No abstract

Background: Association among generalized ligamentous laxity (GLL), hip microinstability, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after hip arthroscopy has yet to be completely established. Purposes: (1) To report minimum 2-year PROs in patients with GLL who underwent hip arthroscopy in the setting of symptomatic labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and (2) to compare clinical results with a matched-pair control group without GLL. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data from a prospectively collected database were retrospectively reviewed between August 2014 and December 2016. Patients were considered eligible if they received primary arthroscopic treatment for symptomatic labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement. Inclusion criteria included preoperative and minimum 2-year follow-up scores for the following PROs: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and visual analog scale for pain (VAS). From the sample population, 2 groups were created: the GLL group (Beighton score ≥4) and the control group (Beighton score <4). Patients were matched in a 1:2 ratio via propensity score matching according to age, sex, body mass index, Tönnis grade, and preoperative lateral center-edge angle. Patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for mHHS, Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Scale (HOS-SSS), and International Hip Outcome Tool–12 (iHOT-12) were calculated. Results: A total of 57 patients with GLL were matched to 88 control patients. Age, sex, body mass index, and follow-up times were not different between groups ( P > .05). Preoperative radiographic measurements demonstrated no difference between groups. Intraoperative findings and procedures between groups were similar except for capsular treatment, with the GLL group receiving a greater percentage of capsular plications ( P = .04). At minimum 2-year follow-up, both groups showed significant improvement in PROs and VAS ( P < .001). Furthermore, the postoperative PROs at minimum 2-year follow-up and the magnitude of improvement (delta value) were similar between groups for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS ( P > .05). Moreover, groups reached comparable rates of MCID and PASS for mHHS, HOS-SSS, and iHOT-12. Conclusion: Patients with GLL after hip arthroscopy for symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement and labral tears may expect favorable outcomes with appropriate labral and capsular management at minimum 2-year follow-up. When compared with a pair-matched control group without GLL, results were comparable for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS and reached PASS and/or MCID for mHHS, HOS-SSS, and iHOT-12.

Background: The transition to outpatient-based surgery is a major development occurring in recent years in the field of total hip arthroplasty (THA). The effect of this transition on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is still not well established. The purpose of the current study was to compare patients undergoing inpatient THA (iTHA) to patients undergoing outpatient THA (oTHA) regarding (1) perioperative variables including surgical time, blood loss, and length of stay (2) 90-day complication rates and unplanned emergency room or office visits (3) 2-year PROs including modified Harris hip score (mHHS), Harris hip score (HHS), forgotten joint score (FJS), pain, and satisfaction, as well as the quality of live measures. Methods: The American Hip Institute registry was analyzed for patients undergoing THA between July 2014 and April 2016. The first 100 patients undergoing oTHA were selected and matched to 100 patients undergoing iTHA via propensity matching based on the following variables: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), and smoking status. The primary outcomes were PROs at 2 years post-operatively. The secondary outcomes were perioperative surgical variables, 90-day complication rates, and unplanned emergency and clinic visits. Results: After exclusions, 91 patients remained in each group and were compared. The oTHA group showed improved 2-year PROs with regard to mHHS (91.5 vs. 86.2; P = 0.02), HHS (92.3 vs. 87.4; P = 0.02), and pain (1.0 vs. 1.5; P = 0.04). The oTHA group had an average length of stay of 6.8 h compared to 43.2 h for the iTHA group (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups regarding readmissions, emergency room visits, and unplanned clinic visits. Complications and revision rates were similar in both groups. Conclusion: In appropriately selected, younger patients, oTHA can achieve improved postoperative 2-year PROs compared to iTHA. We found no differences regarding postoperative short-term complications or 2-year revision rates, and no differences in unplanned office visits or readmissions.

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of structured physical therapy protocols on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following hip arthroscopy. A literature search was completed in October 2019 according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines to identify articles reporting specific rehabilitation protocols following hip arthroscopy that document PROs. Studies meeting all inclusion and exclusion were reviewed and data were extracted. Six studies were included in analysis. The mean age was 34.7% and 56.6% were males. Five studies described rehabilitation protocols in phases with specific goals and progression criteria. All studies included range of motion (ROM) and weight-bearing (WB) precautions. Return to sport (RTS)/activity varied between 7 and 32 weeks. The studies used variations of 21 different PROs. Significant improvements in baseline and post-operative PROs noted across studies. Rehabilitation protocols following hip arthroscopy typically consist of 4–5 phase programs with set goals and progression criteria. Several commonalities existed between studies on WB, ROM precautions and gait normalization. However, timing and recommendations for RTS/return to work varied between studies and were dependent on the concomitant procedures performed as well as type of patient population. Clinically significant improvement in PROs from baseline noted in majority of the studies reviewed that involved a structured rehabilitation program following arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement. As there is heterogeneity in patient-specific characteristics across the included studies, no determination can be made as to which protocol is most effective and further high-quality comparative studies are needed. Clinical relevance: Adopting phase-based rehabilitation protocols following arthroscopic femoroacetabular impingement treatment help achieve improved outcomes that are predictable