The American Journal of Orthopedics

In this DocThoughts interview, The American Journal of Orthopedics' associate editor, Dr. Cole, delves into the mind of a surgeon and gives insight into the surgical decision making process for his athletes. 

In this DocThoughts interview, The American Journal of Orthopedics' associate editor, Dr. Cole, delves into the mind of a surgeon and gives insight into the surgical decision making process for his athletes. 

In this DocThoughts interview, The American Journal of Orthopedics' associate editor, Dr. Cole, delves into the mind of a surgeon and gives insight into the surgical decision making process for his athletes. 

Take-Home Points

• RTSA is projected to triple by 2020.
• RTSA for fracture indication anticipates a 4.9% compound quarterly growth rate.

• RTSA is gaining in popularity likely due to unpredictable results of hemiarthroplasty in select patients.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is an accepted treatment option for the pain and dysfunction associated with glenohumeral arthritis and severe rotator cuff pathology.^1-3 Recently, it has been gaining acceptance as an alternative to hemiarthroplasty (HA) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in the surgical management of complex proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) in elderly patients.^4-6 The advantages of RTSA over other PHF treatment options include a lower revision rate and superior range of motion.^4,5

PHF remains one of the most common fracture pathologies in the United States.⁷ Given the country’s aging patient population, the popularity of RTSA likely will continue to increase.^4-6 The release of supercomputer data from individual private-payer insurance providers provides an opportunity to investigate trends in the surgical management of PHFs and to formulate models for predicting use. In this study, we used a large private-payer database to analyze these trends over the period 2010 to 2014 and project RTSA use through 2020.

Methods

We used PearlDiver’s supercomputer application to search the Humana private-payer database to retrospectively identify cases of PHF treated with the index procedure of RTSA. PearlDiver, a publicly available national database compliant with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996), compiles private-payer records submitted by Humana. These records represent 100% of the orthopedics-related payer records within the dataset. The database includes International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes from 2007 to 2014.

RTSA cases were identified by ICD-9 codes 81.80 and 81.88 and CPT code 23472. PHFs were identified by ICD-9, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes 812.00, 812.01, 812.02, 812.03, 812.09, 812.10, 812.11, 812.12, 812.13, 812.19, and 812.20. Holt-Winters quarterly (Q) projection analysis was performed on the RTSA-PHF data from Q1-2010 through Q4-2020 (Figure).

Results

For the known study period Q1-2010 through Q3-2014, our search yielded 46,106 PHF cases, 4057 (8.8%) of which were surgically treated with RTSAs (Table 1).

Age-based subgroup analysis revealed RTSA was performed primarily in the older-than-65 years patient population, with the highest percentage in the 70-to-74 years age group (24.4%), followed by the 75-to-79 years age group (21.6%) (Table 2).

Discussion

Use of RTSA for the management of complex PHFs has increased tremendously over the past several years. The primary results of our study showed an upward trend in RTSA use in the Humana population. CQGR was 6.5% from Q1-2010 through Q3-2014 (the number of RTSAs increased to 294 from 95). Based on the Holt-Winters projection analysis, CQGR was projected to be 2.8% through 2020 (339 RTSAs in Q4-2014 increasing to 664 RTSAs in Q4-2020), resulting in an overall 10-year CQGR of 4.6%.

Recent studies have shown RTSA to be a viable alternative to HA in patients with PHFs. It has been suggested that RTSAs may have more reliable clinical outcomes without a comparative increase in complication rates.^1,8,9 HA has been associated with unpredictable motion, higher complication rates, and high rates of unsatisfactory results in patients older than 65 years.^10-12 In addition, studies have found that, compared with HA and ORIF, RTSA produces superior range of motion.^8,9 The reliability of clinical outcomes in the early transition to use of RTSA for complex fractures suggests that use of RTSA for PHF management is trending upward. Results of the present study showed a steady increase in RTSA use. This trend is further supported by a recent study finding on national trends in RTSA use in PHF cases: 12.3% annual growth during the period 2000 to 2008.⁶Our study results showed a continued steady quarterly increase in use of RTSA for PHFs, projected to triple by Q4-2020 (Table 1). The increasing popularity of RTSA may be attributable to its better clinical outcomes and to the procedural instruction given to newly trained orthopedic surgeons during residency. A recent study found a substantial increase in the use of RTSA for PHFs—from 2% in 2005 to 38% in 2012—among newly trained orthopedic surgeons.¹³ Another possible driver of the increase is cost. Although RTSA implant costs are often a multiple of the costs of other treatment options, different findings were reported in 2 recent studies that used quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) to determine RTSA cost-effectiveness. Coe and colleagues¹⁴ compared RTSA with HA and found RTSA to be cost-effective but highly dependent on implant cost. They determined that an implant cost of over $13,000 put RTSA cost-effectiveness at just under $100,000 QALY, whereas an implant cost of under $7000 brought QALY down to under $50,000. Renfree and colleagues¹⁵ used the same QALY benchmark but found RTSA to be at the highly cost-effective threshold of under $25,000 QALY.

Current literature recommends RTSA be performed primarily for elderly patients.^1,2,16,17 Guery and colleagues² suggested limiting RTSA to patients who are older than 70 years and have low functional demands. In 2 studies of RTSA use in complex humeral fractures, Gallinet and colleagues^16,18 found an increased rate of scapular notching in younger patients and recommended restricting RTSA to patients 70 years or older. PHFs in patients older than 70 years often have more complex fracture patterns and poor-quality bone, which makes fracture healing more challenging in HA and ORIF settings. As tuberosity healing is crucial to functional outcomes of surgically treated PHFs, RTSA has been advanced as a more reliable option in patients in whom tuberosity healing is expected to be unreliable. The present study’s finding that 68.5% of the RTSA patients in the Humana population were older than 70 years further supports the literature’s emphasis on reserving RTSA for patients over 70 years.

This study had its limitations. The PearlDiver database depends on accurate ICD-9 and CPT coding, and there was potential for reporting bias. In addition, a new, specific ICD-9 code for RTSA was introduced in 2010 and may not have been immediately used; data reported during this time could have been affected. Furthermore, the data were primarily represented by a single private-payer organization (Humana) and therefore may not have fully encapsulated the entire US trend. Projection in this study did not account for US Census–predicted population growth and therefore may have underestimated the true projected use of RTSA for PHFs.

This study benefited from the completeness of the data used. PearlDiver represents 100% of Humana claims data, providing a large patient population for analysis and capturing data as recent as 2014. To our knowledge, no other large database studies have used such up-to-date data.

Conclusion

RTSA is becoming an increasingly popular treatment option for PHFs. Modest overall quarterly growth in use of RTSA for PHFs (CQGR, 4.6%) is predicted through Q4-2020. Number of RTSAs performed for PHF management is projected to more than triple by 2020.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E28-E31. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• RTSA is projected to triple by 2020.
• RTSA for fracture indication anticipates a 4.9% compound quarterly growth rate.

• RTSA is gaining in popularity likely due to unpredictable results of hemiarthroplasty in select patients.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is an accepted treatment option for the pain and dysfunction associated with glenohumeral arthritis and severe rotator cuff pathology.^1-3 Recently, it has been gaining acceptance as an alternative to hemiarthroplasty (HA) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in the surgical management of complex proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) in elderly patients.^4-6 The advantages of RTSA over other PHF treatment options include a lower revision rate and superior range of motion.^4,5

PHF remains one of the most common fracture pathologies in the United States.⁷ Given the country’s aging patient population, the popularity of RTSA likely will continue to increase.^4-6 The release of supercomputer data from individual private-payer insurance providers provides an opportunity to investigate trends in the surgical management of PHFs and to formulate models for predicting use. In this study, we used a large private-payer database to analyze these trends over the period 2010 to 2014 and project RTSA use through 2020.

Methods

We used PearlDiver’s supercomputer application to search the Humana private-payer database to retrospectively identify cases of PHF treated with the index procedure of RTSA. PearlDiver, a publicly available national database compliant with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996), compiles private-payer records submitted by Humana. These records represent 100% of the orthopedics-related payer records within the dataset. The database includes International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes from 2007 to 2014.

RTSA cases were identified by ICD-9 codes 81.80 and 81.88 and CPT code 23472. PHFs were identified by ICD-9, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes 812.00, 812.01, 812.02, 812.03, 812.09, 812.10, 812.11, 812.12, 812.13, 812.19, and 812.20. Holt-Winters quarterly (Q) projection analysis was performed on the RTSA-PHF data from Q1-2010 through Q4-2020 (Figure).

Results

For the known study period Q1-2010 through Q3-2014, our search yielded 46,106 PHF cases, 4057 (8.8%) of which were surgically treated with RTSAs (Table 1).

Age-based subgroup analysis revealed RTSA was performed primarily in the older-than-65 years patient population, with the highest percentage in the 70-to-74 years age group (24.4%), followed by the 75-to-79 years age group (21.6%) (Table 2).

Discussion

Use of RTSA for the management of complex PHFs has increased tremendously over the past several years. The primary results of our study showed an upward trend in RTSA use in the Humana population. CQGR was 6.5% from Q1-2010 through Q3-2014 (the number of RTSAs increased to 294 from 95). Based on the Holt-Winters projection analysis, CQGR was projected to be 2.8% through 2020 (339 RTSAs in Q4-2014 increasing to 664 RTSAs in Q4-2020), resulting in an overall 10-year CQGR of 4.6%.

Recent studies have shown RTSA to be a viable alternative to HA in patients with PHFs. It has been suggested that RTSAs may have more reliable clinical outcomes without a comparative increase in complication rates.^1,8,9 HA has been associated with unpredictable motion, higher complication rates, and high rates of unsatisfactory results in patients older than 65 years.^10-12 In addition, studies have found that, compared with HA and ORIF, RTSA produces superior range of motion.^8,9 The reliability of clinical outcomes in the early transition to use of RTSA for complex fractures suggests that use of RTSA for PHF management is trending upward. Results of the present study showed a steady increase in RTSA use. This trend is further supported by a recent study finding on national trends in RTSA use in PHF cases: 12.3% annual growth during the period 2000 to 2008.⁶Our study results showed a continued steady quarterly increase in use of RTSA for PHFs, projected to triple by Q4-2020 (Table 1). The increasing popularity of RTSA may be attributable to its better clinical outcomes and to the procedural instruction given to newly trained orthopedic surgeons during residency. A recent study found a substantial increase in the use of RTSA for PHFs—from 2% in 2005 to 38% in 2012—among newly trained orthopedic surgeons.¹³ Another possible driver of the increase is cost. Although RTSA implant costs are often a multiple of the costs of other treatment options, different findings were reported in 2 recent studies that used quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) to determine RTSA cost-effectiveness. Coe and colleagues¹⁴ compared RTSA with HA and found RTSA to be cost-effective but highly dependent on implant cost. They determined that an implant cost of over $13,000 put RTSA cost-effectiveness at just under $100,000 QALY, whereas an implant cost of under $7000 brought QALY down to under $50,000. Renfree and colleagues¹⁵ used the same QALY benchmark but found RTSA to be at the highly cost-effective threshold of under $25,000 QALY.

Current literature recommends RTSA be performed primarily for elderly patients.^1,2,16,17 Guery and colleagues² suggested limiting RTSA to patients who are older than 70 years and have low functional demands. In 2 studies of RTSA use in complex humeral fractures, Gallinet and colleagues^16,18 found an increased rate of scapular notching in younger patients and recommended restricting RTSA to patients 70 years or older. PHFs in patients older than 70 years often have more complex fracture patterns and poor-quality bone, which makes fracture healing more challenging in HA and ORIF settings. As tuberosity healing is crucial to functional outcomes of surgically treated PHFs, RTSA has been advanced as a more reliable option in patients in whom tuberosity healing is expected to be unreliable. The present study’s finding that 68.5% of the RTSA patients in the Humana population were older than 70 years further supports the literature’s emphasis on reserving RTSA for patients over 70 years.

This study had its limitations. The PearlDiver database depends on accurate ICD-9 and CPT coding, and there was potential for reporting bias. In addition, a new, specific ICD-9 code for RTSA was introduced in 2010 and may not have been immediately used; data reported during this time could have been affected. Furthermore, the data were primarily represented by a single private-payer organization (Humana) and therefore may not have fully encapsulated the entire US trend. Projection in this study did not account for US Census–predicted population growth and therefore may have underestimated the true projected use of RTSA for PHFs.

This study benefited from the completeness of the data used. PearlDiver represents 100% of Humana claims data, providing a large patient population for analysis and capturing data as recent as 2014. To our knowledge, no other large database studies have used such up-to-date data.

Conclusion

RTSA is becoming an increasingly popular treatment option for PHFs. Modest overall quarterly growth in use of RTSA for PHFs (CQGR, 4.6%) is predicted through Q4-2020. Number of RTSAs performed for PHF management is projected to more than triple by 2020.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E28-E31. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• RTSA is projected to triple by 2020.
• RTSA for fracture indication anticipates a 4.9% compound quarterly growth rate.

