Background: In hip arthroscopic surgery, capsulotomy is performed to improve visualization and allow instrumentation of the joint. Traditionally, the defect has been left unrepaired; however, increasing evidence suggests that this may contribute to persistent pain and iatrogenic capsular instability. Nevertheless, the clinical benefit of performing routine capsular repair remains controversial. Purpose/Hypothesis: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of routine capsular closure on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), hypothesizing that superior PROs would be observed with routine capsular closure. Study Design: Meta-analysis and systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The terms “hip,”“arthroscopy,”“capsule,”“capsular,”“repair,” and “closure” were used to query Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), SPORTDiscus, and PubMed. Articles with PROs stratified by capsular management were included. Multivariate mixed-effects metaregression models were implemented with study-level random-effects and fixed-effects moderators for capsular closure versus no repair and after controlling for surgical indication and preoperative PROs. The effect of repair on both the postoperative score and the change in scores was evaluated via the Harris Hip Score (HHS)/modified HHS (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS)–Activities of Daily Living (ADL), and HOS–Sport Specific Subscale (SSS), with a supplemental analysis of additional outcomes. Results: Of 432 initial articles, 36 were eligible for analysis, with results for 5132 hip arthroscopic procedures. The capsule was repaired in 3427 arthroscopic procedures and unrepaired in 1705. Capsular repair was associated with significantly higher postoperative HHS/mHHS (2.011; SE, 0.743 [95% CI, 0.554-3.467]; P = .007), HOS-ADL (3.635; SE, 0.873 [95% CI, 1.923-5.346]; P < .001), and HOS-SSS (4.137; SE, 1.205 [95% CI, 1.775-6.499]; P < .001) scores as well as significantly superior improvement on the HHS/mHHS (2.571; SE, 0.878 [95% CI, 0.849-4.292]; P = .003), HOS-ADL (3.315; SE, 1.131 [95% CI, 1.099-5.531]; P = .003), and HOS-SSS (3.605; SE, 1.689 [95% CI, 0.295-6.915]; P = .033). Conclusion: This meta-analysis is the largest to date evaluating the effect of capsular closure on PROs and demonstrates significantly higher mean postoperative scores and significantly superior improvement with repair, while controlling for the effects of preoperative score and surgical indication. The true magnitude of the benefit of capsular repair may be clarified by large prospective randomized studies using PRO measures specifically targeted and validated for hip arthroscopic surgery/preservation.

Background: The onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has presented unforeseeable challenges to the orthopaedic community, especially arthroplasty and sports medicine subspecialities, as many surgeries were deemed nonessential and delayed. Although there is a glimpse of hope with the approval and distribution of vaccines, daily case numbers and death tolls continue to rise at the time of this review. Purpose: To summarize the available literature on the management of elective sports medicine and arthroplasty procedures in the outpatient setting to gather a consolidated source of information. Study Design: Scoping review; Level of evidence, 5. Methods: A scoping review of 3 databases (PubMed, Embase, and OVID Medline) was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist. All retrospective and prospective analyses, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, expert opinions, and societal guidelines were included for review, with 29 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Results: Guidance for resumption of elective arthroplasty and sports medicine surgery and patient selection during the COVID-19 pandemic focuses on resource availability, patient fitness, and time sensitivity of the procedure, with patient and surgical team safety as the highest priority. Telemedicine and other innovative technology can be used to continue patient care during periods of delayed surgery through monitoring disease progression and offering nonoperative management options. Conclusion: While the current societal recommendations provide guidance on safety protocols and patient prioritization, each orthopaedic practice must consider its unique situation and use evidence-based medicine when determining surgical timing and patient selection.

Background: Labral augmentation has emerged as an essential procedure to address a deficient or irreparable labrum while preserving native labral tissue and restoring the hip suction seal mechanism. Purpose: To evaluate midterm outcomes of arthroscopic hip labral augmentation for labral insufficiency after previous hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Patients were identified from a prospectively collected database who underwent arthroscopic hip labral augmentation between January 2011 and January 2017 with a minimum 3-year follow-up. Pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome scores were compared and included the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey physical and mental component summaries, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Hip Outcome Score (HOS) (Activities of Daily Living [ADL] and Sport). Postoperative Tegner Activity Scale and patient satisfaction (1-10) scores were also evaluated. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) between the preoperative and minimum 3-year follow-up scores were calculated. Results: A total of 88 patients (39 men, 49 women) underwent revision hip arthroscopy with labral augmentation. The average age was 32.8 ± 11 years. Of these, 77 patients (88%) were available for the minimum 3-year follow-up. The survivorship (absence of conversion to total hip arthroplasty) at 3 years and 5 years was 93% at both time points, with a mean survival time of 8.5 years (95% CI, 8.0-8.9). Eleven patients (14%) required revision arthroscopic surgery for continued pain. Revisions occurred at a mean of 2.6 ± 1.4 years after augmentation. The mean follow-up was 5.2 ± 1.2 years (range, 3-9 years). For patients not requiring subsequent surgery (n = 61), all patient-reported outcome measures significantly improved, which included a 20-point increase in HOS-ADL (MCID, 82%; PASS, 72%) and mHHS (MCID, 78%; PASS, 70%). The median postoperative Tegner score was 4 (range, 1-10). The median postoperative patient satisfaction score was 9 out of 10 (range, 1-10). Conclusion: Arthroscopic hip labral augmentation is a successful treatment option for patients with labral insufficiency after previous hip arthroscopy, demonstrating improved patient-reported outcomes and survivorship of 93% at 3 years and 5 years. This technique provides a valuable labral preservation option when addressing hip labral pathology when viable native labral tissue remains.

