Editorial Commentary: Hip Arthroscopy—The Tissue-Friendly Evolution

The field of hip arthroscopy is saturated with low-level studies. A systematic review of these low-level studies provides low-level evidence favoring tissue-friendly restorative techniques such as labral repair and capsular repair over nonrestorative techniques such as labral debridement and capsulotomy. Iatrogenic complications such as nerve injuries and heterotopic ossification remain the most common complications of hip arthroscopy. This indicates that there is a further scope in improving the safety of hip arthroscopy. There is a need for innovative, well-designed benchtop and high-level clinical studies for rapid advancement in hip arthroscopy techniques.     

Editorial Commentary: Returning to High-Impact Sports After Hip Arthroscopy: Are We Shooting Ourselves in the Hip?

There is a clear consensus in the literature that professional athletes exhibit high rates of return to sport following hip arthroscopy. As orthopaedic surgeons, we are well equipped to guide athletes back to the field after intra-articular hip injuries. However, returning to high-impact sports and playing through the pain can have implications on long-term health. Literature suggests that former elite athletes are at greater risk for reinjury and developing hip osteoarthritis compared with non-athletes. While it is incumbent upon us as orthopaedic surgeons to inform and advise our patients regarding the long-term consequences of return to sport after a hip injury, we recognize and enthusiastically support the passion that many athletes feel for the game and the vast benefits that they can derive from returning to the sport they love.     

Editorial Commentary: Rehabilitation After Hip Arthroscopy—Bear in Mind the Bearing of Weight

Hip arthroscopy is the surgical treatment of choice for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and hip labral tears. Current guidelines on postoperative rehabilitation protocols are based on expert opinion, and evidence-based protocols are scarce. Previously, a non–weight-bearing protocol for several weeks after surgery was thought to prevent axial-load damage to the newly repaired labrum. However, there is a trend toward using immediate weight bearing as tolerated for early joint mobilization and pressurization. Strict weight-bearing restrictions may not be as necessary as once thought. We recommend that the first phase of rehabilitation prioritize joint protection to prevent joint inflammation and tissue irritation with a gradual increase in mobility exercises to restore range of motion. However, rehabilitation protocols should be tailored to address specific surgical findings, procedures, patient characteristics, and athletic goals. It is wise to be more conservative in older patients with poor bone quality. Bearing in mind this caveat, weight-bearing restrictions after hip arthroscopy may not improve outcomes and instead may have the negative effect of preventing patients from re-establishing a normal gait pattern.     

Editorial Commentary: Hip Arthroscopy in the Professional Athlete…Back in the Game

With improved outcomes and expanding indications, the rate of hip arthroscopy for treatment of numerous pathologies has increased. There is significant interest from patients and providers alike regarding return to meaningful play after surgical intervention, particularly for the professional athlete. Although each athlete and each sport have unique obstacles, the literature suggests hip arthroscopy has a high success rate and allows for elite athletes to return to play without significant differences in postoperative performance scores.     

Editorial Commentary: Hip Arthroscopy—Bimodal Bump and Volume Matters

In the experience of a high-volume hip arthroscopic surgeon with a referral practice, a bimodal age distribution could be common. Younger patients presenting with symptomatic hip pathology recalcitrant to nonoperative management may seek or be referred to high-volume surgeons, and older patients absent significant osteoarthritis may also be surgical candidates. Lower-volume hip surgeons could have higher complication rates, and it is incumbent on higher-volume surgeons to train upcoming colleagues as hip arthroscopy continues to grow.     

Editorial Commentary: Spine Pathology May Compromise the Results of Hip Arthroscopy: Will Hip Arthroscopy Improve Low Back Pain?

Pathology of the lumbar spine and hip commonly occur concurrently. The hip–spine connection has been well documented in the hip arthroplasty literature but until recently has been largely ignored in the setting of hip arthroscopy. Physical examination and diagnostic workup of the lumbosacral junction are warranted to further our understanding of the effects of lumbosacral motion and pathology in patients with concomitant femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. An understanding of this relationship will better allow surgeons to counsel and preoperatively optimize patients undergoing evaluation and treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Several studies have reported that patients with a previous lumbar arthrodesis undergoing hip arthroplasty have lower patient-reported outcomes and greater revision rates compared with patients without previous lumbar surgery, and similar to its effect on outcomes after hip arthroplasty, lumbar spine disease can compromise outcomes after hip arthroscopy. On the other side of the coin, hip arthroplasty has been shown to improve low back pain in patients with concomitant hip osteoarthritis. Can the arthroscopic treatment of nonarthritic hip pathology offer a similar result? We won't know unless we look.     