• RTSA is gaining in popularity likely due to unpredictable results of hemiarthroplasty in select patients.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is an accepted treatment option for the pain and dysfunction associated with glenohumeral arthritis and severe rotator cuff pathology.^1-3 Recently, it has been gaining acceptance as an alternative to hemiarthroplasty (HA) and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) in the surgical management of complex proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) in elderly patients.^4-6 The advantages of RTSA over other PHF treatment options include a lower revision rate and superior range of motion.^4,5

PHF remains one of the most common fracture pathologies in the United States.⁷ Given the country’s aging patient population, the popularity of RTSA likely will continue to increase.^4-6 The release of supercomputer data from individual private-payer insurance providers provides an opportunity to investigate trends in the surgical management of PHFs and to formulate models for predicting use. In this study, we used a large private-payer database to analyze these trends over the period 2010 to 2014 and project RTSA use through 2020.

Methods

We used PearlDiver’s supercomputer application to search the Humana private-payer database to retrospectively identify cases of PHF treated with the index procedure of RTSA. PearlDiver, a publicly available national database compliant with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996), compiles private-payer records submitted by Humana. These records represent 100% of the orthopedics-related payer records within the dataset. The database includes International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes from 2007 to 2014.

RTSA cases were identified by ICD-9 codes 81.80 and 81.88 and CPT code 23472. PHFs were identified by ICD-9, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes 812.00, 812.01, 812.02, 812.03, 812.09, 812.10, 812.11, 812.12, 812.13, 812.19, and 812.20. Holt-Winters quarterly (Q) projection analysis was performed on the RTSA-PHF data from Q1-2010 through Q4-2020 (Figure).

Results

For the known study period Q1-2010 through Q3-2014, our search yielded 46,106 PHF cases, 4057 (8.8%) of which were surgically treated with RTSAs (Table 1).

Age-based subgroup analysis revealed RTSA was performed primarily in the older-than-65 years patient population, with the highest percentage in the 70-to-74 years age group (24.4%), followed by the 75-to-79 years age group (21.6%) (Table 2).

Discussion

Use of RTSA for the management of complex PHFs has increased tremendously over the past several years. The primary results of our study showed an upward trend in RTSA use in the Humana population. CQGR was 6.5% from Q1-2010 through Q3-2014 (the number of RTSAs increased to 294 from 95). Based on the Holt-Winters projection analysis, CQGR was projected to be 2.8% through 2020 (339 RTSAs in Q4-2014 increasing to 664 RTSAs in Q4-2020), resulting in an overall 10-year CQGR of 4.6%.

Recent studies have shown RTSA to be a viable alternative to HA in patients with PHFs. It has been suggested that RTSAs may have more reliable clinical outcomes without a comparative increase in complication rates.^1,8,9 HA has been associated with unpredictable motion, higher complication rates, and high rates of unsatisfactory results in patients older than 65 years.^10-12 In addition, studies have found that, compared with HA and ORIF, RTSA produces superior range of motion.^8,9 The reliability of clinical outcomes in the early transition to use of RTSA for complex fractures suggests that use of RTSA for PHF management is trending upward. Results of the present study showed a steady increase in RTSA use. This trend is further supported by a recent study finding on national trends in RTSA use in PHF cases: 12.3% annual growth during the period 2000 to 2008.⁶Our study results showed a continued steady quarterly increase in use of RTSA for PHFs, projected to triple by Q4-2020 (Table 1). The increasing popularity of RTSA may be attributable to its better clinical outcomes and to the procedural instruction given to newly trained orthopedic surgeons during residency. A recent study found a substantial increase in the use of RTSA for PHFs—from 2% in 2005 to 38% in 2012—among newly trained orthopedic surgeons.¹³ Another possible driver of the increase is cost. Although RTSA implant costs are often a multiple of the costs of other treatment options, different findings were reported in 2 recent studies that used quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) to determine RTSA cost-effectiveness. Coe and colleagues¹⁴ compared RTSA with HA and found RTSA to be cost-effective but highly dependent on implant cost. They determined that an implant cost of over $13,000 put RTSA cost-effectiveness at just under $100,000 QALY, whereas an implant cost of under $7000 brought QALY down to under $50,000. Renfree and colleagues¹⁵ used the same QALY benchmark but found RTSA to be at the highly cost-effective threshold of under $25,000 QALY.

Current literature recommends RTSA be performed primarily for elderly patients.^1,2,16,17 Guery and colleagues² suggested limiting RTSA to patients who are older than 70 years and have low functional demands. In 2 studies of RTSA use in complex humeral fractures, Gallinet and colleagues^16,18 found an increased rate of scapular notching in younger patients and recommended restricting RTSA to patients 70 years or older. PHFs in patients older than 70 years often have more complex fracture patterns and poor-quality bone, which makes fracture healing more challenging in HA and ORIF settings. As tuberosity healing is crucial to functional outcomes of surgically treated PHFs, RTSA has been advanced as a more reliable option in patients in whom tuberosity healing is expected to be unreliable. The present study’s finding that 68.5% of the RTSA patients in the Humana population were older than 70 years further supports the literature’s emphasis on reserving RTSA for patients over 70 years.

This study had its limitations. The PearlDiver database depends on accurate ICD-9 and CPT coding, and there was potential for reporting bias. In addition, a new, specific ICD-9 code for RTSA was introduced in 2010 and may not have been immediately used; data reported during this time could have been affected. Furthermore, the data were primarily represented by a single private-payer organization (Humana) and therefore may not have fully encapsulated the entire US trend. Projection in this study did not account for US Census–predicted population growth and therefore may have underestimated the true projected use of RTSA for PHFs.

This study benefited from the completeness of the data used. PearlDiver represents 100% of Humana claims data, providing a large patient population for analysis and capturing data as recent as 2014. To our knowledge, no other large database studies have used such up-to-date data.

Conclusion

RTSA is becoming an increasingly popular treatment option for PHFs. Modest overall quarterly growth in use of RTSA for PHFs (CQGR, 4.6%) is predicted through Q4-2020. Number of RTSAs performed for PHF management is projected to more than triple by 2020.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E28-E31. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Cam deformity often occurs with dysplasia.
• Borderline or mild dysplasia has been treated with isolated hip arthroscopy.
• Avoid rim trimming that can make mild dysplasia more severe.
• Labral preservation, cam decompression, and capsular repair or plication are currently suggested.
• Poorer outcomes occurred in borderline or mild dysplasia with cam impingement relative to controls following hip arthroscopy without capsular repair.
• Initial clinical improvement may be followed by clinical deterioration suggesting close long-term follow-up with prompt addition of reorientation acetabular osteotomy if indicated.
• It is unknown whether small capsulotomies may yield comparable outcomes with larger capsulotomies plus repair.

It is unknown whether small capsulotomies may yield comparable outcomes with larger capsulotomies plus repair. There is growing interest in hip preservation surgery in general and arthroscopic hip preservation in particular. Chondrolabral pathology leading to symptoms and degenerative progression typically is caused by structural abnormalities, mainly femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and developmental dysplasia of the hip. Unlike the bony overcoverage of pincer FAI, developmental dysplasia of the hip typically exhibits insufficient anterolateral coverage of the femoral head.

The role of hip arthroscopy in the treatment of dysplasia remains undefined. Emerging evidence shows a high incidence of dysplasia with associated cam deformity,^1,2 but there is a paucity of evidence-based information for this specific patient population. Clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopy in the setting of dysplasia are conflicting: some poor^3-5 and others successful.^1,6-9 Although reorientation periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is considered a mainstay in the treatment of dysplasia—providing improvement in symptoms, deficient anterolateral acetabular coverage, and hip biomechanics—midterm failure rates approaching 24% have been reported.^10-12 Many young patients with symptomatic dysplasia want a surgical option that is less invasive than open PAO.⁴ Intra-articular central compartment pathology and cam FAI commonly occur with dysplasia and are amenable to arthroscopic treatment.^1,13,14 Moreover, staged PAO may be successful in cases in which arthroscopic intervention fails to provide clinical improvement.^5,15 

Emerging evidence suggests beneficial effects of arthroscopic capsular repair or plication in the setting of borderline or mild dysplasia.^7,9 However, the literature provides little information on arthroscopic outcomes without capsular repair. One study found poor outcomes of arthroscopic surgery for dysplasia, but its patients underwent labral débridement, not repair.³ Two patients in a case report demonstrated rapidly progressive osteoarthritis after arthroscopic labral repairs and concurrent femoroplasties for cam FAI, but each had marked dysplasia with a lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) of <15°.⁴

Arthroscopy with capsular repair has been assumed to provide better outcomes than arthroscopy without repair, but to our knowledge there are no studies that have compared outcomes of mild dysplasia with cam FAI and outcomes of mixed FAI treated without capsular repair. Clinical equipoise makes it ethically challenging to perform a prospective study comparing dysplasia treated with and without capsular repair. We conducted a study to compare outcomes of mild dysplasia with cam FAI and outcomes of mixed FAI treated with arthroscopic surgery and to fill the knowledge gap regarding outcomes of mild dysplasia treated without capsular repair.

Methods

In this study, which received Institutional Review Board approval, we retrospectively reviewed radiographs and data from a prospective 3-center study of arthroscopic outcomes of FAI in 150 patients (159 hips) who underwent arthroscopic surgery by 1 of 3 surgeons between March 2009 and June 2010. In all cases, digital images of anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were used for radiographic measurements. On these images, the LCEA is formed by the intersection of the vertical line (corrected for obliquity using a horizontal reference line connecting the inferior extents of both radiographic teardrops) through the center of the femoral head (determined with a digital centering tool) with the line extending to the lateral edge of the sourcil (radiographic eyebrow of the weight-bearing region or roof of the acetabulum). Measurements were made in blinded fashion (by a nonsurgeon coauthor, Dr. Nikhil Gupta, who completed training modules) and were confirmed without alteration by the principal investigator Dr. Dean K. Matsuda. Inclusion criteria were mild acetabular dysplasia (LCEA, 15°-24°) and mixed FAI including focal pincer component (LCEA, 25°-39°), radiographic crossover sign, and successful completion of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures at minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were severe dysplasia (LCEA, <15°), hip subluxation, broken Shenton line, global pincer FAI (LCEA, ≥40°), Tönnis grade 3 osteoarthritis, Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease, osteonecrosis, prior hip surgery, and unsuccessful completion of PRO measures. Outcome measures included investigator-blinded preoperative and postoperative Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS) and 5-point Likert satisfaction score. Complications, revision surgeries, and conversion arthroplasties were recorded.

Statistical Analysis

We examined outcomes with descriptive statistics for each of the candidate covariates in the model classified by femoroacetabular subtype: focal pincer and cam (mixed FAI) and dysplasia with cam. We examined the variables of sex, age, weight, height, body mass index, preoperative NAHS, presence of dysplasia (yes/no), presence of osteoarthritis (yes/no), Tönnis osteoarthritis grade, Outerbridge class, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, months of pain, bilateral procedure (yes/no), and pincer involvement with cam FAI (yes/no). Before beginning linear regression modeling, we screened the candidate variables for strong correlations with other variables and looked for those variables with minimal missing data. For all these covariates, we then performed linear regression with a selection process—both a stepwise selection method and a backward elimination method—to verify we determined the same model for 24-month NAHS, or to understand why we could not. Finally, we ran the model we found from the linear regression as a linear mixed model of 24-month NAHS with the dichotomous variables taken as fixed effects and the other variables taken as random effects, using variance-components representation for the random effects. We then examined 3-month and 12-month NAHS with the same variables selected for the 24-month model.

To further examine and verify the effects of dysplasia on outcomes found in our linear mixed model, we performed a nested case–control analysis matching each member of cohort D (cases) with 2 members of cohort M (controls). We used an optimal-matching algorithm to match focal patients in the linear regression dataset with dysplasia patients in the linear regression dataset in such a way as to minimize the overall differences between the datasets. We matched cases and controls on preoperative NAHS, age, sex, presence of osteoarthritis, months of pain, ASA score, and body mass index. The differences between the matched cases and controls (control value minus case value) were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests for statistical significance of differences from 0 (with differences generated for each control group member, 2 differences per case) to examine the quality of the match. Finally, we examined the statistical significance of the difference of the outcome variables (3-, 12-, and 24-month NAHS) from 0, again using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Statistical significance was set at P < .05 using SAS Version 9.3 (SAS Institute).

Surgical Procedure

In all cases, supine outpatient hip arthroscopy was performed under general anesthesia. Anterolateral and modified midanterior portals¹⁶ were used. T-capsulotomies were performed in both cohorts. Cohort M underwent anterosuperior acetabuloplasty with a motorized burr. Labral refixation or selective débridement was performed in cohort M, whereas labral repair (with limited freshening of acetabular rim attachment site) or selective débridement (but no segmental resection) was performed in cohort D. Arthroscopic femoroplasty was performed with similar endpoints of 120° minimum hip flexion and 30° minimum flexed hip internal rotation with retention of the labral fluid seal. Capsular repair or plication was not performed for either cohort during the study period.

The cohorts underwent similar postoperative protocols: 2 weeks of protected ambulation using 2 crutches, exercise cycling without resistance beginning postoperative day 1, swimming at 2 weeks, elliptical machine workouts at 6 weeks, jogging at 12 weeks, and return to unrestricted athletics at 5 months.

