Our understanding of pre-arthritic hip disease has evolved tremendously but challenges remain in categorizing diagnosis, which ultimately impacts choice of treatments and clinical outcomes. This study aims to report patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) comparing four different condition groups within hip preservation surgery by a group of fellowship-trained surgeons.

From 2018 to 2021, 380 patients underwent hip preservation surgery at our center and were classified into five condition groups: dysplasia: 82 (21.6%), femoro-acetabular impingement (FAI): 173 (45.4%), isolated labral tear: 103 (27.1%), failed hip preservation: 20 (5.3%) and history of childhood disease/other: 2 (0.5%). International hip outcomes Tool 12 (IHOT-12), numeric pain score and patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) were collected pre-operatively and at 3 months and 1 year post-operatively, with 94% and 82% follow-up rate respectively.

Arthroscopy (75.5%) was the most common procedure followed by peri-acetabular osteotomy (PAO) (22.4%) and surgical dislocation (2.1%). Re-operation rate were respectively 18.3% (15), 5.8% (10), 4.9% (5), 30% (6) and 0%. There were 36 re-operations in the cohort, 14 (39%) for unintended consequences of initial surgery, 10 (28%) for mal-correction leading to a repeat operation, 8 (22%) progression of arthritis, and 4 (11%) for incorrect initial diagnosis/intervention. Most common re-operations were hardware removal 31% (7 PAO, 3 surgical hip dislocation and 1 femoral de-rotational osteotomy), arthroscopy 31% (11) and arthroplasty 28% (10). All groups had significant improvements in their IHOT-12 as well as PROMIS physical and numerical pain scales, except those with failed hip preservation. Dysplasia group showed a slower recovery.

Overall, this study demonstrated a clear relation between the condition groups, their respective intervention and the significant improvements in PROMs with isolated labral pathology being a valid diagnosis. Establishing tertiary referral centers for hip preservation and longer follow-up is needed to monitor the overall survivorship of these various procedures.

The gold standard treatment of hip dysplasia is a peri-acetabular osteotomy (PAO). Labral tears are seen in the majority of patients presenting with hip dysplasia and diagnosed using Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The goal was to (1) evaluate utility/value of MRI in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy at time of PAO, and (2) determine whether MRI findings of labral pathology can predict outcome.

A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at tertiary institutions, comparing patients with hip dysplasia treated with isolated PAO versus PAO with adjunct hip arthroscopy. This study was a subgroup analysis on 74 patients allocated to PAO and adjunct hip arthroscopy (age 26±8 years; 89.2% females). All patients underwent radiographic and MRI assessment using a 1.5-Tesla with or 3-Tesla MRI without arthrography to detect labral or cartilage pathology. Clinical outcome was assessed using international Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT).

74% of patients (55/74) were pre-operatively diagnosed with a labral tear on MRI. Among these, 41 underwent labral treatment (74%); whilst among those without a labral tear on MRI, 42% underwent labral treatment (8/19). MRI had a high sensitivity (84%), but a low specificity (56%) for labral pathology (p=0.053). There was no difference in pre-operative (31.3±16.0 vs. 37.3±14.9; p=0.123) and post-operative iHOT (77.7±22.2 vs. 75.2±23.5; p=0.676) between patients with and without labral pathology on MRI.

Value of MRI in the diagnostic work-up of a patient with hip dysplasia is limited. MRI had a high sensitivity (84%), but low specificity (44%) to identify labral pathology in patients with hip dysplasia. Consequently, standard clinical MRI had little value as a predictor of outcome with no differences in PROM scores between patients with and without a labral tear on MRI. Treatment of labral pathology in patients with hip dysplasia remains controversial. The results of this subgroup analysis of a prospective, multi-centre RCT do not show improved outcome among patients with dysplasia treated with labral repair.

