle averaged 11° preoperatively and 29° postoperatively. The acetabular inclination averaged 18° preoperatively and 3° postoperatively. The anterior center‐edge angle averaged 7° preoperatively and 27° postoperatively. At most recent radiographic follow‐up, 1 patient had progression of arthritic changes but remained asymptomatic. No other patient showed any radiographic evidence of progression of arthritis. Complications included 3 superficial wound infections, 1 pulmonary embolism, and 1 temporary sciatic neurapraxia. Conclusions Our initial experience with concomitant hip arthroscopy and PAO has been favorable. We noted that all our patients have evidence of chondrolabral damage at the time of PAO when the joint is distracted and evaluated. All patients in this series had intra‐articular pathology treated arthroscopically and showed satisfactory mean clinical improvement. Hip arthroscopy with PAO did not appear to introduce complications beyond the PAO alone. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Purpose The purpose of this prospective comparative study was to evaluate the effect of intraoperative platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) injection on the outcomes of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for labral treatment. Methods During the period from November 2010 through March 2012, all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for labral tears were considered for this study. The study group received intra‐articular PRP at the end of the operation, and the control group received an intra‐articular injection of 0.25% bupivacaine. Selection for the study group was based on the day of the week on which the patient underwent surgery. The protocol included administration of 4 hip‐specific patient‐reported outcome tools. Patients also reported their pain score on a visual analog scale from 0 to 10. Scores were recorded at the preoperative visit and at 3 months and 2 years postoperatively. Results A minimum of 2 years' follow‐up was available for 306 patients. Thirteen patients (4.2%) underwent conversion to total hip arthroplasty and 24 patients (7.8%) underwent revision hip arthroscopy, which left 91 patients in the study group and 180 patients in the control group. The study group had slightly higher pain scores than the control group (3.4 v 2.5) 2 years after surgery ( P = .005). No difference in pain scores was identified at 3 months postoperatively. The 2‐year modified Harris Hip Score was slightly lower in the study group (78.6) than in the control group (82.6) ( P = .049). No significant difference was observed for the Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score–Sport‐Specific Subscale, or Non‐Arthritic Hip Score at any time point. There was no significant difference between groups for conversion to total hip arthroplasty or revision surgery. Conclusions On the basis of the results of this study, intraoperative PRP injection does not appear to improve the clinical results of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for labral treatment. Level of Evidence Level II, prospective comparative study.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of multiple demographic and radiographic findings on the size of labral tears identified at the time of hip arthroscopy. Methods Data were prospectively collected for patients treated with arthroscopic labral repair or debridement from February 2008 to August 2011. Preoperative radiographic and demographic data were collected for 392 patients during the study period. Exclusion criteria included revision surgery and previous hip conditions. An anteroposterior pelvic view, 45° Dunn view, and false‐profile view were used to measure Tönnis grade, neck‐shaft angle, alpha angle, lateral center edge angle (LCEA), anterior center edge angle (ACEA), acetabular inclination, and the extent of crossover sign when present. At the time of surgery, labral tear size and location were documented for all patients, using traditional acetabular clock face nomenclature for sizing. A multiple linear regression analysis was then performed to assess the correlation of radiographic and demographic findings with the size of the labral tear. Results Regression analysis displayed statistical significance for sex ( P < .0001), age ( P < .0001), and alpha angle ( P = .005) with labral tear size. For female patients, Tönnis grade ( P = .0004) and neck‐shaft angle ( P = .004) correlated with labral tear size. This model accounted for only 26% of variation in labral tear size. Conclusions Preoperative risk factors for the extent of labral tear size are male sex, increasing age, and increasing alpha angle. Labral tears were larger in female patients with higher Tönnis grades and lower neck‐shaft angles. Measurements of acetabular coverage and version showed no correlation with labral tear size. The majority of labral tear size variation was not accounted for in this model. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic case series.