Results

In cohort D, which consisted of 8 patients (5 female), mean age was 49.6 years, and mean LCEA was 19° (range, 16°-24°).

In cohort D, mean (SD) change in NAHS was +20.00 (6.24) (P = .25) at 3 months (n = 3), +14.33 (9.77) (P = .03) at 12 months (n = 6), and –0.75 (19.86) (P = .74) at 24 months (n = 8).

Discussion

The principal finding of this study is the significantly poorer outcomes of mild dysplasia and cam FAI relative to mixed FAI after hip arthroscopy without capsular repair. Study group (cohort D) and control group (cohort M) had associated cam deformities treated with femoroplasty with similar decompression endpoints and labral preservation in the form of selective débridement or labral repair (no labral resections in either cohort) with similar rehabilitation protocols.

Our study findings suggest short-term improvement may be followed by midterm worsening in patients with mild dysplasia and sustained improvement in patients with mixed FAI. These findings have practical clinical applications. Jackson and colleagues⁵ reported on a patient who, after undergoing “successful” arthroscopic surgery for mild dysplasia, clinically deteriorated after 13 months and eventually required PAO. Patients undergoing isolated hip arthroscopy for mild dysplasia with cam FAI should be informed of the possible need for secondary PAO or even hip arthroplasty, be followed up more often and longer than comparable patients with FAI, and have follow-up supplemented with interval radiographs.⁴ If even subtle subluxation or joint narrowing occurs, we suggest resumption of protected weight-bearing and prompt progression to PAO in younger patients with joint congruency or eventual conversion arthroplasty in older ones.

Although mean preoperative NAHS (52.88) and mean 24-month postoperative NAHS (52.13) suggest essentially no change in PROs for cohort D, all patients with dysplasia either worsened or improved, though those who improved did so at a lesser relative magnitude than those with mixed FAI (cohort M). This finding may help explain the divergent outcomes reported in the literature on dysplasia treated with hip arthroscopy.

Cohort D was older than cohort M, but the difference was not statistically significant. Age may still be a confounding variable, and it may have contributed in part to the poorer outcomes for the patients with dysplasia. However, emerging studies demonstrate select older patients with FAI and/or labral tears may have successful outcomes with arthroscopic intervention.^17,18 Our findings support mild dysplasia as the main contributor to the poor outcomes observed in this study.

With identical postoperative rehabilitation protocols, patients in both cohorts typically were ambulating without crutches by the end of postoperative week 2. Delayed weight-bearing has been suggested as contributing to successful outcomes in the setting of dysplasia^7,19,20 but has not been shown to adversely affect nondysplastic hips.²¹ Whether delayed weight-bearing contributed to the poor outcomes in our dysplasia cohort is unknown, but the early successful outcomes may discount its influence.

Our findings support successful outcomes of arthroscopic treatment of mixed FAI (specifically focal pincer plus cam FAI) without capsular repair. Perhaps more important, we found inferior outcomes of arthroscopic treatment of mild dysplasia plus cam FAI without capsular repair—filling the knowledge gap regarding the need for arthroscopic capsular repair for mild dysplasia. Although a recent study demonstrated no significant difference in outcomes between hip arthroscopy with and without capsular repair,²² 2 studies specific to mild dysplasia demonstrated successful outcomes of capsular repair.^7,9 One found that mild dysplasia treated with arthroscopy, including capsular plication, resulted in 77% good/excellent outcomes and LCEA as low as 18° at minimum 2-year follow-up.⁷ The other found clinical improvement in mild dysplasia (LCEA, 15°-19°) when capsular repair was performed as part of arthroscopic treatment.⁹ In the present study, we retrospectively reviewed outcomes from a prospective study performed in 2009 to 2010, before the era of common capsular repair. It appears that capsular repair⁹ or plication⁷ in the setting of mild dysplasia may yield improved outcomes approaching those of arthroscopic FAI surgery. Our study results showed that, despite labral preservation and cam decompression, mild dysplasia without the closure of T-capsulotomy had inferior outcomes at 2 years. However, we do not know if outcomes would have been better with capsular repair or plication and/or smaller capsulotomies, perhaps with minimal violation of the iliofemoral ligament in this specific subset of patients. Furthermore, we do not know if optimal outcomes can best be achieved with arthroscopic and/or open surgery, with or without acetabular reorientation, in patients with mild dysplasia and cam FAI.

Dysplasia with cam FAI is an emerging common condition for which patients may seek less invasive treatment in the form of hip arthroscopy. The findings of this study suggest caution in using hip arthroscopy without capsular repair in the treatment of mild dysplasia with cam FAI, even in the presence of cam decompression and labral and acetabular rim preservation.

Study Strengths and Limitations

One strength was the relative lack of surgeon bias. When the surgeries were performed (2009-2010), we recognized cam and pincer FAI but did not discriminate for mild dysplasia, because at that time it was not known to be a potential predictor of poorer outcomes. Another strength was the strict methodology, with blinding of all investigator surgeons to PROs and stringent retention of all PROs, including “failures” (eg, total hip arthroplasty conversions and complications), in both cohorts. Moreover, the crucial case-control analysis matched on multiple variables verified statistically significant results demonstrating poorer outcomes at minimum 2-year follow-up, despite more improvement in the dysplasia cohort at 3 months. The latter, we think, is also valuable new information; it emphasizes the need for close and prolonged follow-up of patients with mild dysplasia despite early improvement.

Limitations include the small number of study patients, the retrospective study design (using prospectively collected data), and the isolated use of LCEA to define dysplasia. Pereira and colleagues²³ recommended using LCEA with Tönnis angle to define minor dysplasia. Although dysplasia cannot be precisely defined with only this radiographic measurement, LCEA has been shown to be a reliable, clinically relevant measure.²⁴ In addition, LCEA has been used in most reports on arthroscopic management of dysplastic hips and thus allows for comparison. Furthermore, other studies have used LCEA of <15° as a threshold between mild and severe dysplasia, and we did as well. This broad inclusion criterion allowed for heterogeneity in our mild dysplasia cohort and was a study limitation. Interobserver reliability of measured LCEA was not assessed and is another limitation.

The initial prospective study (2009) did not record α angles to quantify cam FAI. This is a study limitation. However, the surgical range-of-motion endpoints considered sufficient for cam decompression were the same in both cohorts. In addition, femoral version was not assessed in the original database (2009-2010), as this aspect of hip anatomy was not thought significant during initial data collection. These areas of interest merit further investigation.

Use of a focal pincer cohort may be challenged as a suboptimal control group. However, there were very few completely normal acetabulae with pure cam FAI in the original prospective study, and the focal pincer cohort was used as a control cohort in previous studies.²⁵

Conclusion

The common combination of mild dysplasia and cam FAI has poorer outcomes than mixed FAI after arthroscopic surgery without capsular repair.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E47-E53. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Cam deformity often occurs with dysplasia.
• Borderline or mild dysplasia has been treated with isolated hip arthroscopy.
• Avoid rim trimming that can make mild dysplasia more severe.
• Labral preservation, cam decompression, and capsular repair or plication are currently suggested.
• Poorer outcomes occurred in borderline or mild dysplasia with cam impingement relative to controls following hip arthroscopy without capsular repair.
• Initial clinical improvement may be followed by clinical deterioration suggesting close long-term follow-up with prompt addition of reorientation acetabular osteotomy if indicated.
• It is unknown whether small capsulotomies may yield comparable outcomes with larger capsulotomies plus repair.

It is unknown whether small capsulotomies may yield comparable outcomes with larger capsulotomies plus repair. There is growing interest in hip preservation surgery in general and arthroscopic hip preservation in particular. Chondrolabral pathology leading to symptoms and degenerative progression typically is caused by structural abnormalities, mainly femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and developmental dysplasia of the hip. Unlike the bony overcoverage of pincer FAI, developmental dysplasia of the hip typically exhibits insufficient anterolateral coverage of the femoral head.

The role of hip arthroscopy in the treatment of dysplasia remains undefined. Emerging evidence shows a high incidence of dysplasia with associated cam deformity,^1,2 but there is a paucity of evidence-based information for this specific patient population. Clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopy in the setting of dysplasia are conflicting: some poor^3-5 and others successful.^1,6-9 Although reorientation periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is considered a mainstay in the treatment of dysplasia—providing improvement in symptoms, deficient anterolateral acetabular coverage, and hip biomechanics—midterm failure rates approaching 24% have been reported.^10-12 Many young patients with symptomatic dysplasia want a surgical option that is less invasive than open PAO.⁴ Intra-articular central compartment pathology and cam FAI commonly occur with dysplasia and are amenable to arthroscopic treatment.^1,13,14 Moreover, staged PAO may be successful in cases in which arthroscopic intervention fails to provide clinical improvement.^5,15 

Emerging evidence suggests beneficial effects of arthroscopic capsular repair or plication in the setting of borderline or mild dysplasia.^7,9 However, the literature provides little information on arthroscopic outcomes without capsular repair. One study found poor outcomes of arthroscopic surgery for dysplasia, but its patients underwent labral débridement, not repair.³ Two patients in a case report demonstrated rapidly progressive osteoarthritis after arthroscopic labral repairs and concurrent femoroplasties for cam FAI, but each had marked dysplasia with a lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) of <15°.⁴

Arthroscopy with capsular repair has been assumed to provide better outcomes than arthroscopy without repair, but to our knowledge there are no studies that have compared outcomes of mild dysplasia with cam FAI and outcomes of mixed FAI treated without capsular repair. Clinical equipoise makes it ethically challenging to perform a prospective study comparing dysplasia treated with and without capsular repair. We conducted a study to compare outcomes of mild dysplasia with cam FAI and outcomes of mixed FAI treated with arthroscopic surgery and to fill the knowledge gap regarding outcomes of mild dysplasia treated without capsular repair.

Methods

In this study, which received Institutional Review Board approval, we retrospectively reviewed radiographs and data from a prospective 3-center study of arthroscopic outcomes of FAI in 150 patients (159 hips) who underwent arthroscopic surgery by 1 of 3 surgeons between March 2009 and June 2010. In all cases, digital images of anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were used for radiographic measurements. On these images, the LCEA is formed by the intersection of the vertical line (corrected for obliquity using a horizontal reference line connecting the inferior extents of both radiographic teardrops) through the center of the femoral head (determined with a digital centering tool) with the line extending to the lateral edge of the sourcil (radiographic eyebrow of the weight-bearing region or roof of the acetabulum). Measurements were made in blinded fashion (by a nonsurgeon coauthor, Dr. Nikhil Gupta, who completed training modules) and were confirmed without alteration by the principal investigator Dr. Dean K. Matsuda. Inclusion criteria were mild acetabular dysplasia (LCEA, 15°-24°) and mixed FAI including focal pincer component (LCEA, 25°-39°), radiographic crossover sign, and successful completion of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures at minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were severe dysplasia (LCEA, <15°), hip subluxation, broken Shenton line, global pincer FAI (LCEA, ≥40°), Tönnis grade 3 osteoarthritis, Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease, osteonecrosis, prior hip surgery, and unsuccessful completion of PRO measures. Outcome measures included investigator-blinded preoperative and postoperative Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS) and 5-point Likert satisfaction score. Complications, revision surgeries, and conversion arthroplasties were recorded.

Statistical Analysis

We examined outcomes with descriptive statistics for each of the candidate covariates in the model classified by femoroacetabular subtype: focal pincer and cam (mixed FAI) and dysplasia with cam. We examined the variables of sex, age, weight, height, body mass index, preoperative NAHS, presence of dysplasia (yes/no), presence of osteoarthritis (yes/no), Tönnis osteoarthritis grade, Outerbridge class, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, months of pain, bilateral procedure (yes/no), and pincer involvement with cam FAI (yes/no). Before beginning linear regression modeling, we screened the candidate variables for strong correlations with other variables and looked for those variables with minimal missing data. For all these covariates, we then performed linear regression with a selection process—both a stepwise selection method and a backward elimination method—to verify we determined the same model for 24-month NAHS, or to understand why we could not. Finally, we ran the model we found from the linear regression as a linear mixed model of 24-month NAHS with the dichotomous variables taken as fixed effects and the other variables taken as random effects, using variance-components representation for the random effects. We then examined 3-month and 12-month NAHS with the same variables selected for the 24-month model.

To further examine and verify the effects of dysplasia on outcomes found in our linear mixed model, we performed a nested case–control analysis matching each member of cohort D (cases) with 2 members of cohort M (controls). We used an optimal-matching algorithm to match focal patients in the linear regression dataset with dysplasia patients in the linear regression dataset in such a way as to minimize the overall differences between the datasets. We matched cases and controls on preoperative NAHS, age, sex, presence of osteoarthritis, months of pain, ASA score, and body mass index. The differences between the matched cases and controls (control value minus case value) were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests for statistical significance of differences from 0 (with differences generated for each control group member, 2 differences per case) to examine the quality of the match. Finally, we examined the statistical significance of the difference of the outcome variables (3-, 12-, and 24-month NAHS) from 0, again using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Statistical significance was set at P < .05 using SAS Version 9.3 (SAS Institute).