With an ageing population and an increasing number of primary arthroplasties performed, the revision burden is predicted to increase. The aims of this study were to 1. Determine the revision burden in an academic hospital over a 11-year period; 2. identify the direct hospital cost associated with the delivery of revision service and 3. ascertain factors associated with increased cost.

This is an IRB-approved, retrospective, single tertiary referral center, consecutive case series. Using the hospital data warehouse, all patients that underwent revision hip or knee arthroplasty surgery between 2008-2018 were identified. 1632 revisions were identified (1304 patients), consisting of 1061 hip and 571 knee revisions. The majority of revisions were performed for mechanical-related problems and aseptic loosening (n=903; 55.3%); followed by periprosthetic joint infection (n=553; 33.9%) and periprosthetic fractures (176; 10.8%). Cost and length of stay was determined for all patient. The direct in-hospital costs were converted to 2020 inflation-adjusted Canadian dollars. Several patients- (age; gender; HOMR- and ASA-scores; Hemoglobin level) and surgical- (indication for surgery; surgical site) factors were tested for possible associations.

The number of revisions increased by 210% in the study period (2008 vs. 2018: 83 vs. 174). Revision indications changed over study period; with prevalence of fracture increasing by 460% (5 in 2008 vs. 23 in 2018) with an accompanying reduction in mechanical-related reasons, whilst revisions for infection remained constant. The mean annual cost over the entire study period was 3.9 MMCAD (range:2.4–5.1 MMCAD). The cost raised 150% over the study period from 2.4 MMCAD in 2008 to 3.6 MMCAD. Revisions for fractured had the greatest length of stay, the highest mean age, HOMR-score, ASA and cost associated with treatment compared to other revision indications (p < 0 .001). Patient factors associated with cost and length of stay included ASA- and HOMR-scores, Charlson-Comorbidity score and age.

The revision burden increased 1.5-fold over the years and so has the direct cost of care delivery. The increased cost is primarily related to the prolonged hospital stay and increased surgical cost. For tertiary care units, these findings indicate a need to identify strategies on improving efficiencies whilst improving the quality of patient care (e.g. efficient ways of reducing acute hospital stay) and reducing the raise of the economic burden on a publicly funded health system.

It has been reported that 60-85% of patients who undergo PAO have concomitant intraarticular pathology that cannot be addressed with PAO alone. Currently, there are limited diagnostic tools to determine which patients would benefit from hip arthroscopy at the time of PAO to address intra-articular pathology. This study aims to see if preoperative PROMs scores measured by IHOT-33 scores have predictive value in whether intra-articular pathology is addressed during PAO + scope. The secondary aim is to see how often surgeons at high-volume hip preservation centers address intra-articular pathology if a scope is performed during the same anesthesia event.

A randomized, prospective Multicenter trial was performed on patients who underwent PAO and hip arthroscopy to treat hip dysplasia from 2019 to 2020. Preoperative PROMs and intraoperative findings and procedures were recorded and analyzed. A total of 75 patients, 84% Female, and 16% male, with an average age of 27 years old, were included in the study. Patients were randomized to have PAO alone 34 patients vs. PAO + arthroscopy 41 patients during the same anesthesia event. The procedures performed, including types of labral procedures and chondroplasty procedures, were recorded. Additionally, a two-sided student T-test was used to evaluate the difference in means of preoperative IHOT score among patients for whom a labral procedure was performed versus no labral procedure.

A total of 82% of patients had an intra-articular procedure performed at the time of hip arthroscopy. 68% of patients who had PAO + arthroscopy had a labral procedure performed. The most common labral procedure was a labral refixation which was performed in 78% of patients who had a labral procedure performed. Femoral head-neck junction chondroplasty was performed in 51% of patients who had an intra-articular procedure performed. The mean IHOT score was 29.3 in patients who had a labral procedure performed and 33.63 in those who did not have a labral procedure performed P- value=0.24.

