Search

Purpose: To report 5‐year outcomes of endoscopic iliopsoas tenotomy in patients with iliopsoas tendinopathy following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and determine whether clinical scores are associated with cup position. Methods: Patients who underwent endoscopic iliopsoas tenotomy for iliopsoas tendinopathy following THA (2014–2017) were contacted. Indications for endoscopic iliopsoas tenotomy after THA were groin pain during active hip flexion, exclusion of other causes of groin pain, and no pain relief after 6 months of conservative treatment. Pretenotomy cup inclination and anteversion were measured on radiographs; axial and sagittal cup overhang were measured on computed tomography (CT) scans. Oxford hip score (OHS), modified Harris hip score (mHHS), and groin pain were assessed. Results: The initial cohort comprised 16 men (17 hips) and 31 women (32 hips), aged 60.7 ± 10.6 years. Cup inclination and anteversion were, respectively, 46.2 ± 6.2° and 14.6 ± 8.4°, while axial and sagittal cup overhang were, respectively, 4.4 ± 4.0 mm and 6.9 ± 4.5 mm. At ≥5 years follow‐up, four hips underwent cup and stem revision, two underwent isolated cup revision and one underwent secondary iliopsoas tenotomy. OHS improved by 23 ± 10 and mHHS improved by 31 ± 16. Posttenotomy groin pain was slight in 20.0%, mild in 17.5% and moderate in 12.5%. Regression analyses revealed that net change in mHHS decreased with sagittal cup overhang (β = –3.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] = –4.6 to –1.7; p < 0.001), but that there were no associations between cup position and net change in OHS. Conclusions: Endoscopic iliopsoas tenotomy provides good mid‐term clinical outcomes in patients with iliopsoas tendinopathy following THA. Furthermore, improvements in mHHS were found to decrease with increasing sagittal cup overhang, in cases for which adequate preoperative imaging was available. Level of Evidence: Level IV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review was to critically assess the quality of papers that report on the intra- and inter-observer repeatability of the Dejour classification for trochlear dysplasia, and to identify the possible causes for poor repeatability. Methods: Two authors independently conducted an electronic search (four databases) on 8 February 2023 for studies (English or French) that assessed trochlear dysplasia classifications on imaging of skeletally mature participants. Exclusion criteria were reviews of clinical studies, conference proceedings, or editorials. After title, abstract, and full-text screening, characteristics of eligible studies were tabulated (author, year, journal, study design, cohort characteristics, and intra- and/or inter-observer agreement coefficients). The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies. Authors analysed three components of the included studies: (1) classifications based on true lateral radiographs and slice imaging; (2) dysplasia graded into Type A vs B vs C vs D and 3) coefficients of intra- and/or inter-observer agreement. Results: The electronic search returned 3,178 references, and after removal of duplicates and irrelevant studies, ten were eligible for data extraction. A second search (31 July 2023) yielded one additional study. Eight studies did not include lateral radiographs, two studies did not explicitly state if radiographs were true lateral views, and one used true lateral radiographs in isolation. Classification of trochlear dysplasia into A vs B vs C vs D using different imaging modalities resulted in moderate to near-perfect intra-observer agreement, and slight to near-perfect inter-observer agreement. Studies distinguished between moderate and severe dysplasia using a variety of combinations: A vs B/C/D, A/B vs C/D and A/C vs B/D. Conclusion: This systematic review revealed that the Dejour classification remains the most widely used to assess trochlear dysplasia and that the majority of studies that assessed the reliability of the Dejour classification, reported moderate to near-perfect inter-observer agreement; however, pooling of results for comparison among the included studies was inappropriate due to substantial variation in imaging protocols and non-standardised criteria to distinguish severe from moderate dysplasia. Level of evidence: Level IV. Trial registry: The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42023386731. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]