Surgical Procedure

In all cases, supine outpatient hip arthroscopy was performed under general anesthesia. Anterolateral and modified midanterior portals¹⁶ were used. T-capsulotomies were performed in both cohorts. Cohort M underwent anterosuperior acetabuloplasty with a motorized burr. Labral refixation or selective débridement was performed in cohort M, whereas labral repair (with limited freshening of acetabular rim attachment site) or selective débridement (but no segmental resection) was performed in cohort D. Arthroscopic femoroplasty was performed with similar endpoints of 120° minimum hip flexion and 30° minimum flexed hip internal rotation with retention of the labral fluid seal. Capsular repair or plication was not performed for either cohort during the study period.

The cohorts underwent similar postoperative protocols: 2 weeks of protected ambulation using 2 crutches, exercise cycling without resistance beginning postoperative day 1, swimming at 2 weeks, elliptical machine workouts at 6 weeks, jogging at 12 weeks, and return to unrestricted athletics at 5 months.

Results

In cohort D, which consisted of 8 patients (5 female), mean age was 49.6 years, and mean LCEA was 19° (range, 16°-24°).

In cohort D, mean (SD) change in NAHS was +20.00 (6.24) (P = .25) at 3 months (n = 3), +14.33 (9.77) (P = .03) at 12 months (n = 6), and –0.75 (19.86) (P = .74) at 24 months (n = 8).

Discussion

The principal finding of this study is the significantly poorer outcomes of mild dysplasia and cam FAI relative to mixed FAI after hip arthroscopy without capsular repair. Study group (cohort D) and control group (cohort M) had associated cam deformities treated with femoroplasty with similar decompression endpoints and labral preservation in the form of selective débridement or labral repair (no labral resections in either cohort) with similar rehabilitation protocols.

Our study findings suggest short-term improvement may be followed by midterm worsening in patients with mild dysplasia and sustained improvement in patients with mixed FAI. These findings have practical clinical applications. Jackson and colleagues⁵ reported on a patient who, after undergoing “successful” arthroscopic surgery for mild dysplasia, clinically deteriorated after 13 months and eventually required PAO. Patients undergoing isolated hip arthroscopy for mild dysplasia with cam FAI should be informed of the possible need for secondary PAO or even hip arthroplasty, be followed up more often and longer than comparable patients with FAI, and have follow-up supplemented with interval radiographs.⁴ If even subtle subluxation or joint narrowing occurs, we suggest resumption of protected weight-bearing and prompt progression to PAO in younger patients with joint congruency or eventual conversion arthroplasty in older ones.

Although mean preoperative NAHS (52.88) and mean 24-month postoperative NAHS (52.13) suggest essentially no change in PROs for cohort D, all patients with dysplasia either worsened or improved, though those who improved did so at a lesser relative magnitude than those with mixed FAI (cohort M). This finding may help explain the divergent outcomes reported in the literature on dysplasia treated with hip arthroscopy.

Cohort D was older than cohort M, but the difference was not statistically significant. Age may still be a confounding variable, and it may have contributed in part to the poorer outcomes for the patients with dysplasia. However, emerging studies demonstrate select older patients with FAI and/or labral tears may have successful outcomes with arthroscopic intervention.^17,18 Our findings support mild dysplasia as the main contributor to the poor outcomes observed in this study.

With identical postoperative rehabilitation protocols, patients in both cohorts typically were ambulating without crutches by the end of postoperative week 2. Delayed weight-bearing has been suggested as contributing to successful outcomes in the setting of dysplasia^7,19,20 but has not been shown to adversely affect nondysplastic hips.²¹ Whether delayed weight-bearing contributed to the poor outcomes in our dysplasia cohort is unknown, but the early successful outcomes may discount its influence.

Our findings support successful outcomes of arthroscopic treatment of mixed FAI (specifically focal pincer plus cam FAI) without capsular repair. Perhaps more important, we found inferior outcomes of arthroscopic treatment of mild dysplasia plus cam FAI without capsular repair—filling the knowledge gap regarding the need for arthroscopic capsular repair for mild dysplasia. Although a recent study demonstrated no significant difference in outcomes between hip arthroscopy with and without capsular repair,²² 2 studies specific to mild dysplasia demonstrated successful outcomes of capsular repair.^7,9 One found that mild dysplasia treated with arthroscopy, including capsular plication, resulted in 77% good/excellent outcomes and LCEA as low as 18° at minimum 2-year follow-up.⁷ The other found clinical improvement in mild dysplasia (LCEA, 15°-19°) when capsular repair was performed as part of arthroscopic treatment.⁹ In the present study, we retrospectively reviewed outcomes from a prospective study performed in 2009 to 2010, before the era of common capsular repair. It appears that capsular repair⁹ or plication⁷ in the setting of mild dysplasia may yield improved outcomes approaching those of arthroscopic FAI surgery. Our study results showed that, despite labral preservation and cam decompression, mild dysplasia without the closure of T-capsulotomy had inferior outcomes at 2 years. However, we do not know if outcomes would have been better with capsular repair or plication and/or smaller capsulotomies, perhaps with minimal violation of the iliofemoral ligament in this specific subset of patients. Furthermore, we do not know if optimal outcomes can best be achieved with arthroscopic and/or open surgery, with or without acetabular reorientation, in patients with mild dysplasia and cam FAI.

Dysplasia with cam FAI is an emerging common condition for which patients may seek less invasive treatment in the form of hip arthroscopy. The findings of this study suggest caution in using hip arthroscopy without capsular repair in the treatment of mild dysplasia with cam FAI, even in the presence of cam decompression and labral and acetabular rim preservation.

Study Strengths and Limitations

One strength was the relative lack of surgeon bias. When the surgeries were performed (2009-2010), we recognized cam and pincer FAI but did not discriminate for mild dysplasia, because at that time it was not known to be a potential predictor of poorer outcomes. Another strength was the strict methodology, with blinding of all investigator surgeons to PROs and stringent retention of all PROs, including “failures” (eg, total hip arthroplasty conversions and complications), in both cohorts. Moreover, the crucial case-control analysis matched on multiple variables verified statistically significant results demonstrating poorer outcomes at minimum 2-year follow-up, despite more improvement in the dysplasia cohort at 3 months. The latter, we think, is also valuable new information; it emphasizes the need for close and prolonged follow-up of patients with mild dysplasia despite early improvement.

Limitations include the small number of study patients, the retrospective study design (using prospectively collected data), and the isolated use of LCEA to define dysplasia. Pereira and colleagues²³ recommended using LCEA with Tönnis angle to define minor dysplasia. Although dysplasia cannot be precisely defined with only this radiographic measurement, LCEA has been shown to be a reliable, clinically relevant measure.²⁴ In addition, LCEA has been used in most reports on arthroscopic management of dysplastic hips and thus allows for comparison. Furthermore, other studies have used LCEA of <15° as a threshold between mild and severe dysplasia, and we did as well. This broad inclusion criterion allowed for heterogeneity in our mild dysplasia cohort and was a study limitation. Interobserver reliability of measured LCEA was not assessed and is another limitation.

The initial prospective study (2009) did not record α angles to quantify cam FAI. This is a study limitation. However, the surgical range-of-motion endpoints considered sufficient for cam decompression were the same in both cohorts. In addition, femoral version was not assessed in the original database (2009-2010), as this aspect of hip anatomy was not thought significant during initial data collection. These areas of interest merit further investigation.

Use of a focal pincer cohort may be challenged as a suboptimal control group. However, there were very few completely normal acetabulae with pure cam FAI in the original prospective study, and the focal pincer cohort was used as a control cohort in previous studies.²⁵

Conclusion

The common combination of mild dysplasia and cam FAI has poorer outcomes than mixed FAI after arthroscopic surgery without capsular repair.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E47-E53. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Cam deformity often occurs with dysplasia.
• Borderline or mild dysplasia has been treated with isolated hip arthroscopy.
• Avoid rim trimming that can make mild dysplasia more severe.
• Labral preservation, cam decompression, and capsular repair or plication are currently suggested.
• Poorer outcomes occurred in borderline or mild dysplasia with cam impingement relative to controls following hip arthroscopy without capsular repair.
• Initial clinical improvement may be followed by clinical deterioration suggesting close long-term follow-up with prompt addition of reorientation acetabular osteotomy if indicated.
• It is unknown whether small capsulotomies may yield comparable outcomes with larger capsulotomies plus repair.

It is unknown whether small capsulotomies may yield comparable outcomes with larger capsulotomies plus repair. There is growing interest in hip preservation surgery in general and arthroscopic hip preservation in particular. Chondrolabral pathology leading to symptoms and degenerative progression typically is caused by structural abnormalities, mainly femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and developmental dysplasia of the hip. Unlike the bony overcoverage of pincer FAI, developmental dysplasia of the hip typically exhibits insufficient anterolateral coverage of the femoral head.

The role of hip arthroscopy in the treatment of dysplasia remains undefined. Emerging evidence shows a high incidence of dysplasia with associated cam deformity,^1,2 but there is a paucity of evidence-based information for this specific patient population. Clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopy in the setting of dysplasia are conflicting: some poor^3-5 and others successful.^1,6-9 Although reorientation periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is considered a mainstay in the treatment of dysplasia—providing improvement in symptoms, deficient anterolateral acetabular coverage, and hip biomechanics—midterm failure rates approaching 24% have been reported.^10-12 Many young patients with symptomatic dysplasia want a surgical option that is less invasive than open PAO.⁴ Intra-articular central compartment pathology and cam FAI commonly occur with dysplasia and are amenable to arthroscopic treatment.^1,13,14 Moreover, staged PAO may be successful in cases in which arthroscopic intervention fails to provide clinical improvement.^5,15 

Emerging evidence suggests beneficial effects of arthroscopic capsular repair or plication in the setting of borderline or mild dysplasia.^7,9 However, the literature provides little information on arthroscopic outcomes without capsular repair. One study found poor outcomes of arthroscopic surgery for dysplasia, but its patients underwent labral débridement, not repair.³ Two patients in a case report demonstrated rapidly progressive osteoarthritis after arthroscopic labral repairs and concurrent femoroplasties for cam FAI, but each had marked dysplasia with a lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) of <15°.⁴

Arthroscopy with capsular repair has been assumed to provide better outcomes than arthroscopy without repair, but to our knowledge there are no studies that have compared outcomes of mild dysplasia with cam FAI and outcomes of mixed FAI treated without capsular repair. Clinical equipoise makes it ethically challenging to perform a prospective study comparing dysplasia treated with and without capsular repair. We conducted a study to compare outcomes of mild dysplasia with cam FAI and outcomes of mixed FAI treated with arthroscopic surgery and to fill the knowledge gap regarding outcomes of mild dysplasia treated without capsular repair.

Methods

In this study, which received Institutional Review Board approval, we retrospectively reviewed radiographs and data from a prospective 3-center study of arthroscopic outcomes of FAI in 150 patients (159 hips) who underwent arthroscopic surgery by 1 of 3 surgeons between March 2009 and June 2010. In all cases, digital images of anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were used for radiographic measurements. On these images, the LCEA is formed by the intersection of the vertical line (corrected for obliquity using a horizontal reference line connecting the inferior extents of both radiographic teardrops) through the center of the femoral head (determined with a digital centering tool) with the line extending to the lateral edge of the sourcil (radiographic eyebrow of the weight-bearing region or roof of the acetabulum). Measurements were made in blinded fashion (by a nonsurgeon coauthor, Dr. Nikhil Gupta, who completed training modules) and were confirmed without alteration by the principal investigator Dr. Dean K. Matsuda. Inclusion criteria were mild acetabular dysplasia (LCEA, 15°-24°) and mixed FAI including focal pincer component (LCEA, 25°-39°), radiographic crossover sign, and successful completion of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures at minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were severe dysplasia (LCEA, <15°), hip subluxation, broken Shenton line, global pincer FAI (LCEA, ≥40°), Tönnis grade 3 osteoarthritis, Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease, osteonecrosis, prior hip surgery, and unsuccessful completion of PRO measures. Outcome measures included investigator-blinded preoperative and postoperative Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS) and 5-point Likert satisfaction score. Complications, revision surgeries, and conversion arthroplasties were recorded.

Statistical Analysis

We examined outcomes with descriptive statistics for each of the candidate covariates in the model classified by femoroacetabular subtype: focal pincer and cam (mixed FAI) and dysplasia with cam. We examined the variables of sex, age, weight, height, body mass index, preoperative NAHS, presence of dysplasia (yes/no), presence of osteoarthritis (yes/no), Tönnis osteoarthritis grade, Outerbridge class, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, months of pain, bilateral procedure (yes/no), and pincer involvement with cam FAI (yes/no). Before beginning linear regression modeling, we screened the candidate variables for strong correlations with other variables and looked for those variables with minimal missing data. For all these covariates, we then performed linear regression with a selection process—both a stepwise selection method and a backward elimination method—to verify we determined the same model for 24-month NAHS, or to understand why we could not. Finally, we ran the model we found from the linear regression as a linear mixed model of 24-month NAHS with the dichotomous variables taken as fixed effects and the other variables taken as random effects, using variance-components representation for the random effects. We then examined 3-month and 12-month NAHS with the same variables selected for the 24-month model.