No abstract

Background: A limited joint space (<2 mm) is associated with poorer outcomes and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) after hip arthroscopic surgery. As indications for hip arthroscopic surgery expand, it is important to reevaluate established risk factors among large patient populations. Purpose: To reevaluate the relationship between the radiographic joint space and outcomes after hip arthroscopic surgery and to assess the validity of a joint space of 2 mm as the accepted cutoff for successful hip arthroscopic surgery. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients aged 18 to 50 years who underwent hip arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement between January 2008 and December 2016 and had a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Patients with previous ipsilateral hip surgery, a history of hip fractures, dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <20°), or osteoarthritis (Tonnis grade >2) were excluded. The joint space was categorized as diminished (≤2 mm), borderline (>2 to ≤3 mm), or preserved (>3 mm). Minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes (modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS], Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living [HOS-ADL], Hip Outcome Score–Sports-Specific Subscale [HOS-SSS]), revision rates, and rates of conversion to THA were compared between groups. Results: A total of 699 patients (782 hips) with a mean age of 33.8 ± 10.1 years met 2-year inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up time was 4.2 ± 2.1 years. Overall, 51 hips (6.5%) had a diminished joint space, 297 (38.0%) had a borderline joint space, and 434 (55.5%) had a preserved joint space. Patients with a diminished joint space had larger femoral and acetabular defects compared with those with larger joint spaces. All groups had improved patient-reported outcome scores compared with baseline ( P < .001 for all), and there were no differences between the groups in the percentage of patients who reached the minimal clinically important difference or patient acceptable symptom state. There were also no differences between the groups in revision rates ( P = .95). A greater number of hips with a diminished joint space converted to THA (n = 8 [15.7%]) compared with those with a borderline (n = 9 [3.0%]) or preserved (n = 9 [2.1%]) joint space ( P < .001). Considering joint space as a continuous variable, adjusted logistic regression showed that for every millimeter decrease in the joint space, the odds of conversion to THA increased by a factor of 2.5 (odds ratio, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.6-3.8]). Conclusion: This study demonstrated that patients with a diminished joint space were at a higher risk of conversion to THA. Although 2 mm should not serve as a strict cutoff, patients should be counseled based on their preoperative radiographic findings accordingly.

No abstract

No abstract

Category: Ankle; Sports Introduction/Purpose: The Broström procedure is indicated for lateral ankle instability in the setting of acute or chronic ankle sprains, with injury of the anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) being the most common. While the procedure is anatomically favorable, one disadvantage of the Broström procedure is significantly reduced strength of the repair when compared with the native ligament. Broström repair with augmentation of an InternalBrace (Arthrex, Naples, FL), nonabsorbable suture tape fixed directly to the bone, has demonstrated increased strength and stiffness of the repaired ATFL; however, there is a paucity of literature published on clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study is to compare clinical outcomes following treatment of ATFL injuries with Broström repair alone versus Broström repair with InternalBrace augmentation. Methods: Between January 2009 and December 2017, patients 18-75 years old who underwent surgical treatment for an ATFL injury of the lateral ankle injury with either a Broström repair alone (Cohort A) or Broström repair with InternalBrace augmentation (Cohort B) performed by two surgeons (TOC or CTH) and at least 2 years post-operative were identified. Minimum 2-year follow-up was obtained with patients completing subjective questionnaires including Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) with Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Sport subscales, Short Form-12 (SF-12) Mental Component Summary (MCS) and Physical Component Summary (PCS), Tegner activity scale, and patient satisfaction with surgical outcome. Demographics and patient-reported outcomes were compared between groups. Results: In total, 103 patients were included in the study. Cohort A had 54 patients (29 females) with median age of 32 (range: 19 to 68) and 49 of 54 patients (91%) completed follow-up at an median of 2.32 years (range: 2 to 12 years). Cohort B had 49 patients (29 females) with median age of 37 (range: 18 to 66) and 38 of 49 patients (78%) completed follow-up at an median of 3.07 years (range 2 to 7 years). There was no significant difference in age or sex between cohorts (p>0.05 for all). At earliest minimum 2-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in median post-operative FAAM ADL (97% vs 98%, p=0. 979), FAAM Sport (91% vs 91%, p=0.976), SF-12 PCS (56 vs 54, p=0.143), SF-12 MCS (56.6 vs 57.0, p=0.155), Tegner score (6 vs 5, p=0.214), or patient satisfaction (9 vs 9, p=0.781). Conclusion: Patients treated for ATFL injury of the lateral ankle with Broström repair with InternalBrace augmentation demonstrated similar clinical outcomes to those treated with Broström repair alone. With its advantages in strength and stiffness, the InternalBrace should be considered when treating lateral ankle instability in the setting of ligamentous injury since it allowed an earlier return to full weight bearing and a quicker rehabilitation protocol.