Search

Background: Ligamentum teres (LT) reconstruction is an appropriate alternative in select cases of LT full-thickness tears, resulting in hip micro- or macroinstability. Graft fixation at the acetabular fossa is critical to achieving the best functional results. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the pullout strength of 2 graft fixation methods used for LT reconstruction of the hip. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: In 7 cadaveric specimens, the acetabular socket was prepared after the native LT was transected and the femoral head was removed. Seven separate tibialis anterior grafts were then prepared by suturing a running-locking No. 2 suture on each tail of the graft. Three specimens had fixation of the graft to the acetabulum using an adjustable cortical suspension suture button; the remaining 4 were fixed to the acetabulum using a knotless suture anchor. Specimens were then mounted onto a custom jig within a mechanical test frame to allow for the in-line pull of the graft fixation construct. After a preload of 5 N, each specimen was loaded to failure at 0.5 mm/s. Stiffness and load to failure were measured for each specimen construct. Results: Suture button fixation had a higher mean load to failure when compared with the knotless anchor fixation method (mean ± SD, 438.1 ± 114.3 vs 195.9 ± 50.0 N; P = .01). There was no significant difference in mean stiffness between the methods of fixation (24.5 ± 1.4 vs 26.5 ± 5.8 N/mm; P = .6). Conclusion: In this cadaveric study, the suture button fixation demonstrated greater load to failure than the knotless anchor fixation. Clinical Relevance: Results of this study can guide surgical decision making when selecting an acetabular fixation method for LT reconstruction.

Objectives: While numerous studies exist evaluating the short-term clinical outcomes for patients who underwent arthroscopy for osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the capitellum, literature on long-term clinical outcomes for a relatively high number of this subset of patients from a single institution is limited. We performed a retrospective analysis on all patients treated surgically for OCD of the capitellum at our institution from January 2001 to August 2018. Our hypothesis was that clinical outcomes for patients treated arthroscopically for OCD of the capitellum would be favorable, with improved subjective pain scores and acceptable return to play for these patients. Methods: Inclusion criteria for this study included the diagnosis and surgical treatment of OCD of the capitellum treated arthroscopically with greater than 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria included any surgical treatment on the ipsilateral elbow prior to the first elbow arthroscopy for OCD at our institution, a missing operative report, and/or any portions of the arthroscopic procedure that were done open. Follow-up was achieved over the phone by a single author using three questionnaires: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons – Elbow (ASES-E), Andrews/Carson KJOC, and our institution-specific return-to-play questionnaire. Results: After the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to our surgical database, our institution identified 101 patients eligible for this study. Of these patients, 3 were then excluded for incomplete operative reports, leaving 98 patients. Of those 98 patients, 81 were successfully contacted over the phone for an 82.7% follow-up rate. The average age for this group at arthroscopy was 15.2 years old and average post-operative time at follow-up was 8.2 years. Of the 81 patients, 74 had abrasion chondroplasty of the capitellar OCD lesion (91.4%) while the other 7 had minor debridement (8.6%). Of the 74 abrasion chondroplasties, 29 of those had microfracture, (39.2% of that subgroup and 35.8% of the entire inclusion group). Of the microfracture group, 4 also had an intraarticular, iliac crest, mesenchymal stem-cell injection into the elbow (13.7% of capitellar microfractures, 5.4% of abrasion chondroplasties, and 4.9% of the inclusion group overall). Additional arthroscopic procedures included osteophyte debridement, minor synovectomies, capsular releases, manipulation under anesthesia, and plica excisions. Nine patients had subsequent revision arthroscopy (11.1% failure rate, 5 of which were at our institution and 4 of which were elsewhere). There were also 3 patients within the inclusion group that had ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction/repair (3.7%, 1 of which was done at our institution and the other 2 elsewhere). Lastly, 3 patients had shoulder operations on the ipsilateral extremity (3.7%, 1 operation done at our institution and the other 2 elsewhere). To control for confounding variables, scores for the questionnaires were assessed only for patients with no other surgeries on the operative arm following arthroscopy (66 patients). This group had an adjusted average follow-up of 7.9 years. For the ASES-E questionnaire, the difference between the average of the ASES-E function scores for the right and the left was 0.87 out of a maximum of 36. ASES-E pain was an average of 2.37 out of a max pain scale of 50 and surgical satisfaction was an average of 9.5 out of 10. The average Andrews/Carson score out of a 100 was 91.5 and the average KJOC score was 90.5 out of 100. Additionally, out of the 64 patients evaluated who played sports at the time of their arthroscopy, 3 ceased athletic participation due to limitations of the elbow. Conclusions: In conclusion, this study demonstrated an excellent return-to-play rate and comparable subjective long-term questionnaire scores with a 11.1% failure rate following arthroscopy for OCD of the capitellum. Further statistical analysis is needed for additional comparisons, including return-to-play between different sports, outcome comparisons between different surgical techniques performed during the arthroscopies, and to what degree the size of the lesion, number of loose bodies removed or other associated comorbidities can influence long-term clinical outcomes.

