Purpose To assess mid- to long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of hip arthroscopy as well as the rates of secondary surgery and to identify indications for surgery and noted predictors of failure. Methods A systematic review of the current literature was performed with the terms “hip arthroscopy,” “outcomes,” “patient-reported outcomes,” “mid-term,” “5-year,” “long-term,” and “10-year” in the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases in April of 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Data for study characteristics, patient demographics, follow-up time, indications for surgery, PROs, predictors of failure or unfavorable PROs, and rates of secondary hip preservation surgery and conversion to total hip arthroplasty were collected. Results Thirteen articles were included. Four studies were level III and 9 were level IV. In total, 1571 hips were included, and the average follow-up time ranged from 60 to 240 months. The most common indications for hip arthroscopy were labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Twelve studies reported on PROs and all reported improvement at latest follow-up. The most reported on scores were the modified Harris Hip Score, Harris Hip Score, and the Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale. When grouped based on average follow-up time, the conversion rates at the 5- and 10-year time points ranged from 3.0% to 17.9% and 2.4% to 32.5%, respectively. One study with 20-year follow-up reported a conversion rate of 41.0%. Osteoarthritis and increased age were the most cited predictors for secondary surgery or decreased PROs. Conclusions At mid- to long-term follow-up, patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy demonstrated improvement in several PROs. There was great variability in rates for revision surgery and conversion to total hip arthroplasty. The most common indications for hip arthroscopy were labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Osteoarthritis and increased age were the most cited predictors for unfavorable outcomes. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Mid- to Long-Term Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review.

Preoperative evaluation of the pathomorphology is crucial for surgical planning, including radiographs as the basic modality and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and case-based additional imaging (e.g. 3D-CT, abduction views).Hip arthroscopy (HAS) has undergone tremendous technical advances, an immense increase in use and the indications are getting wider. The most common indications for revision arthroscopy are labral tears and residual femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).Treatment of borderline developmental dysplastic hip is currently a subject of controversy. It is paramount to understand the underlining problem of the individual hip and distinguish instability (dysplasia) from FAI, as the appropriate treatment for unstable hips is periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) and for FAI arthroscopic impingement surgery.PAO with a concomitant cam resection is associated with a higher survival rate compared to PAO alone for the treatment of hip dysplasia. Further, the challenge for the surgeon is the balance between over- and undercorrection.Femoral torsion abnormalities should be evaluated and evaluation of femoral rotational osteotomy for these patients should be incorporated to the treatment plan. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:472-486. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210019.

Complications of hip preserving surgery.

The last decade has seen a boom in hip arthroscopy with refined indications. Improved understanding of pathoanatomy and disease progression has allowed for the development of advanced techniques. Labral reconstruction has been developed to substitute a non-functional or absent labrum. It has become an important technique in the armamentarium of high-volume arthroscopic hip surgeons. Basic science studies have improved understanding of hip biomechanics in the presence and absence of a labrum with a labral reconstruction allowing for reconstitution of normalcy. Current techniques have shown success with autograft and allograft tissue options. While autograft tissue allows for easy access intra-operatively and maintains patient biology, donor site morbidity is possible. Allografts negate donor site morbidity and allow for an abundance of tissue but can be resource-intensive and face availability concerns. Recent studies support outcomes of labral reconstructions using both autograft and allograft. Promising results have also allowed for performing labral reconstruction in a primary setting. Labral reconstruction can be successfully performed using both autograft and allograft. Patient biology should be respected, and native hip biomechanics restored. The literature is plentiful for appropriate surgical decision-making allowing the surgeon with multiple graft choices depending on training, experience, and resources.

Graft Options in Hip Labral Reconstruction

Background: Short- and midterm follow-up studies suggest that arthroscopic labral refixation/preservation leads to superior outcomes compared with labral excision/debridement. Purpose: To update the previous early (16 months) and midterm (mean, 42 months) follow-up of this cohort, which reported better patient-reported outcome measures and lower failure rates in the repair/refixation group. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The authors identified patients who underwent labral debridement/focal labral excision during a period before the development of labral repair techniques. A consecutive group of patients within the labral debridement group thought to be repairable with the authors’ current arthroscopic techniques were compared with a group of consecutive patients who underwent labral repair/refixation. In 46 hips, the labrum was focally excised/debrided consistent with pincer- or combined pincer- and cam-type impingement; in 54 hips, the labrum was repaired/refixed. Subjective outcomes were measured with the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain preoperatively and postoperatively. Results: The mean age was 34.0 years in the debridement group and 28.3 years in the repair/refixation group, with a mean follow-up of 7.3 years (range, 2-13.6 years). At the mean follow-up of 7.3 years, subjective outcomes were significantly improved (P < .01) for both groups compared with preoperative scores. The mHHS (P = .008), SF-12 score (P = .012), and VAS pain score (P = .002) were all significantly better for the repair/refixation group compared with the debridement group. Although most recent outcomes for both groups fell slightly at the mean follow-up of 7.3 years in comparison with the 16-month and 3.5-year follow-ups, these differences were not significant. However, the failure rate in the debridement group did get significantly worse (P = .014). Good to excellent results were 47.7% in the debridement group and 86.3% in the refixation group (P < .001), and failure rates were 30.4% (debridement) and 13% (refixation) (P = .033). There were 4 revisions in the debridement group and 3 revisions in the refixation group. Conclusion: Longer term, >7-year follow-up comparing focal labral excision/debridement with repair/refixation revealed better patient-reported outcomes and lower failure rates in the labral repair/refixation cohort. Additionally, despite an absolute decrease in patient-related outcome scoring and number of good/excellent results in both groups compared with the 3.5-year report, there was a significantly greater increase in failure rates over time for the excision/debridement group with better maintenance of good to excellent results in the repair/refixation group.

