Kapron, Ashley L.

AbstractPurposeDevelop a framework to quantify the size, location and severity of femoral and acetabular‐sided cartilage and labral damage observed in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy, and generate a database of individual defect parameters to facilitate future research and treatment efforts.MethodsThe size, location, and severity of cartilage and labral damage were prospectively collected using a custom, standardized post‐operative template for 100 consecutive patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Chondrolabral junction damage, isolated intrasubstance labral damage, isolated acetabular cartilage damage and femoral cartilage damage were quantified and recorded using a combination of Beck and ICRS criteria. Radiographic measurements including alpha angle, head–neck offset, lateral centre edge angle and acetabular index were calculated and compared to the aforementioned chondral data using a multivariable logistic regression model and adjusted odd’s ratio. Reliability among measurements were assessed using the kappa statistic and intraclass coefficients were used to evaluate continuous variables.ResultsDamage to the acetabular cartilage originating at the chondrolabral junction was the most common finding in 97 hips (97%) and was usually accompanied by labral damage in 65 hips (65%). The width (p = 0.003) and clock‐face length (p = 0.016) of the damaged region both increased alpha angle on anteroposterior films. 10% of hips had femoral cartilage damage while only 2 (2%) of hips had isolated defects to either the acetabular cartilage or labrum. The adjusted odds of severe cartilage (p = 0.022) and labral damage (p = 0.046) increased with radiographic cam deformity but was not related to radiographic measures of acetabular coverage.ConclusionsDamage at the chondrolabral junction was very common in this hip arthroscopy cohort, while isolated defects to the acetabular cartilage or labrum were rare. These data demonstrate that the severity of cam morphology, quantified through radiographic measurements, is a primary predictor of location and severity of chondral and labral damage and focal chondral defects may represent a unique subset of patients that deserve further study.Level of evidenceIV.

Purpose (1) To determine the radiographic correction/healing rate, patient‐reported outcomes, reoperation rate, and complication rate after distal femoral osteotomy (DFO) for the valgus knee with lateral compartment pathology. (2) To summarize the reported results of medial closing wedge and lateral opening wedge DFO. Methods We conducted a systematic review of PubMed, MEDLINE, and CINAHL to identify studies reporting outcomes of DFOs for the valgus knee. Keywords included “distal femoral osteotomy,” “chondral,” “cartilage,” “valgus,” “joint restoration,” “joint preservation,” “arthritis,” and “gonarthrosis.” Two authors first reviewed the articles; our study exclusion criteria were then applied, and the articles were included on the basis relevance defined by the aforementioned criteria. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies scale judged the quality of the literature. Sixteen studies were relevant to the research questions out of 191 studies identified by the original search. Results Sixteen studies were identified reporting on 372 osteotomies with mean follow‐up of 45 to 180 months. All studies reported mean radiographic correction to a near neutral mechanical axis, with 3.2% nonunion and 3.8% delayed union rates. There was a 9% complication rate and a 34% reoperation rate, of which 15% were converted to arthroplasty. There were similar results reported for medial closing wedge and lateral opening wedge techniques, with a higher conversion to arthroplasty in the medial closing wedge that was confounded by longer mean follow‐up in this group (mean follow‐up 100 v 58 months). Conclusions DFOs for the valgus knee with lateral compartment disease provide improvements in patient‐reported knee health–related quality of life at midterm follow‐up but have high rates of reoperation. No evidence exists proving better results of either the lateral opening wedge or medial closing wedge techniques. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.