Background: Recent innovative techniques have led to renewed interest in ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) repair. Although early outcome data regarding the clinical outcome of overhead athletes undergoing UCL repair with augmentation have been encouraging, long-term data are still needed to evaluate both the appropriate indications and success rate for this procedure. Purpose: To describe and evaluate the acute complications seen in a large cohort of patients who underwent UCL repair with internal brace augmentation at a single institution. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of a prospectively collected database, consisting of all patients who underwent UCL repair with internal brace augmentation utilizing a collagen-dipped FiberTape at our institution from August 2013 to January 2020. Patient characteristics, injury setting, side of surgery, and concomitant ulnar nerve transposition procedures were recorded. Early complications of UCL repair (within 6 months of the procedure) were evaluated and characterized as either minor or major, depending on whether the patient required a return to the operating room. Results: Of the 353 patients who underwent UCL repair at our institution with a minimum of 6-month follow-up, 84.7% (299/353) reported no complications, 11.9% (42/353) reported minor complications—including ulnar nerve paresthesia, postoperative medial elbow pain, and postoperative superficial wound complications—and 3.4% (12/353) required a return to the operating room because of a major complication requiring ulnar nerve exploration/debridement, primary ulnar nerve transposition, or heterotopic ossification excision. Conclusion: The low major complication rate identified in this study further validates the efficacy of the UCL repair with the internal bracing augmentation technique. Longer term follow-up data are needed to more adequately assess the outcomes and durability of this procedure.

Objectives: Hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and related hip pathology is increasing in volume. Variable presentations of hip pain often lead to confusion with lumbar spine pathology however. We sought to define the relationship between the lumbar spine and the hip joint. Our hypothesis is that patients with concurrent lumbar spine pathology will experience inferior outcomes after hip arthroscopy when compared to patients without lumbar spine pathology. Methods: Prospectively-collected data from a single-surgeon database from 2010 to 2014 was used to identify patients who had undergone hip arthroscopy and had documented concurrent lumbar spine pathology. Patients with spine pathology were matched by age, gender, and BMI in a 3:1 fashion to patients without spine pathology. Baseline pre-operative modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHS) were compared to scores at two-year follow-up. “Poor outcome” of initial hip arthroscopy was defined as any combination of: requiring a revision procedure, conversion to THA, or mHHS below 70. Results: 167 patients met inclusion criteria: 72.5% were “normal” while 27.5% had spine pathology. Baseline demographics were appropriately matched between cohorts (Table I). Preoperative and two-year mHHS scores were significantly different between cohorts (Figure 1). Both cohorts demonstrated significant within-group improvement at two-year follow-up, however normal patients had greater improvements than those with spine pathology (34.0 vs 31.76, pConclusion: Our results demonstrate that patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with concomitant lumbar spine pathology demonstrate significantly lower total improvement, significantly higher revision/THA conversion rates and significantly higher rates of suboptimal outcomes after hip arthroscopy than patients without spine pathology. [Table: see text][Figure: see text]

Objectives: The use of hip arthroscopy for the management of hip pathology has increased dramatically in recent years. Despite evidence demonstrating excellent outcomes, there are some patients that may require revision arthroscopy or conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). Data regarding risk factors for poor outcomes after hip arthroscopy is limited. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the rates of revision hip arthroscopy and conversion to THA in order to identify risk factors for suboptimal outcomes. Methods: New York State Department of Health Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative Systems database was queried from 2011 through 2014 to identify patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. Patients were longitudinally followed for a minimum of two years to determine the incidence and nature of subsequent hip procedures. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify independent risk factors for revision surgery or conversion to THA. Results: We identified 3,957 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy. Mean age of the sample was 35.8 years (SD±13.1). After a minimum follow-up of two years, overall failure rate was 9.6%: 3.7% (n=148) had revision hip arthroscopy at an average of 15.8 months, while 5.9% (n=235) converted to THA at 14.7 months. Index surgery performed by surgeons in the lowest volume tertile was an independent risk factor for both revision (p=0.001) and conversion to THA (p