Editorial Commentary: Total Hip Arthroplasty After Hip Arthroscopy—Solution for the Failed Arthroscopy or a Matter of Pushing the Envelope and Questionable Indications

With the inevitable explosion of arthroscopic hip procedures being performed, the less frequent indications and failures are becoming prevalent enough to analyze. As with any procedure, failures occur and solutions are sought after. “Total hip arthroplasty after prior hip arthroscopy” is a statement that brings to mind several questions and comments. Yes, it is important to evaluate the impact of a prior arthroscopy on eventual total hip arthroplasty outcomes and complication rates. The bigger question when the arthroplasty is performed less than 2 years after hip arthroscopy, however, is “How did we get here?” The pivotal issue at hand might be one of pushing surgical indications a bit too forcefully on multiple fronts. It might be time to return to “Indications 101” to minimize an exponential increase regarding this particular topic with this particular failure timeline.     

Editorial Commentary: Hip Arthroscopy in an Aging Patient Population—Is 50 the New 40?

As the field of hip arthroscopy expands, in combination with an aging population that remains active into its later years, more outcome studies will be needed to better understand the efficacy and applicability of hip preservation in this patient population.     

Editorial Commentary: Pain After Hip Arthroscopy—Are We Truly Addressing the Problem?

Pain after hip arthroscopy is a significant and challenging issue as is evidenced by the number of publications on this subject. Various analgesic strategies to circumvent this issue have been tried, with variable results. The central problem is that pain experienced by patients after hip arthroscopy is multifactorial in origin. Regarding local injection, an anatomic approach to the nerve supply to the hip with an effective pain relief strategy should take this into consideration and focus on using drugs with a low risk of complications and infiltration techniques that do not cause an unnecessary delay in rehabilitation and discharge of the patient. Furthermore, addressing traction time, surgical technique, and fluid extravasation and applying an individualized approach, keeping the patient’s personality and profile in mind, will ensure adequate analgesia after arthroscopic intervention.     

Editorial Commentary: Can We Achieve Personalized Risk Assessment in Hip Arthroscopy?

Gender, age, obesity, osteoarthritis, absence of labral repair, and index procedure performed by a lower volume surgeon were identified as risk factors for reoperation in a statewide study of hip arthroscopy. Although this analysis is helpful for benchmarking expectations for outcome in hip arthroscopy, unaccounted patient variables in the database could significantly complicate and confound the point of care application of the findings.     

Editorial Commentary: The Wild,Wild West of Hip Arthroscopy—When to Pull the Trigger?

In our continued effort to refine the treatment algorithm of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, duration of symptoms before surgery is receiving considerable attention by researchers. A (somewhat) negative linear correlation is being elucidated between outcomes and extent of damage at time of arthroscopy. Knowing this, it may be prudent in certain patient populations to recommend surgery earlier in the disease process in hopes of minimizing the amount of damage to the joint to delay or avoid the onset of arthritis.     

Editorial Commentary: Safe Innovation? Arthroscopy After Traumatic Hip Dislocation

Hip arthroscopy can be helpful relative to conventional imaging when diagnosing (and treating) intra-articular injuries after a hip dislocation, but more evidence is required before adopting this approach diagnostic and therapeutic strategy.     

Editorial Commentary: Not Repairing the Hip Capsule After Arthroscopy—What Were We Thinking?

There has been an exponential increase in attention paid to the hip capsule as it relates to arthroscopic procedures. Violation of the hip capsule during arthroscopy has clear biomechanical consequences for the joint, and evidence that the capsule should be repaired following most arthroscopic hip procedures, and also in revision settings, is becoming insurmountable.     

