Background: Robotic-assisted technology has been a reliable tool in enhancing precision and accuracy of cup placement in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Still, questions remain on the clinical benefit of this technology. Methods: The purposes of the ongoing study were (1) to report on minimum 5-year outcomes in patients who underwent robotic-assisted primary THA (rTHA), (2) to compare those outcomes to a propensity score–matched manual primary THA (mTHA) control group, and (3) to compare radiographic measures between the groups regarding acetabular cup placement. Prospectively collected patient data were retrospectively reviewed for primary THA recipients during June 2008 to July 2013. Patients with minimum 5-year follow-up for Harris Hip Score, Forgotten Joint Score-12, Veterans RAND-12 Mental, Veterans RAND-12 Physical, 12-Item Short Form Survey Mental, 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical, visual analog scale, and satisfaction were included. Patient-reported outcomes, cup placement, and revision rate of the rTHA group were compared with those of a propensity score–matched mTHA control group. Results: Sixty-six rTHAs were matched to 66 mTHAs. The rTHA group reported significantly higher Harris Hip Score, Forgotten Joint Score-12, Veterans RAND-12 Physical, and 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical (P < 0.001, P = 0.002, P = 0.002, P = 0.001). The acetabular implant placement by rTHA had a 9 and 4.7-fold reduced risk of placement outside the Lewinnek and Callanan safe zones, respectively (relative risk, 0.11 [95% confidence interval, 0.03 to 0.46]; P = 0.002; relative risk, 0.21 [95% confidence interval, 0.01 to 0.47]; P = 0.001). In addition, rTHA recipients had lesser absolute values of leg length discrepancy and global offset (P = 0.091, P = 0.001). Conclusions: Patients who received rTHA reported favorable outcomes at minimum 5-year follow-up. Furthermore, in comparison to a propensity score pair–matched mTHA group, rTHAs reported higher patient-reported outcome scores and had 89% reduced risk of acetabular implant placement beyond the Lewinnek safe zone and 79% reduced risk of placement beyond the Callanan safe zone. Level of Evidence: Level III

To survey high-volume hip arthroscopists regarding their current indications for labral reconstruction, graft preference and technique. In May 2018, a cross-sectional based survey was conducted on high-volume hip arthroscopists. A high-volume surgeon was defined as an orthopaedist who had case experience ranging from 50 to 5000 hip arthroscopies performed annually. The survey included their current indications for labral reconstruction, graft preference and technique. Twelve high-volume surgeons successfully completed the questionnaire. The mean arthroscopic procedures performed by the surgeons annually was 188.7 (range 60–350). Four surgeons (33.3%) performed <5 labral reconstruction cases per year, three (25.0%) 5–10 cases per year, two (16.7%) 11–15 cases per year and three (25.0%) over 20 cases per year. Of the 12 surgeons, 11 (91.6%) would reconstruct in certain primary settings and 100% would reconstruct in revision settings. In the primary setting, the main indications for reconstruction were poor quality labral tissue, calcified labrum and hypoplastic labrum. None of the surgeons recommended labral reconstruction for reparable labral tears in primary cases. In primary cases of irreparable labra, 58.3% of the surgeons favoured reconstruction over debridement. In revisions, 100% of the surgeon favoured reconstruction over debridement; 91.7% chose an allograft option versus an autograft alternative. Amongst high-volume arthroscopists, labral reconstruction was considered a valuable technique to restore labral function. Labral reconstruction was more often advocated in revision than in primary settings. Allograft was the preferred choice for reconstruction. Excision of the labral tissue prior to reconstruction was favoured over augmentation. Fewer surgeons performed circumferential reconstruction than segmental reconstruction.

No abstract

Background: Hip arthroscopy for the treatment of instability in the setting of borderline dysplasia is controversial. Capsular management in such cases is an important consideration, and plication has been described as a reliable technique, with good midterm outcomes reported when indications are appropriate. Hypothesis: Patients with borderline dysplasia who have a lower lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) and greater age will be at a higher risk of failure after arthroscopic capsular plication. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were retrospectively reviewed for all patients between 15 and 40 years of age who underwent hip arthroscopy from November 2008 to January 2015. Inclusion criteria were an LCEA between 18° and 25°, Tönnis grade ≤1, primary case with capsular plication, and minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients were excluded if they had any history of ipsilateral hip procedure or conditions such as Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, rheumatologic disease, and Tönnis grade ≥2. Age, sex, and body mass index data were retrieved for each patient. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs)—including modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain (0-10)—were obtained preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively, in addition to the postoperative International Hip Outcome Tool–12. The “success” group consisted of all patients who achieved the patient acceptable symptomatic state of mHHS ≥74 and had no ipsilateral hip surgery subsequent to their index arthroscopy. The “failure” group was composed of patients who were below the patient acceptable symptomatic state at latest follow-up or required secondary arthroscopy or conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Patient satisfaction and minimal clinically important difference were also calculated. Mean age for the failure group was applied as a cutoff age for subanalysis, and relative risk for failure was determined. Results: Ninety patients (97 hips; 79.5%) met criteria for the success group, and 25 patients (25 hips) met criteria for the failure group. No significant differences in preoperative baseline scores or VAS were found. However, there did appear to be a trend that the failure group had lower mean preoperative scores for all PRO measures and a higher VAS score. The differences in preoperative mHHS and NAHS closely approached significance ( P = .053). Postoperative PRO, VAS, and patient satisfaction scores of the success group were significantly higher than the failure group. The failure group was significantly older than the success group (28.5 ± 7.8 vs 23.5 ± 7.5 years, P = .005). Patients >35 years old were 2.25 times more likely to fail according to relative risk (95% CI, 1.10-4.60; P = .0266). LCEA did not differ between the groups, and no other risk factors for failure were identified. Conclusion: Stringent criteria for patient selection and meticulous repair or augmentation of the static stabilizers of the hip yielded favorable clinical outcomes in this study cohort with borderline dysplasia. Within this carefully selected group, the analysis revealed that increased age was the main risk factor for failure in the management of borderline hip dysplasia via isolated primary arthroscopic hip surgery with capsular plication.

No abstract