Objectives: Hamstring injuries commonly cause pain, weakness and functional limitations. While most hamstring injuries involve the musculotendinous junction or muscle belly, proximal hamstring tendon avulsions are a subset of hamstring injuries that are frequently more debilitating. Nonoperative treatment has demonstrated poor outcomes, thus surgical repair has become the mainstay. Open surgical repair has been the standard, but improved endoscopic techniques have enabled proximal hamstring fixation with decreased risk of infection and numbness, without the morbidity of a large, posterior incision. Prior anatomic studies described relevant anatomy near the proximal hamstring origin at the ischial tuberosity in the setting of an open repair, but literature describing pertinent anatomy during endoscopic repair is sparse. This cadaveric study enhances knowledge and safety of endoscopic proximal hamstring repair by describing pertinent anatomy surrounding four commonly used endoscopic portals. Methods: Ten fresh-frozen pelvis specimens (5 M, 5F) underwent endoscopic proximal hamstring repair and dissection with evenly distributed laterality (5 R, 5 L). Proximal hamstring ruptures were simulated endoscopically with an arthroscopic knife. Endoscopic repair was then completed on each specimen through four endoscopic portals (Inferolateral, Medial, Superolateral and Accessory Superior) using two double-loaded 3.0 mm polyether ether ketone (PEEK) suture anchors and two 3.75 mm PEEK knotless screw-in anchors. After repair, portal tracts were maintained by inserting four 2.0 mm k-wires through cannulas placed through the portals, securing the wires in bone in the ischial tuberosity beyond the zone of repair. The specimen was dissected in layers around the wires, and measurements from portal tracts to nine pertinent anatomic structures were obtained using a digital caliper. Each measurement was repeated three times, then averaged to obtain a composite mean. Measurements were statistically verified with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), all but two of which were above 0.90. Results: Ten cadaveric specimens demonstrated a mean age and BMI of 45.4 and 27.3, respectively. With respect to anatomic measurements, on average no portal tract was closer than 2.0 cm to the sciatic nerve, inferior gluteal neurovascular bundle or posterior cutaneous nerve, and all double-row repairs were easily completed with good fixation through these four portals (Table 1). Additional anatomic landmarks surrounding the hamstring origin were identified endoscopically, and when routinely located, each landmark helped improve reproducibility and safety of endoscopic proximal hamstring repair (Figure 1). Conclusion: This cadaveric study of the proximal hamstring origin maps the anatomic landscape encountered endoscopically, and supports the efficacy and safety of endoscopic proximal hamstring repair. Average distances (cm) from endoscopic portal sites to nine anatomic structures. Inferolateral Medial Superolateral Accessory Superior Inferior Border Gluteus Maximus 2.49 1.57 4.15 3.95 Adductor Magnus 0.69 0.88 1.80 2.95 Conjoint Hamstring Tendon 0.80 1.25 0.60 1.27 Tip of Ischial Tuberosity 1.15 1.27 2.36 3.39 Sacrotuberous Ligament 2.59 2.23 1.81 1.04 Sciatic Nerve 2.91 3.97 2.37 3.04 Short External Rotators 3.41 3.46 1.89 1.25 Posterior Cutaneous Nerve 3.34 4.54 2.55 3.22 Inferior Gluteal Neurovascular Bundle 5.82 5.96 4.27 3.65 Figure 1. Endoscopic view of a left hip from the medial portal. The intact hamstring tendon is in the center of the image, with pertinent surrounding anatomy. 1. The sacrotuberous ligament. 2. The adductor magnus tendon and muscle fibers. 3. The lateral edge of the ischial tuberosity (with the fibers of the quadratus femoris just lateral to it). 4. The inferior fibers of the inferior gemellus muscle.

Objectives: Proximal hamstring tendon avulsions are a rare subset of hamstring injuries, and surgical fixation has become standard, given superior outcomes compared to nonoperative treatment. Open surgical techniques employ a large incision near the gluteal crease and necessitate extensive retraction for optimal visualization, which may increase risk for infection, numbness and potential sciatic nerve injury. Recently described endoscopic repair techniques enable optimal visualization and access to the tendon and ischial tuberosity through several small incisions, potentially reducing risks associated with open repair. Prior cadaveric studies have evaluated biomechanical properties of open repair techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare the biomechanical properties of open and endoscopic suture anchor repair of proximal hamstring ruptures to validate the structural integrity of the endoscopic technique. Methods: Nine fresh-frozen cadaver pelvises (5 M, 4F) were randomly assigned open proximal hamstring repair, with subsequent contralateral endoscopic proximal hamstring repair. Laterality was evenly distributed. Open repair was performed after reflection of the gluteus maximus to optimize visualization and anchor placement during repair, while endoscopic repair was performed via four small incisions surrounding the ischial tuberosity. Proximal hamstring ruptures were simulated by subperiosteal dissection of the entire tendon from its insertion. Repairs were performed using two double-loaded 3.0 mm polyether ether ketone (PEEK) suture anchors and two 3.75 mm PEEK knotless screw-in anchors in a double-row configuration. After repair, the ischial tuberosity was harvested by cutting the inferior pubic ramus and superior aspect of the ischial tuberosity as far away from the repair site as possible. The bony inferior ramus and ischial tuberosity was potted into an acrylic cylinder using polymethylmethacrylate, while the musculotendinous junction was wrapped in gauze and clamped 3 cm from the insertion. Reference lines were marked at the insertion site and 1, 2, and 3 cm from the insertion to aid optical measurements. Potted specimens were mounted into an MTS 858 MiniBionix servohydraulic test frame and tested according to a previously established protocol. Each specimen was cycled 50 times within a pre-established range, with the range increased every 50 cycles until failure. Values were then compared using a paired t-test. Results: The open repair group failed at a mean of 119 cycles with an average displacement of 12.7 mm at a mean ultimate load of 574.5 N. The endoscopic repair group failed at a mean of 117 cycles with an average displacement of 14.9 mm at and mean ultimate load of 563.4 N. No statistically significant difference was noted among any of these parameters. Conclusion: This biomechanical analysis demonstrated no difference in the structural properties comparing open and endoscopic techniques. Endoscopic proximal hamstring repair is a viable option for surgical fixation of proximal hamstring avulsions, with the potential to decrease risks encountered using open techniques.