Our findings demonstrate preoperative IHOT-33 scores were not predictive in determining whether intra-articular labral pathology was addressed at the time of surgery. Additionally, we found that if labral pathology was addressed, labral refixation was the most common repair performed. This study also provides valuable information on what procedures high-volume hip preservation centers are performing when performing PAO + arthroscopy.

Hip dysplasia has traditionally been classified based on the lateral centre edge angle (LCEA). A recent meta-analysis demonstrated no definite consensus and a significant heterogeneity in LCEA values used in various studies to define hip dysplasia and borderline dysplasia. To overcome the shortcomings of classifying hip dysplasia based on just LCEA, a comprehensive classification for adult acetabular dysplasia (CCAD) was proposed to classify symptomatic hips into three discrete prototypical patterns of hip instability, lateral/global, anterior, or posterior. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of this recently published CCAD.

One thirty four consecutive hips that underwent a PAO were categorized using a validated software (Hip2Norm) into four categories of normal, lateral/global, anterior or psosterior. Based on the prevalence of individual dysplasia and using KappaSize R package version 1.1, seventy four cases were necessary for reliability analysis: 44 dysplastic and 30 normal hips were randomly selected. Six blinded fellowship trained raters were then provided with the classification system and they looked at the x-rays (74 images) at two separate time points (minimum two weeks apart) to classify the hips using standard PACS measurements. Thereafter, a consensus meeting was held where a simplified flow diagram was devised before a third reading by four raters using a separate set of 74 radiographs took place.

Intra-rater results per surgeon between Time 1 and Time 2 showed substantial to almost perfect agreement amongst the raters. With respect to inter-rater reliability, at time 1 and time 2, there was substantial agreement overall between all surgeons (kappa of 0.619 for time 1 and 0,623 for time 2). Posterior and anterior rating categories had moderate and fair agreement at time 1 and time 2, respectively. At time 3, overall reliability (kappa of 0.687) and posterior and anterior rating improved from Time 1 and Time 2.

The comprehensive classification system provides a reliable way to identify three categories of acetabular dysplasia that are well-aligned with surgical management. The term borderline dysplasia should no longer be used.

The effectiveness of total hip replacement as a surgical intervention has revolutionized the care of degenerative conditions of the hip joint. However, the surgeon is still left with important decisions in regards to how best deliver that care with choice of surgical approach being one of them especially in regards to the short-term clinical outcome. It is however unclear if a particular surgical approach offers a long-term advantage. This study aims to determine the influence of the three main surgical approaches to the hip on patient reported outcomes and quality of life after 5 years post-surgery.

We extracted from our prospective database all the patients who underwent a Total Hip Replacement surgery for osteoarthritis or osteonecrosis between 2008 and 2012 by an anterior, posterior or lateral approach. All the pre-operative and post-operative HOOS (Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) and WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) scores were noted. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVAs) were used to study the relationship between amount of change in HOOS and WOMAC subscales (dependant variables) and approach used, by also including confounding factors of age, gender, ASA (American Society of Anaesthesiologists) score, Charnley score and Body Mass Index. A total of 1895 patients underwent a primary total hip arthroplasty during the considered period. Among them, 367 had pre-operative and ≥5 years post operative PROM scores (19.47%)

The mean follow-up for the study cohort was 5.3 years (range 5 to 7 years) with, 277 at 5 years, 63 at 6 years, and 27 at 7 years. In the posterior approach group we had 138 patients (37.60%), 104 in the lateral approach (28.34%) and 125 in the anterior approach (34.06%). There were no significant differences between the 3 groups concerning the Charnley classification, BMI, Gender, ASA score, side and pre-operative functional scores. We did not observe any significant difference in the amount of change in HOOS and WOMAC subscales between the 3 groups. There were no differences either in the post-operative scores in ultimate value.