Editorial Commentary: The Importance of Capsular Closure in Hip Arthroscopy: Is There a Limit to the Benefit?

Capsular closure is an important concept in hip arthroscopy and should be performed in nearly all patients. However, in patients with stiff hips and borderline arthritic changes, leaving the capsule unrepaired or performing a partial repair in the setting of a T-capsulotomy could result in successful outcomes.     

Editorial Commentary: Hip Arthroscopy Capsular Management—Cut Your Cloth to Measure!

Microinstability of the hip is a relatively recent concept but one that is gaining increased acceptance. As our understanding of the factors that contribute to microinstability has increased, so too has our ability to identify “at-risk” patients, in whom a capsular repair should be considered after hip arthroscopy to achieve optimal results and avoid iatrogenic instability (dislocation or microinstability). However, each of our patients is different, and as such, we must be able to tailor our capsulotomies and repairs accordingly based on the bony morphology, capsular volume, and properties of the tissue.     

Editorial Commentary: Is Back Pain Killing Your Hip Arthroscopy Outcomes?

The identification of factors associated with inferior postoperative outcomes after hip arthroscopy is critical as we try to further clarify indications for hip arthroscopy. Recent arthroplasty studies have shown worse outcomes after hip and knee replacement in patients with comorbid joint and spine pain. Recent evidence has shown this to be true in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy as well. This evidence helps surgeons counsel patients better preoperatively and manage their expectations postoperatively. Patients with comorbid joint and spine pain should expect improvements in pain and function after hip arthroscopy; however, the overall functional outcomes are worse than those in patients without these comorbid conditions.     

Editorial Commentary: Hip Arthroscopy in Hip Dysplasia: Just Because You Are Doing It,Should You?

As surgeons advance the field of hip arthroscopy and perform more hip arthroscopy in patients with hip dysplasia and associated femoroacetabular impingement, we need to publish more outcome studies to determine this procedure's success and safety in this specific group of patients.     

Editorial Commentary: When Enough Is Enough—Orthopaedic Procedures With Long Learning Curves and the Case of Hip Arthroscopy

The incidence of hip arthroscopy is increasing over time, as is the rate of labral repairs performed by American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery candidates in general and by sports medicine fellowship-trained candidates in particular. However, both arthroscopic labral debridement and repair yield excellent minimum 10-year outcomes in well-selected femoroacetabular impingement patients. In my practice, most hip arthroscopy patients undergo labral repair, and labral reconstruction is performed in about 4%, so I view the rising use of labral repair as a step forward. But concerns remain. How many of these American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery candidates will be able to hone their arthroscopic skills (and clinical judgment) in anywhere near the number of cases needed to achieve demonstrably low reoperation rates? In addition, will these fledgling surgeons be able to perform labral reconstructions or augmentations when indicated, bearing in mind that only half of such cases could be predicted preoperatively? The definition of adequate hip arthroscopy training remains up for grabs.     

Editorial Commentary: The Rise of Hip Arthroscopy: Temporary Trend or Here to Stay?

Hip arthroscopy has demonstrated a drastic rise in utilization in the past decade for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement, labral tears, and early arthritic changes. During that time, there has also been a rise in the use of administrative claims databases that have allowed for the analysis of trends in surgical procedures. Multiple large administrative database analyses have been used to characterize the changing trends in hip arthroscopy, and the demand for these procedures has grown significantly at our own institution as well as nationally. Despite this rapid rise, not all patients may benefit from these procedures, and proper patient selection is key for optimal outcomes.     

Editorial Commentary: Hip Arthroscopy in a Military Population: Are the Results Comparable to an Athletic Population?

Hip pain is common in the military population and has led to an increase in hip arthroscopy as a means of therapeutic treatment. Return to duty (RTD) is the measure by which military surgeons tend to judge their outcomes; could the servicemember “get back in the fight?” Return to play (RTP) is a common metric in sports medicine for assessing the effectiveness of a surgical intervention. The results of prior studies of RTD hip arthroscopy in the US military population have been underwhelming when compared with RTP in athletic cohorts. This discrepancy in outcomes likely has more to do with the differences in RTD and RTP as outcome measures than any surgeon, pathology, or demographic factors.