Objectives: Hip arthroscopy has been an increasingly used tool in the treatment of labral tears, chondral defects and ligamentum teres lesions and has demonstrated efficacy in returning patients to function and relieving their pain. Despite this, failures continue to occur. Our understanding of risk factors for failure or poor outcome continues to evolve as larger cohorts of patients are available for study. We sought to identify risk factors for poor outcome in our patient population. Methods: Prospectively collected data for all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy by a single fellowship-trained surgeon was obtained. All patients were indicated for hip arthroscopy based on standard pre-operative examination as well as routine and advanced imaging. Baseline demographic data regarding patient age, gender, BMI was collected. Patients without two year follow-up were excluded. Baseline pre-operative modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHS) were compared to mHHS at two-year follow-up. “Poor outcome” of initial hip arthroscopy was defined as any combination of: requiring a revision procedure or conversion to THA or mHHS below 70. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify independent risk factors for “poor outcome.” Results: 258 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age (SD) and body mass index (BMI) were 40.4 years (12.7 years) and 25.6 (4.7) respectively. 62.8% (162/258) of the sample was female. Mean preoperative baseline mHHS was 49.6 (12.5) and average mHHS at two year follow-up was 83.6 (15.6), resulting in a mean improvement of 34.1 (pConclusion: Our findings that female gender, obesity and poorer preoperative functional status increase the risk for failure of hip arthroscopy coincide and add to an increasing volume of literature examining risk factors for poor outcome after hip arthroscopy. These factors should be taken into consideration with operative indications as well as in counseling patients.

Objectives: Objective and clinical results of microfracture for treatment of chondral defects of the knee is well documented, yet outcomes for microfracture of the hip have not been extensively studied. Recently, several studies demonstrated clinical improvements in patients treated with microfracture of the hip. The purpose of this study is to examine clinical outcomes and survivorship in patients who underwent microfracture during arthroscopic hip surgery. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database was performed. Thirty-eight patients with a mean age of 41 (range, 17-64) who underwent microfracture during arthroscopic hip surgery by a single surgeon (senior author) were identified. Demographic data, diagnosis, and details regarding operative procedures were collected. All patients were indicated for hip arthroscopy based on standard pre-operative examination as well as routine and advanced imaging. Baseline pre-operative modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHS) and Non-Arthritic Hip Scores (NAHS) were compared to mHHS and NAHS at two-year follow-up. Additionally, survivorship data was assessed to determine failure, defined as any subsequent revision arthroscopic surgery and/or hip arthroplasty of the same hip. Results: Thirty-four of the 38 (89.5%) patients were available for two-year clinical follow-up. Baseline mean mHHHS and NAHS for all patients improved from 50.6 (+/- 12.7) and 46.9 (+/-12.8) to 84.7 (+/- 12.5) and 85.6 (+/- 11.2) respectively. Both improvements were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Eight patients (23.5%) met failure criteria and underwent additional surgery at an average of 23.9 months. Two patients (5.8%) underwent revision arthroscopic surgery, and six patients (17.7%) underwent hip arthroplasty. Conclusion: Significant improvements in clinical outcomes are seen at two-year follow-up after microfracture treatment of chondral lesions of the hip. Despite overall success, failure rates are relatively high. As with microfracture of the knee, results favor short-term clinical improvements, but results may decline at two years. Larger studies are needed to fully assess the efficacy of microfracture in arthroscopic hip surgery.