To further examine and verify the effects of dysplasia on outcomes found in our linear mixed model, we performed a nested case–control analysis matching each member of cohort D (cases) with 2 members of cohort M (controls). We used an optimal-matching algorithm to match focal patients in the linear regression dataset with dysplasia patients in the linear regression dataset in such a way as to minimize the overall differences between the datasets. We matched cases and controls on preoperative NAHS, age, sex, presence of osteoarthritis, months of pain, ASA score, and body mass index. The differences between the matched cases and controls (control value minus case value) were compared using Wilcoxon rank sum tests for statistical significance of differences from 0 (with differences generated for each control group member, 2 differences per case) to examine the quality of the match. Finally, we examined the statistical significance of the difference of the outcome variables (3-, 12-, and 24-month NAHS) from 0, again using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Statistical significance was set at P < .05 using SAS Version 9.3 (SAS Institute).

Surgical Procedure

In all cases, supine outpatient hip arthroscopy was performed under general anesthesia. Anterolateral and modified midanterior portals¹⁶ were used. T-capsulotomies were performed in both cohorts. Cohort M underwent anterosuperior acetabuloplasty with a motorized burr. Labral refixation or selective débridement was performed in cohort M, whereas labral repair (with limited freshening of acetabular rim attachment site) or selective débridement (but no segmental resection) was performed in cohort D. Arthroscopic femoroplasty was performed with similar endpoints of 120° minimum hip flexion and 30° minimum flexed hip internal rotation with retention of the labral fluid seal. Capsular repair or plication was not performed for either cohort during the study period.

The cohorts underwent similar postoperative protocols: 2 weeks of protected ambulation using 2 crutches, exercise cycling without resistance beginning postoperative day 1, swimming at 2 weeks, elliptical machine workouts at 6 weeks, jogging at 12 weeks, and return to unrestricted athletics at 5 months.

Results

In cohort D, which consisted of 8 patients (5 female), mean age was 49.6 years, and mean LCEA was 19° (range, 16°-24°).

In cohort D, mean (SD) change in NAHS was +20.00 (6.24) (P = .25) at 3 months (n = 3), +14.33 (9.77) (P = .03) at 12 months (n = 6), and –0.75 (19.86) (P = .74) at 24 months (n = 8).

Discussion

The principal finding of this study is the significantly poorer outcomes of mild dysplasia and cam FAI relative to mixed FAI after hip arthroscopy without capsular repair. Study group (cohort D) and control group (cohort M) had associated cam deformities treated with femoroplasty with similar decompression endpoints and labral preservation in the form of selective débridement or labral repair (no labral resections in either cohort) with similar rehabilitation protocols.

Our study findings suggest short-term improvement may be followed by midterm worsening in patients with mild dysplasia and sustained improvement in patients with mixed FAI. These findings have practical clinical applications. Jackson and colleagues⁵ reported on a patient who, after undergoing “successful” arthroscopic surgery for mild dysplasia, clinically deteriorated after 13 months and eventually required PAO. Patients undergoing isolated hip arthroscopy for mild dysplasia with cam FAI should be informed of the possible need for secondary PAO or even hip arthroplasty, be followed up more often and longer than comparable patients with FAI, and have follow-up supplemented with interval radiographs.⁴ If even subtle subluxation or joint narrowing occurs, we suggest resumption of protected weight-bearing and prompt progression to PAO in younger patients with joint congruency or eventual conversion arthroplasty in older ones.

Although mean preoperative NAHS (52.88) and mean 24-month postoperative NAHS (52.13) suggest essentially no change in PROs for cohort D, all patients with dysplasia either worsened or improved, though those who improved did so at a lesser relative magnitude than those with mixed FAI (cohort M). This finding may help explain the divergent outcomes reported in the literature on dysplasia treated with hip arthroscopy.

Cohort D was older than cohort M, but the difference was not statistically significant. Age may still be a confounding variable, and it may have contributed in part to the poorer outcomes for the patients with dysplasia. However, emerging studies demonstrate select older patients with FAI and/or labral tears may have successful outcomes with arthroscopic intervention.^17,18 Our findings support mild dysplasia as the main contributor to the poor outcomes observed in this study.

With identical postoperative rehabilitation protocols, patients in both cohorts typically were ambulating without crutches by the end of postoperative week 2. Delayed weight-bearing has been suggested as contributing to successful outcomes in the setting of dysplasia^7,19,20 but has not been shown to adversely affect nondysplastic hips.²¹ Whether delayed weight-bearing contributed to the poor outcomes in our dysplasia cohort is unknown, but the early successful outcomes may discount its influence.

Our findings support successful outcomes of arthroscopic treatment of mixed FAI (specifically focal pincer plus cam FAI) without capsular repair. Perhaps more important, we found inferior outcomes of arthroscopic treatment of mild dysplasia plus cam FAI without capsular repair—filling the knowledge gap regarding the need for arthroscopic capsular repair for mild dysplasia. Although a recent study demonstrated no significant difference in outcomes between hip arthroscopy with and without capsular repair,²² 2 studies specific to mild dysplasia demonstrated successful outcomes of capsular repair.^7,9 One found that mild dysplasia treated with arthroscopy, including capsular plication, resulted in 77% good/excellent outcomes and LCEA as low as 18° at minimum 2-year follow-up.⁷ The other found clinical improvement in mild dysplasia (LCEA, 15°-19°) when capsular repair was performed as part of arthroscopic treatment.⁹ In the present study, we retrospectively reviewed outcomes from a prospective study performed in 2009 to 2010, before the era of common capsular repair. It appears that capsular repair⁹ or plication⁷ in the setting of mild dysplasia may yield improved outcomes approaching those of arthroscopic FAI surgery. Our study results showed that, despite labral preservation and cam decompression, mild dysplasia without the closure of T-capsulotomy had inferior outcomes at 2 years. However, we do not know if outcomes would have been better with capsular repair or plication and/or smaller capsulotomies, perhaps with minimal violation of the iliofemoral ligament in this specific subset of patients. Furthermore, we do not know if optimal outcomes can best be achieved with arthroscopic and/or open surgery, with or without acetabular reorientation, in patients with mild dysplasia and cam FAI.

Dysplasia with cam FAI is an emerging common condition for which patients may seek less invasive treatment in the form of hip arthroscopy. The findings of this study suggest caution in using hip arthroscopy without capsular repair in the treatment of mild dysplasia with cam FAI, even in the presence of cam decompression and labral and acetabular rim preservation.

Study Strengths and Limitations

One strength was the relative lack of surgeon bias. When the surgeries were performed (2009-2010), we recognized cam and pincer FAI but did not discriminate for mild dysplasia, because at that time it was not known to be a potential predictor of poorer outcomes. Another strength was the strict methodology, with blinding of all investigator surgeons to PROs and stringent retention of all PROs, including “failures” (eg, total hip arthroplasty conversions and complications), in both cohorts. Moreover, the crucial case-control analysis matched on multiple variables verified statistically significant results demonstrating poorer outcomes at minimum 2-year follow-up, despite more improvement in the dysplasia cohort at 3 months. The latter, we think, is also valuable new information; it emphasizes the need for close and prolonged follow-up of patients with mild dysplasia despite early improvement.

Limitations include the small number of study patients, the retrospective study design (using prospectively collected data), and the isolated use of LCEA to define dysplasia. Pereira and colleagues²³ recommended using LCEA with Tönnis angle to define minor dysplasia. Although dysplasia cannot be precisely defined with only this radiographic measurement, LCEA has been shown to be a reliable, clinically relevant measure.²⁴ In addition, LCEA has been used in most reports on arthroscopic management of dysplastic hips and thus allows for comparison. Furthermore, other studies have used LCEA of <15° as a threshold between mild and severe dysplasia, and we did as well. This broad inclusion criterion allowed for heterogeneity in our mild dysplasia cohort and was a study limitation. Interobserver reliability of measured LCEA was not assessed and is another limitation.

The initial prospective study (2009) did not record α angles to quantify cam FAI. This is a study limitation. However, the surgical range-of-motion endpoints considered sufficient for cam decompression were the same in both cohorts. In addition, femoral version was not assessed in the original database (2009-2010), as this aspect of hip anatomy was not thought significant during initial data collection. These areas of interest merit further investigation.

Use of a focal pincer cohort may be challenged as a suboptimal control group. However, there were very few completely normal acetabulae with pure cam FAI in the original prospective study, and the focal pincer cohort was used as a control cohort in previous studies.²⁵

Conclusion

The common combination of mild dysplasia and cam FAI has poorer outcomes than mixed FAI after arthroscopic surgery without capsular repair.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E47-E53. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Patients sustaining DRFs commonly have associated ligament injuries and chondral damage as well.
• Many of these associated injuries do not seem to affect outcomes up to 1 year after surgery.
• Plain radiographs have a 74% sensitivity and 73% specificity for detecting intra-articular fractures.
• ”Minor” injuries identified incidentally by arthroscopy during fixation of DRFs may not require dedicated treatment.
• The optimal treatment for high-grade ligament or chondral injuries in patients with DRFs remains incompletely understood.

Distal radius fracture (DRF) is one of the most common upper extremity injuries, with up to 20% to 50% requiring surgical fixation.¹ With increasing use of wrist arthroscopy to assist in managing these fractures,^2-6 it has become easier to accurately assess concomitant wrist ligament injuries. Reported injury rates are 18% to 86% for the scapholunate interosseous ligament (SLIL),^7,8 5% to 29% for the lunotriquetral ligament (LTL),^8,9 and 17% to 60% for the triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC).^10,11 Reported chondral injury rates range from 18% to 60%.^7,9,12 Despite the common occurrence of these injuries, it is unclear how they affect outcomes and how aggressively they should be treated when detected during fracture surgery.

As the use of arthroscopy in DRF management becomes more common, surgeons often must decide how to treat ligamentous/chondral injuries incidentally discovered during surgery. To date, only 1 study prospectively evaluated how these injuries affect DRF outcomes,⁸ though it did not use a validated, patient-based outcome measure.

We conducted a study to address a common clinical scenario: When arthroscopy is used to assist with intra-articular reduction during DRF fixation, how should the surgeon respond to incidentally identified ligament and chondral injuries? Specifically, we wanted to address 3 questions: What is the overall incidence of SLIL, TFCC, and chondral surface injuries in patients undergoing operative fracture fixation? On initial injury films, do any radiographic parameters predict specific soft-tissue injuries or ultimate functional outcomes? Do wrist ligament and chondral injuries affect patient-rated outcomes (disability, pain) and objective measures (range of motion [ROM], grip strength, pinch strength) up to 1 year after fracture surgery?

Materials and Methods

Patient Selection/Population

This observational, prognostic study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. Inclusion criteria were age over 18 years, isolated acute operatively treated DRF (surgery within 14 days of injury), and informed consent. All patients were treated by the same surgeon. Exclusion criteria were open DRF, dorsal shear pattern, fractures requiring dorsal arthrotomy for reduction because of significant intra-articular damage, prior ipsilateral DRF, and prior SLIL or TFCC injury.

Surgery was indicated according to general radiographic parameters as measured on postreduction films: radial height, <8 mm; radial inclination, <15°; positive ulnar variance, >3 mm, or 3 mm more than contralateral side; dorsal tilt, >10°; and volar tilt, >15°. With these parameters within acceptable limits, surgery was also indicated when fractures were deemed unstable and likely to displace because of dorsal tilt >20°, dorsal comminution, intra-articular step-off of ≥2 mm on the posterior-anterior (PA) film, associated ulnar fracture, and age >60 years.¹³Over a 2-year period, 42 patients (12 male, 30 female) met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the study. The dominant arm was affected in 17 patients (40%). Mean (SD) age at time of injury was 56.6 (16.4) years (median, 54 years; range, 20-85 years).

Operative Technique

During surgery, damage to the SLIL, the TFCC, and chondral surfaces (scaphoid, lunate, scaphoid fossa, lunate fossa) and to the intra-articular extension of the DRF was assessed and recorded. Wrist arthroscopy was performed with the 3, 4 portal as the primary portal. When significant damage to the TFCC warranted débridement, the 6R (radial) portal was used as an accessory portal. As a midcarpal portal was not used for SLIL assessment, we used a novel classification system: 0 = no injury, normal-appearing ligament without hemorrhage and smooth transition from scaphoid to lunate surface except for slight concave indentation at the ligament; 1 = attenuation, no visible tear with convex shape of ligament with or without hemorrhage; 2 = partial tear with or without step-off at junction between scaphoid and lunate, but 2.7-mm arthroscope cannot “drive through” to midcarpal joint; and 3 = complete tear with positive “drive-through” sign. TFCC injuries were classified according to the system described by Palmer¹⁴: Avulsions were central (1A), ulnar (1B), distal (1C), or radial (1D). The trampoline test was performed through a 6R portal by using a probe to evaluate ligament tension/laxity. In some cases, a 6R portal was deemed unnecessary, and a modified trampoline test was performed—tension/laxity/displacement was evaluated by manually palpating at the fovea and observing TFCC motion with the arthroscope. When appropriate, the TFCC was débrided with a shaver through the 6R portal. In cases of significant instability at the SLIL interval, two 0.062-inch K-wires were placed percutaneously through the scaphoid and lunate, and one was placed from the scaphoid to the capitate.