Arthroscopic Debridement Versus Refixation of the Acetabular Labrum Associated With Femoroacetabular Impingement: Updated Mean 7-Year Follow-up

The hip joint is the largest weight-bearing joint in the body and is surrounded by dense capsules and thick muscles. Hip arthroscopic techniques are suitable for the treatment of hip-related conditions. These minimally invasive techniques have rapidly developed in China since 2007. Moreover, they have been used in the treatment of gluteal muscle contracture, snapping hip syndrome, femoral acetabular impingement, acetabular labral injury, hip labral calcification, synovial chondroma, osteoid osteoma, synovitis, osteonecrosis of the femoral head, and developmental dysplasia of the hip. This technique has showed its advantage in the total debridement of lesions, precision treatment, and less trauma. However, we lack understanding of the overall development of arthroscopic techniques in China. This review illustrates the recent development of hip arthroscopic techniques in China and related research progress.

The Application of Arthroscopic Techniques in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Hip-Related Conditions in China.

Arthroscopic labral debridement versus labral repair for patients with femoroacetabular impingement: A meta-analysis.

Abstract Background Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) with varus alignment and medial space stenosis is a common degenerative disorder in the elderly. To reallocate the force bearing from the medial to the lateral compartment, the anti-varus osteotomy, including high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and proximal fibular osteotomy (PFO), corrects the mechanical lines of lower extremities using surgical methods, which alleviates the abrasion of medial cartilage and relieves pain. PFO is based on the “non-uniform settlement” theory. It is to cut small section of the proximal fibula, i.e., below the fibula head, which breaks the fibula and weakens its support for the lateral of the tibial plateau, lastly reduces the gap on the lateral side of the knee joint and offsets the knee varus deformity caused by weight bearing. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of PFO versus HTO intervention. Methods Twenty-three studies were acquired from PubMed, Embase, CNKI (China National Knowledge Infrastructure), Wanfang Database and Cochrane Library. The data were extracted by two of the coauthors independently and were analyzed by RevMan5.3. Mean differences (MDs), odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias. Results Twenty-three studies including 14 randomized controlled trials and 9 observational studies were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from low to high. The pooled results of the mean operation time (MD = − 38.75, 95% CI = − 45.66 to − 31.85, P &lt; 0.00001), intraoperative bleeding (std. MD = − 4.12, 95% CI = − 5 to − 3.24, P &lt; 0.00001), length of hospital stay (MD = − 3.77, 95% CI = − 4.98 to − 2.56, P &lt; 0.00001) and postoperative complications (OR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.37–1.18, P = 0.16) showed that the differences were statistically significant between the two interventions. The postoperative differences of visual analogue score (VAS) (MD = 0.15 95% CI = − 0.39 to 0.69, P = 0.58), hospital for Special Surgery knee score (HSS) (MD = − 2.68, 95% CI = − 6.30 to 0.94, P = 0.15), American knee society (AKS) score (MD = 0.04, 95% CI = − 0.69 to 0.77, P = 0.91), western Ontario and McMaster university of orthopedic index (WOMAC) (MD = 8.09, 95% CI = 2.06–14.13, P = 0.009) and femur–tibia angle (FTA) (MD = − 0.03, 95% CI = − 5.39 to 5.33, P = 0.99) were not statistically significant. Sensitivity analysis proved the stability of the pooled results and the publication bias was not apparent. Conclusions PFO and HTO have the same short-term efficacy in the treatment of KOA, but PFO can reduce the operation time, intraoperative bleeding, hospital stay and postoperative complications, which has certain advantages. Clinically, for patients with many complications and poor surgical tolerance, PFO can be preferred. 

/pdf/proximal-fibular-osteotomy-versus-high-tibial-osteotomy-for-2nr541nr.pdf

Proximal fibular osteotomy versus high tibial osteotomy for treating knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The literature on thyrotoxicosis caused by excessive ingestion of exogenous thyroid hormone is limited, and most cases reported have involved pediatric clinical studies. CASE SUMMARY A 21-year-old woman initially presented with palpitation and chest tightness after an overdose of levothyroxine (10 mg). The patient transiently lost consciousness and developed atrial fibrillation during hospitalization. We used propylthiouracil to decrease the peripheral conversion of T4 to T3 and inhibit the synthesis of endogenous thyroxine, propranolol to control heart rate, hydrocortisone to correct severe thyrotoxicosis, and hemoperfusion to increase levothyroxine clearance. The patient recovered and was discharged. CONCLUSION For patients with thyrotoxicosis after taking excess levothyroxine, it is critical to monitor vital signs and initiate effective treatment.

https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i11.3624

Wen-Xia Ren

Papers

Arthroscopic labral debridement versus labral repair for patients with femoroacetabular impingement: A meta-analysis.

Proximal fibular osteotomy versus high tibial osteotomy for treating knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Thyrotoxicosis after a massive levothyroxine ingestion: A case report