Our monocentric observational study shows that these three approaches provide predictable and comparable outcomes on HRQL and PROMs at long-term follow-up both in terms of final outcome but also in percent improvement. This study has several limitations. We excluded patients who underwent revision surgery leaving the unanswered question of how choice of surgical approach could lead to different revision rates, which have an impact on the functional outcomes. Moreover, even if we controlled for the most important confounders by a multivariate analysis model, there is still some involved cofounders, which could potentially lead to a bias such as smoking, socio-economical status or femoral head diameter. But we do not have any reason to think that these parameters could be unequally distributed between the three groups. Finally, our study cohort represents of 19.47% of the complete cohort. The fact that not all patients have PROM's was pre-determined as eight years ago we instituted that only 1 in 5 patients that returned their pre-operative questionnaire would get their PROM's at follow-up. Despite this, our statistical power was sufficient.

Aims

The aim of the current study was to assess the reliability of the Ottawa classification for symptomatic acetabular dysplasia.

Background

Hip dysplasia has traditionally been classified based on the lateral center edge angle (LCEA). A recent meta-analysis demonstrated no definite consensus and a significant heterogeneity in LCEA values used in various studies to define hip dysplasia and borderline dysplasia. To overcome the shortcomings of classifying hip dysplasia based on just LCEA, a comprehensive classification for adult acetabular dysplasia (CCAD) was proposed to classify symptomatic hips into three discrete prototypical patterns of hip instability; lateral/global, anterior, or posterior. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of this recently published CCAD.

Aims

What represents clinically significant acetabular undercoverage in patients with symptomatic cam-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to examine the influence of the degree of acetabular coverage on the functional outcome of patients treated arthroscopically for cam-type FAI.

The current study aimed to determine the influence of acetabular coverage and intraarticular pathology on post-operative functional outcomes of arthroscopy for cam type FAI.

Based on 762 hip scopes performed by a single surgeon between 2013 and 2016, we excluded patients with previous surgery on the hip, mixed FAI, surgical hip dislocation, and missing outcome scores. From this, 97 hips between the ages 17 and 48 that underwent arthroscopy for cam deformity were identified for analysis. Every patient received a partial capsulotomy, cam resection and either labral repair or resection. Measurements for acetabular coverage consisted of pre-operative lateral edge angle (LCEA) (mean 30°, range: 15.4°–40°) and three-dimensional anterior and posterior acetabular coverages. Intraoperative Beck scores were acquired from operative reports, and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) was collected pre- and post-operatively.

Significant post-operative improvement was found in scores of all categories of the HOOS (p < 0.05). However, improvement in HOOS was not correlated with the LCEA, anterior coverage, or posterior coverage. There was a trend toward lower Beck grades (1–3) resulting in better HOOS outcomes than higher Beck grades (4–5). Also, lower Beck grades showed significantly lower alpha angle (mean = 55.86) than higher grades (mean = 73.48).

We showed that cam FAI arthroscopic resection improved patient outcome, and confirmed the relationship between the Beck score and functional outcome. However, functional improvement was not related to acetabular coverage suggesting that the so-called “borderline” dysplasia is not a useful radiographic indicator for surgical management.

The Spine Adverse Events Severity System (SAVES) and Orthopaedic Surgical Adverse Events Severity System (OrthoSAVES) are standardised assessment tools designed to record adverse events (AEs) in orthopaedic patients. The primary objective was to compare AEs recorded prospectively by orthopaedic surgeons compared to trained independent clinical reviewers. The secondary objective was to compare AEs following spine, hip, knee, and shoulder orthopaedic procedures.

Over a 10-week period, three orthopaedic spine surgeons recorded AEs following all elective procedures to the point of patient discharge. Three orthopaedic surgeons (hip, knee, and shoulder) also recorded AEs for their elective procedures. Two independent reviewers used SAVES and OrthoSAVES to record AEs after reviewing clinical notes by surgeons and other healthcare professionals (e.g. nurses, physiotherapists). At discharge, AEs recorded by the surgeons and independent reviewers were recorded in a database.