All DRFs underwent internal fixation with a locked volar plate. When necessary, K-wires and/or a locked radial column plate was used for additional fixation. External fixation was not used. The postoperative protocol began with a dorsal wrist splint placed on the patient in the operating room and worn for 10 to 14 days. At the first postoperative visit, the patient received a removable splint that was to be worn at all times except during showers, therapy, and home exercises. Occupational therapy, initiated the week of the first postoperative visit, consisted of active and passive ROM exercises. At 6 weeks, the splint was removed and strengthening initiated.

Outcome Measures

Our primary outcome measure was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire at 1 year.¹⁵ Secondary outcome measures were visual analog scale (VAS) pain rating, ROM, and radiographic measurements. Patients returned for evaluation 2, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks after surgery. At each follow-up visit, the DASH questionnaire and the pain VAS were administered, and ROM and strength were measured. Patient-reported pain was recorded on a standard VAS and measured on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). Wrist flexion and extension and radioulnar deviation were assessed with a goniometer. Forearm supination and pronation were assessed with the elbow flexed 90° at the patient’s side. Grip strength was measured with a calibrated Jamar dynamometer (Sammons Preston Rolyan), and lateral pinch strength was measured with a hydraulic pinch gauge (Sammons Preston Rolyan). The average of 3 trials for both hands was recorded for all strength measurements.

Radiographs were obtained on presentation. When appropriate, the fracture was manually reduced with a hematoma block, and postreduction radiographs were obtained. Then, radiographs were obtained at each postoperative visit until union. Radial height, radial inclination, tilt, and ulnar variance were measured on preoperative and postoperative radiographs according to standard methods.¹⁶ Radiographs were used to classify the fracture patterns according to the AO/ASIF (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Association for the Study of Internal Fixation) classification. Union was determined by radiographic healing, absence of tenderness to palpation, absence of pain with motion, and continued functional improvement.

Data Analysis

To evaluate for relationships between patient injury parameters and outcome measures, we used a 1-way analysis of variance seeking statistically significant differences between groups. Patients were divided into 4 groups: no ligament injuries; isolated SLIL injuries; isolated TFCC injuries; and both SLIL and TFCC injuries. These injury classification categories were then evaluated independently against our chosen outcome measures, which included DASH and VAS pain scores, ROM, and grip/pinch strength.

To determine the optimal sample size, we performed a power analysis to estimate the number of patients required to detect a clinically significant difference in DASH scores at 1 year among the 4 groups. According to the literature, standard deviations of DASH scores in healthy volunteers range from 10 to 15,¹⁷ consistent with values found in other recent trials of patients with DRFs.¹⁸ The recent literature on DASH construct validity has established a DASH score difference of 19 as representing a disability change being “much better or much worse.”¹⁹ As such, power analysis for a 1-way analysis of variance among 4 categories, detecting a DASH score difference of 19 with a standard deviation ranging from 10 to 15, would require 28 to 60 patients to detect a difference with an α of 0.05 and a power of 0.8.

In addition, radiographic parameters at time of injury were compared with injury characteristics to assess for significant relationships. Multivariate linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate radial height, radial inclination, and volar tilt as possible predictors of SLIL injury, TFCC injury, and chondral surface damage. A statistically significant result was defined as a correlation with P < .05.

Results

Of the 42 patients included in the study, 11 (26%) had no ligament injuries, 10 (24%) had isolated SLIL injuries, 12 (29%) had isolated TFCC injuries, and 9 (21%) had injuries to both the SLIL and the TFCC. In addition, in 12 patients (29%), the articular cartilage had visible damage (Table 1).

In all patients, bony union occurred. After union, 1 patient underwent hardware removal for hardware-related pain. The same patient had a dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve neurolysis at the ulnar styloid fixation site. Another patient developed a partial extensor pollicis longus tear from a prominent dorsal screw tip.

All patients returned for their 2- and 6-week follow-ups. At 1 year, 30 patients (71%) returned for follow-up, 11 could not be contacted, and 1 was removed because of an olecranon fracture from a subsequent fall.

Regarding the primary outcome measure, mean DASH score at 1-year follow-up was 30.8 for the group without injuries, 10.8 for the group with SLIL injuries, 14.7 for the group with TFCC injuries, and 21.9 for the group with SLIL and TFCC injuries (Table 2).

Discussion

Use of wrist arthroscopy in DRF management has allowed assessment of the incidence of intra-articular injuries, including ligament and chondral surface injuries. Although the literature on the incidence of these injuries has been expanding, their clinical significance remains unclear.

Authors have postulated that some patients do not do well after DRF repair because of undetected ligament injuries. With the current trend of internal fixation, locked plating, and early motion—contrasting with older trends of prolonged immobilization in a cast or external fixation—concerns have been raised that early mobilization results in inadequate treatment of ligament injuries. However, data from the present study suggest no significant morbidity from early mobilization despite the presence of ligament injuries in more than half of all operatively treated DRFs. It is possible morbidity was not appreciated, as most patients with DRFs end up with some stiffness, which masks the effects of ligament injuries during healing.

We found no correlation between injury radiographic parameters, observed soft-tissue injuries, or final subjective outcomes. Interestingly, in this study, there was some discordance between the appearance of intra-articular fractures on radiographs and the direct arthroscopic observation of intra-articular fracture extension. With the present data and with arthroscopic visualization as the gold standard, radiographs had 74% sensitivity and 73% specificity for detecting intra-articular fractures (the corresponding positive predictive value was 83%, and the negative predictive value was 61%). As we typically rely on radiographs as the primary tool in assessing the articular component of a fracture, these results should be taken into account when basing management decisions exclusively on static injury films.

Observational studies of arthroscopy in DRFs have revealed a wide range of injury rates: For SLILs, the average injury rate was 44%; for LTLs, 13%; for TFCCs, 43%; and for chondral surfaces, 32% (Table 4).

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E41-E46. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Patients sustaining DRFs commonly have associated ligament injuries and chondral damage as well.
• Many of these associated injuries do not seem to affect outcomes up to 1 year after surgery.
• Plain radiographs have a 74% sensitivity and 73% specificity for detecting intra-articular fractures.
• ”Minor” injuries identified incidentally by arthroscopy during fixation of DRFs may not require dedicated treatment.
• The optimal treatment for high-grade ligament or chondral injuries in patients with DRFs remains incompletely understood.

Distal radius fracture (DRF) is one of the most common upper extremity injuries, with up to 20% to 50% requiring surgical fixation.¹ With increasing use of wrist arthroscopy to assist in managing these fractures,^2-6 it has become easier to accurately assess concomitant wrist ligament injuries. Reported injury rates are 18% to 86% for the scapholunate interosseous ligament (SLIL),^7,8 5% to 29% for the lunotriquetral ligament (LTL),^8,9 and 17% to 60% for the triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC).^10,11 Reported chondral injury rates range from 18% to 60%.^7,9,12 Despite the common occurrence of these injuries, it is unclear how they affect outcomes and how aggressively they should be treated when detected during fracture surgery.

As the use of arthroscopy in DRF management becomes more common, surgeons often must decide how to treat ligamentous/chondral injuries incidentally discovered during surgery. To date, only 1 study prospectively evaluated how these injuries affect DRF outcomes,⁸ though it did not use a validated, patient-based outcome measure.

We conducted a study to address a common clinical scenario: When arthroscopy is used to assist with intra-articular reduction during DRF fixation, how should the surgeon respond to incidentally identified ligament and chondral injuries? Specifically, we wanted to address 3 questions: What is the overall incidence of SLIL, TFCC, and chondral surface injuries in patients undergoing operative fracture fixation? On initial injury films, do any radiographic parameters predict specific soft-tissue injuries or ultimate functional outcomes? Do wrist ligament and chondral injuries affect patient-rated outcomes (disability, pain) and objective measures (range of motion [ROM], grip strength, pinch strength) up to 1 year after fracture surgery?

Materials and Methods

Patient Selection/Population

This observational, prognostic study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. Inclusion criteria were age over 18 years, isolated acute operatively treated DRF (surgery within 14 days of injury), and informed consent. All patients were treated by the same surgeon. Exclusion criteria were open DRF, dorsal shear pattern, fractures requiring dorsal arthrotomy for reduction because of significant intra-articular damage, prior ipsilateral DRF, and prior SLIL or TFCC injury.

Surgery was indicated according to general radiographic parameters as measured on postreduction films: radial height, <8 mm; radial inclination, <15°; positive ulnar variance, >3 mm, or 3 mm more than contralateral side; dorsal tilt, >10°; and volar tilt, >15°. With these parameters within acceptable limits, surgery was also indicated when fractures were deemed unstable and likely to displace because of dorsal tilt >20°, dorsal comminution, intra-articular step-off of ≥2 mm on the posterior-anterior (PA) film, associated ulnar fracture, and age >60 years.¹³Over a 2-year period, 42 patients (12 male, 30 female) met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the study. The dominant arm was affected in 17 patients (40%). Mean (SD) age at time of injury was 56.6 (16.4) years (median, 54 years; range, 20-85 years).

Operative Technique

During surgery, damage to the SLIL, the TFCC, and chondral surfaces (scaphoid, lunate, scaphoid fossa, lunate fossa) and to the intra-articular extension of the DRF was assessed and recorded. Wrist arthroscopy was performed with the 3, 4 portal as the primary portal. When significant damage to the TFCC warranted débridement, the 6R (radial) portal was used as an accessory portal. As a midcarpal portal was not used for SLIL assessment, we used a novel classification system: 0 = no injury, normal-appearing ligament without hemorrhage and smooth transition from scaphoid to lunate surface except for slight concave indentation at the ligament; 1 = attenuation, no visible tear with convex shape of ligament with or without hemorrhage; 2 = partial tear with or without step-off at junction between scaphoid and lunate, but 2.7-mm arthroscope cannot “drive through” to midcarpal joint; and 3 = complete tear with positive “drive-through” sign. TFCC injuries were classified according to the system described by Palmer¹⁴: Avulsions were central (1A), ulnar (1B), distal (1C), or radial (1D). The trampoline test was performed through a 6R portal by using a probe to evaluate ligament tension/laxity. In some cases, a 6R portal was deemed unnecessary, and a modified trampoline test was performed—tension/laxity/displacement was evaluated by manually palpating at the fovea and observing TFCC motion with the arthroscope. When appropriate, the TFCC was débrided with a shaver through the 6R portal. In cases of significant instability at the SLIL interval, two 0.062-inch K-wires were placed percutaneously through the scaphoid and lunate, and one was placed from the scaphoid to the capitate.

All DRFs underwent internal fixation with a locked volar plate. When necessary, K-wires and/or a locked radial column plate was used for additional fixation. External fixation was not used. The postoperative protocol began with a dorsal wrist splint placed on the patient in the operating room and worn for 10 to 14 days. At the first postoperative visit, the patient received a removable splint that was to be worn at all times except during showers, therapy, and home exercises. Occupational therapy, initiated the week of the first postoperative visit, consisted of active and passive ROM exercises. At 6 weeks, the splint was removed and strengthening initiated.

Outcome Measures

Our primary outcome measure was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire at 1 year.¹⁵ Secondary outcome measures were visual analog scale (VAS) pain rating, ROM, and radiographic measurements. Patients returned for evaluation 2, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks after surgery. At each follow-up visit, the DASH questionnaire and the pain VAS were administered, and ROM and strength were measured. Patient-reported pain was recorded on a standard VAS and measured on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). Wrist flexion and extension and radioulnar deviation were assessed with a goniometer. Forearm supination and pronation were assessed with the elbow flexed 90° at the patient’s side. Grip strength was measured with a calibrated Jamar dynamometer (Sammons Preston Rolyan), and lateral pinch strength was measured with a hydraulic pinch gauge (Sammons Preston Rolyan). The average of 3 trials for both hands was recorded for all strength measurements.

Radiographs were obtained on presentation. When appropriate, the fracture was manually reduced with a hematoma block, and postreduction radiographs were obtained. Then, radiographs were obtained at each postoperative visit until union. Radial height, radial inclination, tilt, and ulnar variance were measured on preoperative and postoperative radiographs according to standard methods.¹⁶ Radiographs were used to classify the fracture patterns according to the AO/ASIF (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Association for the Study of Internal Fixation) classification. Union was determined by radiographic healing, absence of tenderness to palpation, absence of pain with motion, and continued functional improvement.

Data Analysis

To evaluate for relationships between patient injury parameters and outcome measures, we used a 1-way analysis of variance seeking statistically significant differences between groups. Patients were divided into 4 groups: no ligament injuries; isolated SLIL injuries; isolated TFCC injuries; and both SLIL and TFCC injuries. These injury classification categories were then evaluated independently against our chosen outcome measures, which included DASH and VAS pain scores, ROM, and grip/pinch strength.

To determine the optimal sample size, we performed a power analysis to estimate the number of patients required to detect a clinically significant difference in DASH scores at 1 year among the 4 groups. According to the literature, standard deviations of DASH scores in healthy volunteers range from 10 to 15,¹⁷ consistent with values found in other recent trials of patients with DRFs.¹⁸ The recent literature on DASH construct validity has established a DASH score difference of 19 as representing a disability change being “much better or much worse.”¹⁹ As such, power analysis for a 1-way analysis of variance among 4 categories, detecting a DASH score difference of 19 with a standard deviation ranging from 10 to 15, would require 28 to 60 patients to detect a difference with an α of 0.05 and a power of 0.8.

