Portal Setup: the Key Point in the Learning Curve for Hip Arthroscopy Technique

ObjectiveTo analyze the learning curve experience of hip arthroscopy based on patient demographics, surgical time, portal setup time, and postoperative complications and to find the key point in the learning curve.MethodsFrom May 2016 to February 2019, a prospective study on the learning curve experience of hip arthroscopy was performed in our hospital. We evaluated the first 50 consecutive hip arthroscopy procedures performed by a single surgeon. There were nine females and 41 males with a mean age of 30.8 years. We divide the patients into early group and late group according to the date of their operation, with each group including 25 patients. Data on patient demographics, types of procedure, surgical time, portal setup time, and postoperative complications were collected. Functional scores were assessed with the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS).ResultsPatients were followed up for 16.4 months on average (range, 13–27 months). The early group of patients had a mean age of 35.2 years and the late group a mean age of 26.5 years. The most common procedures performed for the early group were debridement (17 patients, 68%), and in the late group, most patients underwent labral repair (18 patients, 72%). Mean total surgical time was 168 min for the early group and 143 min for the late group, and there was no statistically significant difference between two groups. The portal setup time in the early group and late group was 40.2 ± 12.4 min and 18.5 ± 6.2 min, respectively (P < 0.001), and the portal setup time was significantly longer in the early group. Further analysis of the learning curve of portal setup showed that the average portal setup time was not statistically significant changed after 30 cases. There were six complications including iatrogenic cartilage injury and iatrogenic labrum injury in the early group and five complications including perineal crush injury and nerve stretch injury in the late group. The functional score of patients in the late group was significantly higher than that in the early group during follow‐up.ConclusionThe steep learning curve of hip arthroscopy is mainly caused by the challenge of portal setup and portalrelated complications were more common in the early group than in the late group. Surgical time is not an effective indicator for evaluating progress on the learning curve of hip arthroscopy.     

Hip Arthroscopy in the Setting of Hip Osteoarthritis: Systematic Review of Outcomes and Progression to Hip Arthroplasty

Background

Hip arthroscopy is now commonly used to treat hip pain and pathology, including osteoarthritis (OA). Despite this, little is known about the effect of hip arthroscopy on outcomes of pain and function and progression to total hip arthroplasty (THA) in hip OA.

Questions/purposes

This systematic review aimed to (1) determine pain and function outcomes after hip arthroscopy in people with hip OA; (2) compare the outcome after hip arthroscopy between people with and without hip OA; and (3) report the likelihood of progression to THA in patients with hip OA after hip arthroscopy.

Methods

This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The Downs and Black checklist was used for quality appraisal. Studies scoring positively on at least 50% of items were included in final analyses. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated where possible or study conclusions are presented.

Results

Twenty-two studies were included in the final analyses. Methodological quality and followup time varied widely. Moderate to large SMDs were reported for people with and without hip OA; however, the positive effects of the intervention were smaller for people with hip OA. Greater severity of hip OA and older age each predicted more rapid progression to THA.

Conclusions

Patients with hip OA report positive outcomes from hip arthroscopy, although observed positive effects may be inflated as a result of methodological limitations of the included studies. Patients with hip OA had inferior results compared with those who did not. Chondropathy severity and patient age were associated with a higher risk and more rapid progression to THA. High-quality comparative studies are required to confirm the effects of hip arthroscopy on symptoms and structural change in people with hip OA.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11999-014-3943-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.     

The Effect of Care Pathways for Hip Fractures: A Systematic Review

We performed a systematic review for primary studies on care pathways (CPs) for hip fracture (HF). The online databases MEDLINE-PubMed, Ovid-EMBASE, CINAHL-EBSCO host, and The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, Health Technology Assessment Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database) were searched. Two researchers reviewed the literature independently. Primary studies that met predefined inclusion criteria were assessed for their methodological quality. A total of 15 publications were included: 15 primary studies corresponding with 12 main investigations. Primary studies were evaluated for clinical outcomes, process outcomes, and economic outcomes. The studies assessed a wide range of outcome measures. While a number of divergent clinical outcomes were reported, most studies showed positive results of process management and health-services utilization. In terms of mortality, the results provided evidence for a positive impact of CPs on in-hospital mortality. Most studies also showed a significantly reduced risk of complications, including medical complications, wound infections, and pressure sores. Moreover, time-span process measures showed that an improvement in the organization of care was achieved through the use of CPs. Conflicting results were observed with regard to functional recovery and mobility between patients treated with CPs compared to usual care. Although our review suggests that CPs can have positive effects in patients with HF, the available evidence is insufficient for formal recommendations. There is a need for more research on CPs with selected process and outcome indicators, for in-hospital and postdischarge management of HF, with an emphasis on well-designed randomized trials.