AE data for 164 patients were collected (48 spine, 52 hip, 33 knee, and 31 shoulder). Overall, 98 AEs were captured by the independent reviewers, compared to 14 captured by the surgeons. Independent reviewers recorded significantly more AEs than surgeons overall, as well as for each individual group (i.e. spine, hip, knee, shoulder) (p2), but surgeons failed to record minor events that were captured by the independent reviewers (e.g. urinary retention and cutaneous injuries; AEs Grade 0.05). AEs were reported in 21 (43.8%), 19 (36.5%), 12 (36.4%), and five (16.1%) spine, hip, knee, and shoulder patients, respectively. Nearly all reported AEs required only simple or minor treatment (e.g. antibiotic, foley catheter) and had no effect on outcome. Two patients experienced AEs that required invasive or complex treatment (e.g. surgery, monitored bed) that had a temporary effect on outcome.

Similar complication rates were reported in spine, hip, knee, and shoulder patients. Independent reviewers reported more AEs compared to surgeons. These findings suggest that independent reviewers are more effective at capturing AEs following orthopaedic surgery, and thus, could be recruited in order to capture more AEs, enhance patient safety and care, and maximise different complication diagnoses in alignment with proposed diagnosis-based funding models.

Objectives

Patient function after arthroplasty should ideally quickly improve. It is not known which peri-operative function assessments predict length of stay (LOS) and short-term functional recovery. The objective of this study was to identify peri-operative functions assessments predictive of hospital LOS and short-term function after hospital discharge in hip or knee arthroplasty patients.

Purpose: The Quality of Recovery-40 questionnaire (QoR-40) has been developed, validated and extensively used to assess the quality of life of patients following major surgery. It is composed of 40 questions answered by the patient and organized into six dimensions: emotional state, physical comfort, psychological support, physical independence, pain, and global score. However, this questionnaire has not been validated in an orthopaedic population. The objective of the study was to assess the psychometric properties of the QoR-40 in a population of patients undergoing total knee or hip arthroplasty.

Method: Sixty seven patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty and 65 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty were recruited. Patients were assessed with the QoR-40 and the SF-12, a validated generic quality of life questionnaire, at the following seven times: three and one week pre-operative; one, two and three days post-operative (short-term); one and three months post-operative (long-term). The following psychometric properties of the QoR-40 were assessed: reliability between three and one week pre-operative using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), construct validity with the SF-12 using Pearson product moment correlations, responsiveness to change using effect sizes, floor and ceiling effects, and predictive validity of short-term QoR-40 scores of long-term SF-12 scores.

Results: All dimensions and global scores of the QoR-40 appeared reliable, with ICCs’ ranging from 0.75 to 0.84. For construct validity, physical dimension scores of the QoR-40 (physical comfort, physical independence, pain) were weakly or not significantly related to the physical component scale of the SF-12 (−0.09 to 0.34), except for long-term where the correlations were moderate (0.35 to 0.62). The emotional state score of the QoR-40 was moderately to substantially related to the mental component scale of the SF-12 for all periods (0.40 to 0.78). Effect sizes were higher for the QoR-40 when compared to the SF-12 in the intervals of the first month, while they were higher for the SF-12 in the intervals above one month. The QoR-40 demonstrated ceiling effects for the physical independence dimension pre-operatively and three months post-operatively, and for all periods for the psychological support dimension. As for predictive validity, short-term post-operative QoR-40 scores were weakly or not significantly predictive of long-term postoperative SF-12 scores (0.01 to 0.41).

Conclusion: The QoR-40 appears to be a reliable tool assessing a quality of life construct different from the SF-12 and more responsive to change during the short-term follow-up to surgery. The QoR-40 could be used to assess short-term quality of life following surgery. The QoR-40 should not be used to predict long-term quality of life. To further improve the tool, the psychological support dimension of the QoR-40 should be reconceptualized because of ceiling effects.