In addition, radiographic parameters at time of injury were compared with injury characteristics to assess for significant relationships. Multivariate linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate radial height, radial inclination, and volar tilt as possible predictors of SLIL injury, TFCC injury, and chondral surface damage. A statistically significant result was defined as a correlation with P < .05.

Results

Of the 42 patients included in the study, 11 (26%) had no ligament injuries, 10 (24%) had isolated SLIL injuries, 12 (29%) had isolated TFCC injuries, and 9 (21%) had injuries to both the SLIL and the TFCC. In addition, in 12 patients (29%), the articular cartilage had visible damage (Table 1).

In all patients, bony union occurred. After union, 1 patient underwent hardware removal for hardware-related pain. The same patient had a dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve neurolysis at the ulnar styloid fixation site. Another patient developed a partial extensor pollicis longus tear from a prominent dorsal screw tip.

All patients returned for their 2- and 6-week follow-ups. At 1 year, 30 patients (71%) returned for follow-up, 11 could not be contacted, and 1 was removed because of an olecranon fracture from a subsequent fall.

Regarding the primary outcome measure, mean DASH score at 1-year follow-up was 30.8 for the group without injuries, 10.8 for the group with SLIL injuries, 14.7 for the group with TFCC injuries, and 21.9 for the group with SLIL and TFCC injuries (Table 2).

Discussion

Use of wrist arthroscopy in DRF management has allowed assessment of the incidence of intra-articular injuries, including ligament and chondral surface injuries. Although the literature on the incidence of these injuries has been expanding, their clinical significance remains unclear.

Authors have postulated that some patients do not do well after DRF repair because of undetected ligament injuries. With the current trend of internal fixation, locked plating, and early motion—contrasting with older trends of prolonged immobilization in a cast or external fixation—concerns have been raised that early mobilization results in inadequate treatment of ligament injuries. However, data from the present study suggest no significant morbidity from early mobilization despite the presence of ligament injuries in more than half of all operatively treated DRFs. It is possible morbidity was not appreciated, as most patients with DRFs end up with some stiffness, which masks the effects of ligament injuries during healing.

We found no correlation between injury radiographic parameters, observed soft-tissue injuries, or final subjective outcomes. Interestingly, in this study, there was some discordance between the appearance of intra-articular fractures on radiographs and the direct arthroscopic observation of intra-articular fracture extension. With the present data and with arthroscopic visualization as the gold standard, radiographs had 74% sensitivity and 73% specificity for detecting intra-articular fractures (the corresponding positive predictive value was 83%, and the negative predictive value was 61%). As we typically rely on radiographs as the primary tool in assessing the articular component of a fracture, these results should be taken into account when basing management decisions exclusively on static injury films.

Observational studies of arthroscopy in DRFs have revealed a wide range of injury rates: For SLILs, the average injury rate was 44%; for LTLs, 13%; for TFCCs, 43%; and for chondral surfaces, 32% (Table 4).

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E41-E46. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Patients sustaining DRFs commonly have associated ligament injuries and chondral damage as well.
• Many of these associated injuries do not seem to affect outcomes up to 1 year after surgery.
• Plain radiographs have a 74% sensitivity and 73% specificity for detecting intra-articular fractures.
• ”Minor” injuries identified incidentally by arthroscopy during fixation of DRFs may not require dedicated treatment.
• The optimal treatment for high-grade ligament or chondral injuries in patients with DRFs remains incompletely understood.

Distal radius fracture (DRF) is one of the most common upper extremity injuries, with up to 20% to 50% requiring surgical fixation.¹ With increasing use of wrist arthroscopy to assist in managing these fractures,^2-6 it has become easier to accurately assess concomitant wrist ligament injuries. Reported injury rates are 18% to 86% for the scapholunate interosseous ligament (SLIL),^7,8 5% to 29% for the lunotriquetral ligament (LTL),^8,9 and 17% to 60% for the triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC).^10,11 Reported chondral injury rates range from 18% to 60%.^7,9,12 Despite the common occurrence of these injuries, it is unclear how they affect outcomes and how aggressively they should be treated when detected during fracture surgery.

As the use of arthroscopy in DRF management becomes more common, surgeons often must decide how to treat ligamentous/chondral injuries incidentally discovered during surgery. To date, only 1 study prospectively evaluated how these injuries affect DRF outcomes,⁸ though it did not use a validated, patient-based outcome measure.

We conducted a study to address a common clinical scenario: When arthroscopy is used to assist with intra-articular reduction during DRF fixation, how should the surgeon respond to incidentally identified ligament and chondral injuries? Specifically, we wanted to address 3 questions: What is the overall incidence of SLIL, TFCC, and chondral surface injuries in patients undergoing operative fracture fixation? On initial injury films, do any radiographic parameters predict specific soft-tissue injuries or ultimate functional outcomes? Do wrist ligament and chondral injuries affect patient-rated outcomes (disability, pain) and objective measures (range of motion [ROM], grip strength, pinch strength) up to 1 year after fracture surgery?

Materials and Methods

Patient Selection/Population

This observational, prognostic study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. Inclusion criteria were age over 18 years, isolated acute operatively treated DRF (surgery within 14 days of injury), and informed consent. All patients were treated by the same surgeon. Exclusion criteria were open DRF, dorsal shear pattern, fractures requiring dorsal arthrotomy for reduction because of significant intra-articular damage, prior ipsilateral DRF, and prior SLIL or TFCC injury.

Surgery was indicated according to general radiographic parameters as measured on postreduction films: radial height, <8 mm; radial inclination, <15°; positive ulnar variance, >3 mm, or 3 mm more than contralateral side; dorsal tilt, >10°; and volar tilt, >15°. With these parameters within acceptable limits, surgery was also indicated when fractures were deemed unstable and likely to displace because of dorsal tilt >20°, dorsal comminution, intra-articular step-off of ≥2 mm on the posterior-anterior (PA) film, associated ulnar fracture, and age >60 years.¹³Over a 2-year period, 42 patients (12 male, 30 female) met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled in the study. The dominant arm was affected in 17 patients (40%). Mean (SD) age at time of injury was 56.6 (16.4) years (median, 54 years; range, 20-85 years).

Operative Technique

During surgery, damage to the SLIL, the TFCC, and chondral surfaces (scaphoid, lunate, scaphoid fossa, lunate fossa) and to the intra-articular extension of the DRF was assessed and recorded. Wrist arthroscopy was performed with the 3, 4 portal as the primary portal. When significant damage to the TFCC warranted débridement, the 6R (radial) portal was used as an accessory portal. As a midcarpal portal was not used for SLIL assessment, we used a novel classification system: 0 = no injury, normal-appearing ligament without hemorrhage and smooth transition from scaphoid to lunate surface except for slight concave indentation at the ligament; 1 = attenuation, no visible tear with convex shape of ligament with or without hemorrhage; 2 = partial tear with or without step-off at junction between scaphoid and lunate, but 2.7-mm arthroscope cannot “drive through” to midcarpal joint; and 3 = complete tear with positive “drive-through” sign. TFCC injuries were classified according to the system described by Palmer¹⁴: Avulsions were central (1A), ulnar (1B), distal (1C), or radial (1D). The trampoline test was performed through a 6R portal by using a probe to evaluate ligament tension/laxity. In some cases, a 6R portal was deemed unnecessary, and a modified trampoline test was performed—tension/laxity/displacement was evaluated by manually palpating at the fovea and observing TFCC motion with the arthroscope. When appropriate, the TFCC was débrided with a shaver through the 6R portal. In cases of significant instability at the SLIL interval, two 0.062-inch K-wires were placed percutaneously through the scaphoid and lunate, and one was placed from the scaphoid to the capitate.

All DRFs underwent internal fixation with a locked volar plate. When necessary, K-wires and/or a locked radial column plate was used for additional fixation. External fixation was not used. The postoperative protocol began with a dorsal wrist splint placed on the patient in the operating room and worn for 10 to 14 days. At the first postoperative visit, the patient received a removable splint that was to be worn at all times except during showers, therapy, and home exercises. Occupational therapy, initiated the week of the first postoperative visit, consisted of active and passive ROM exercises. At 6 weeks, the splint was removed and strengthening initiated.

Outcome Measures

Our primary outcome measure was the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire at 1 year.¹⁵ Secondary outcome measures were visual analog scale (VAS) pain rating, ROM, and radiographic measurements. Patients returned for evaluation 2, 6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks after surgery. At each follow-up visit, the DASH questionnaire and the pain VAS were administered, and ROM and strength were measured. Patient-reported pain was recorded on a standard VAS and measured on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain). Wrist flexion and extension and radioulnar deviation were assessed with a goniometer. Forearm supination and pronation were assessed with the elbow flexed 90° at the patient’s side. Grip strength was measured with a calibrated Jamar dynamometer (Sammons Preston Rolyan), and lateral pinch strength was measured with a hydraulic pinch gauge (Sammons Preston Rolyan). The average of 3 trials for both hands was recorded for all strength measurements.

Radiographs were obtained on presentation. When appropriate, the fracture was manually reduced with a hematoma block, and postreduction radiographs were obtained. Then, radiographs were obtained at each postoperative visit until union. Radial height, radial inclination, tilt, and ulnar variance were measured on preoperative and postoperative radiographs according to standard methods.¹⁶ Radiographs were used to classify the fracture patterns according to the AO/ASIF (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Association for the Study of Internal Fixation) classification. Union was determined by radiographic healing, absence of tenderness to palpation, absence of pain with motion, and continued functional improvement.

Data Analysis

To evaluate for relationships between patient injury parameters and outcome measures, we used a 1-way analysis of variance seeking statistically significant differences between groups. Patients were divided into 4 groups: no ligament injuries; isolated SLIL injuries; isolated TFCC injuries; and both SLIL and TFCC injuries. These injury classification categories were then evaluated independently against our chosen outcome measures, which included DASH and VAS pain scores, ROM, and grip/pinch strength.

To determine the optimal sample size, we performed a power analysis to estimate the number of patients required to detect a clinically significant difference in DASH scores at 1 year among the 4 groups. According to the literature, standard deviations of DASH scores in healthy volunteers range from 10 to 15,¹⁷ consistent with values found in other recent trials of patients with DRFs.¹⁸ The recent literature on DASH construct validity has established a DASH score difference of 19 as representing a disability change being “much better or much worse.”¹⁹ As such, power analysis for a 1-way analysis of variance among 4 categories, detecting a DASH score difference of 19 with a standard deviation ranging from 10 to 15, would require 28 to 60 patients to detect a difference with an α of 0.05 and a power of 0.8.

In addition, radiographic parameters at time of injury were compared with injury characteristics to assess for significant relationships. Multivariate linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate radial height, radial inclination, and volar tilt as possible predictors of SLIL injury, TFCC injury, and chondral surface damage. A statistically significant result was defined as a correlation with P < .05.

Results

Of the 42 patients included in the study, 11 (26%) had no ligament injuries, 10 (24%) had isolated SLIL injuries, 12 (29%) had isolated TFCC injuries, and 9 (21%) had injuries to both the SLIL and the TFCC. In addition, in 12 patients (29%), the articular cartilage had visible damage (Table 1).

In all patients, bony union occurred. After union, 1 patient underwent hardware removal for hardware-related pain. The same patient had a dorsal ulnar cutaneous nerve neurolysis at the ulnar styloid fixation site. Another patient developed a partial extensor pollicis longus tear from a prominent dorsal screw tip.

All patients returned for their 2- and 6-week follow-ups. At 1 year, 30 patients (71%) returned for follow-up, 11 could not be contacted, and 1 was removed because of an olecranon fracture from a subsequent fall.

Regarding the primary outcome measure, mean DASH score at 1-year follow-up was 30.8 for the group without injuries, 10.8 for the group with SLIL injuries, 14.7 for the group with TFCC injuries, and 21.9 for the group with SLIL and TFCC injuries (Table 2).

Discussion

Use of wrist arthroscopy in DRF management has allowed assessment of the incidence of intra-articular injuries, including ligament and chondral surface injuries. Although the literature on the incidence of these injuries has been expanding, their clinical significance remains unclear.

Authors have postulated that some patients do not do well after DRF repair because of undetected ligament injuries. With the current trend of internal fixation, locked plating, and early motion—contrasting with older trends of prolonged immobilization in a cast or external fixation—concerns have been raised that early mobilization results in inadequate treatment of ligament injuries. However, data from the present study suggest no significant morbidity from early mobilization despite the presence of ligament injuries in more than half of all operatively treated DRFs. It is possible morbidity was not appreciated, as most patients with DRFs end up with some stiffness, which masks the effects of ligament injuries during healing.

We found no correlation between injury radiographic parameters, observed soft-tissue injuries, or final subjective outcomes. Interestingly, in this study, there was some discordance between the appearance of intra-articular fractures on radiographs and the direct arthroscopic observation of intra-articular fracture extension. With the present data and with arthroscopic visualization as the gold standard, radiographs had 74% sensitivity and 73% specificity for detecting intra-articular fractures (the corresponding positive predictive value was 83%, and the negative predictive value was 61%). As we typically rely on radiographs as the primary tool in assessing the articular component of a fracture, these results should be taken into account when basing management decisions exclusively on static injury films.

Observational studies of arthroscopy in DRFs have revealed a wide range of injury rates: For SLILs, the average injury rate was 44%; for LTLs, 13%; for TFCCs, 43%; and for chondral surfaces, 32% (Table 4).

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E41-E46. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• DVT and PE are uncommon complications following osteotomies about the knee.
• Use of oral contraceptives can increase the risk of a patient sustaining a postoperative DVT and PE following osteotomies about the knee.
• In the absence of significant risk factors, postoperative chemical DVT prophylaxis may be unnecessary in patients undergoing osteotomies about the knee.

High tibial osteotomy (HTO), distal femoral osteotomy (DFO), and tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) are viable treatment options for deformities about the knee and patella maltracking.^1-4 Although TTO can be performed in many ways (eg, anteriorization, anteromedialization, medialization), the basic idea is to move the tibial tubercle to improve patellar tracking or to offload a patellar facet that has sustained trauma or degenerated.² DFO is a surgical option for treating a valgus knee deformity (the lateral tibiofemoral compartment is offloaded) or for protecting a knee compartment after cartilage or meniscal restoration (medial closing wedge or lateral opening wedge).¹ Similarly, HTO is an option for treating a varus knee deformity or isolated medial compartment arthritis; the diseased compartment is offloaded, and any malalignment is corrected. Akin to DFO, HTO is often performed to protect a knee compartment, typically the medial tibiofemoral compartment, after cartilage or meniscal restoration.^2-4

Compared to most arthroscopic knee surgeries, these osteotomies are much more involved, have longer operative times, and restrict postoperative weight-bearing and range of motion.^2-4 The rates of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) after these osteotomies are not well documented. In addition, there is no documentation of the risks in patients who smoke, are obese, or are using oral contraceptives (OCs) at time of surgery, despite the increased DVT and PE risks posed by smoking, obesity, and OC use in other surgical procedures.^5-7 Although the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) issued clinical practice guidelines for DVT/PE prophylaxis after hip and knee arthroplasty, there is no standard prophylaxis guidelines for DVT/PE prevention after HTO, DFO, or TTO.^8,9 Last, rates of DVT after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are well defined; they range from 2% to 12%.^10,11 These rates may be surrogates for osteotomies about the knee, but this is only conjecture.

We conducted a study to determine the rates of symptomatic DVT and PE after HTO, DFO, or TTO in patients who did not receive postoperative DVT/PE prophylaxis. We also wanted to determine if age, body mass index (BMI), and smoking status have associations with the risk of developing either DVT or PE after HTO, DFO, or TTO. We hypothesized that the DVT and PE rates would both be <1%.

Methods

After this study was approved by our university’s Institutional Review Board, we searched the surgical database of Dr. Cole, a sports medicine fellowship–trained surgeon, to identify all patients who had HTO, DFO, or TTO performed between September 1, 2009 and September 30, 2014. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were used for the search. The code for HTO was 27457: osteotomy, proximal tibia, including fibular excision or osteotomy (includes correction of genu varus [bowleg] or genu valgus [knock-knee]); after epiphyseal closure). The code for DFO was 27450: osteotomy, femur, shaft or supracondylar; with fixation. Last, the code for TTO was 27418: anterior tibial tubercleplasty (eg, Maquet-type procedure). The 141 patients identified in the search were treated by Dr. Cole at a single institution and were included in the study. Study inclusion did not require a minimum follow-up. Follow-up duration was defined as the time between surgery and the final clinic note in the patient chart. No patient was excluded for lack of follow-up clinic visits, and none was lost to follow-up.

Age, BMI, smoking status, and OC use were recorded for all patients. For each procedure, the surgeon’s technique remained the same throughout the study period: HTO, medial opening-wedge osteotomy with plate-and-screw fixation; DFO, lateral opening-wedge osteotomy with plate-and-screw fixation; and TTO, mostly anteromedialization with screw fixation (though this was dictated by patellar contact pressures). A tourniquet was used in all cases. Each patient’s hospital electronic medical record and outpatient office notes were reviewed to determine if symptomatic DVT or PE developed after surgery. The diagnosis of symptomatic DVT was based on clinical symptoms and confirmatory ultrasound, and the PE diagnosis was based on computed tomography. Doppler ultrasound was performed only in symptomatic patients (ie, it was not routinely performed).

Per surgeon protocol, postoperative DVT prophylaxis was not administered. Patients were encouraged to begin dorsiflexion and plantar flexion of the ankle (ankle pumps) immediately and to mobilize as soon as comfortable. Each patient received a cold therapy machine with compression sleeve. Patients were allowed toe-touch weight-bearing for 6 weeks, and then progressed 25% per week for 4 weeks to full weight-bearing by 10 weeks. After surgery, each patient was placed in a brace, which was kept locked in extension for 10 days; when the brace was unlocked, the patient was allowed to range the knee.

Continuous variable data are reported as weighted means and weighted standard deviations. Categorical variable data are reported as frequencies and percentages.

Results

Our database search identified 141 patients (44% male, 56% female) who underwent HTO (47 patients, 33.3%), DFO (13 patients, 9.2%), or TTO (81 patients, 57.5%). Mean (SD) age was 34.28 (9.86) years, mean (SD) BMI was 26.88 (5.11) kg/m², and mean (SD) follow-up was 17.1 (4.1) months. Of the female patients, 36.7% were using OCs at time of surgery. Of all patients, 13.48% were smokers.

Two patients (1.42%) had clinical symptoms consistent with DVT. In each case, the diagnosis was confirmed with Doppler ultrasound. The below-knee DVT was unilateral in 1 case and bilateral in the other.

Discussion

As the rates of DVT and PE after osteotomies about the knee have not been well studied, we wanted to determine these rates after HTO, DFO, and TTO in patients who did not receive postoperative DVT prophylaxis. We hypothesized that DVT and PE rates would both be <1%, and this hypothesis was partly confirmed: The rate of PE after HTO, DFO, and TTO was <1%, and the rate of symptomatic DVT was >1%. Similarly, the patients who developed these complications were nonsmokers and had a BMI no higher than that of the patients who did not develop DVT or PE. In addition, only 1 patient developed DVT and PE, and she was using OCs and had a family history of DVT. Last, the patients who developed these complications were on average 14 years older than the patients who did not develop DVT or PE.

Although there is a plethora of reports on the incidence of DVT and PE after TKA, there is little on the incidence after osteotomies about the knee.^8,12 The rate of DVT after TKA varies, but many studies place it between 2% and 12%, and routinely find a PE rate of <0.5%.^10,11,13,14 Although the AAOS issued a clinical practice guideline for postoperative DVT prophylaxis after TKA, and evaluated the best available evidence, it could not reach consensus on a specific type of DVT prophylaxis, though the workgroup did recommend that patients be administered postoperative DVT prophylaxis of some kind.^8,9 Similarly, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) issued clinical practice guidelines for preventing DVT and PE after elective TKA and total hip arthroplasty.¹⁵ According to the ACCP guidelines, patients should receive prophylaxis—LMWH, fondaparinux, apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, low-dose unfractionated heparin, adjusted-dose vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, or an intermittent pneumatic compression device—for a minimum of 14 days. Unfortunately, though there are similarities between TKAs and peri-knee osteotomies, these procedures are markedly different, and it is difficult to extrapolate and adapt recommendations and produce a consensus statement for knee arthroplasties. In addition, guidelines exist for hospitalized patients who are being treated for medical conditions or have undergone surgery, but all the patients in the present study had their osteotomies performed on an outpatient basis.

Martin and colleagues¹⁶ reviewed 323 cases of medial opening-wedge HTO and found a DVT rate of 1.4% in the absence of routine DVT prophylaxis, except in patients with a history of DVT. Their rate is almost identical to ours, but we also included other osteotomies in our study. Miller and colleagues¹⁷ reviewed 46 cases of medial opening-wedge HTO and found a 4.3% DVT rate, despite routine prophylaxis with once-daily 325-mg aspirin and ankle pumps. This finding contrasts with our 1.42% DVT rate in the absence of postoperative chemical DVT prophylaxis. Motycka and colleagues¹⁸ reviewed 65 HTO cases in which DVT prophylaxis (oral anticoagulant) was given for 6 weeks, and they found a DVT rate of 9.7%. Turner and colleagues¹⁹ performed venous ultrasound on 81 consecutive patients who underwent HTO and received DVT prophylaxis (twice-daily subcutaneous heparin), and they found a DVT rate of 41% and a PE rate of 1.2%, though only 8.6% of the DVT cases were symptomatic. Of note, whereas the lowest postoperative DVT rate was for patients who did not receive postoperative DVT prophylaxis, the rate of symptomatic DVT after these osteotomies ranged from 1.4% to 8.6% in patients who received prophylaxis.^16,19 Given this evidence and our study results, it appears routine chemical DVT prophylaxis after osteotomies about the knee may not be necessary, though higher level evidence is needed in order to make definitive recommendations.

In the present study, the 2 patients who developed symptomatic DVT (1 subsequently developed PE) were nonsmokers in good health. The female patient (DVT plus PE) was using OCs at time of surgery. Studies have shown that patients who smoke and who use OCs are at increased risk for developing DVT or PE after surgery.^5,6,12 Given that only 2 of our patients developed DVT/PE, and neither was a smoker, smoking was not associated with increased DVT or PE risk in this study population, in which 13.48% of patients were smokers at time of surgery. In addition, given that the 1 female patient who developed DVT/PE was using OCs and that 36.7% of all female patients in the study were using OCs, it is difficult to conclude whether OC use increased the female patient’s risk for DVT or PE. Furthermore, neither the literature nor the AAOS consensus statement supports discontinuing OCs for this surgical procedure.

Patients in this study did not receive chemical or mechanical DVT prophylaxis after surgery. Regarding various post-TKA DVT prophylaxis regimens, aspirin is as effective as LMWH in preventing DVT, and the risk for postoperative blood loss and wound complications is lower with aspirin than with rivaroxaban.^20,21 Given that the present study’s postoperative rates of DVT (1.42%) and PE (0.71%) are equal to or less than rates already reported in the literature, routine DVT prophylaxis after osteotomies about the knee may be unnecessary in the absence of other significant risk factors.^16,19 However, our study considered only symptomatic DVT and PE, so it is possible that the number of asymptomatic DVT cases is higher in this patient population. Definitively answering our study’s clinical question will require a multicenter registry study (prospective cohort study).

Study Limitations

The strengths of this study include the large number of patients treated by a single surgeon using the same postoperative protocol. Limitations of this study include the lack of a control group. Although we found a DVT rate of 1.42% and a PE rate of 0.71%, the literature on the accepted risks for DVT and PE after HTO, DFO, and TTO is unclear. With our results stratified by procedure, the DVT rate was 2% in the HTO group, 0% in the DFO group, and 1% in the TTO group. However, we were unable to reliably stratify these results by each specific procedure, as the number of patients in each group would be too low. This study involved reviewing charts; as patients were not contacted, it is possible a patient developed DVT or PE, was treated at an outside facility, and then never followed up with the treating surgeon. Patients were identified by CPT codes, so, if a patient underwent HTO, DFO, or TTO that was recorded under a different CPT code, it is possible the patient was missed by our search. All patients were seen after surgery, and we reviewed the outpatient office notes that were taken, so unless the DVT or PE occurred after a patient’s final postoperative visit, it would have been recorded. Similarly, the DVT and PE rates reported here cannot be extrapolated to overall risks for DVT and PE after osteotomies about the knee in all patients—only in patients who did not receive DVT prophylaxis after surgery.

Conclusion

The rates of DVT and PE after HTO, DFO, and TTO in patients who did not receive chemical prophylaxis are low: 1.42% and 0.71%, respectively. After these osteotomies, DVT/PE prophylaxis in the absence of known risk factors may not be warranted.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E23-E27. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• DVT and PE are uncommon complications following osteotomies about the knee.
• Use of oral contraceptives can increase the risk of a patient sustaining a postoperative DVT and PE following osteotomies about the knee.
• In the absence of significant risk factors, postoperative chemical DVT prophylaxis may be unnecessary in patients undergoing osteotomies about the knee.

High tibial osteotomy (HTO), distal femoral osteotomy (DFO), and tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) are viable treatment options for deformities about the knee and patella maltracking.^1-4 Although TTO can be performed in many ways (eg, anteriorization, anteromedialization, medialization), the basic idea is to move the tibial tubercle to improve patellar tracking or to offload a patellar facet that has sustained trauma or degenerated.² DFO is a surgical option for treating a valgus knee deformity (the lateral tibiofemoral compartment is offloaded) or for protecting a knee compartment after cartilage or meniscal restoration (medial closing wedge or lateral opening wedge).¹ Similarly, HTO is an option for treating a varus knee deformity or isolated medial compartment arthritis; the diseased compartment is offloaded, and any malalignment is corrected. Akin to DFO, HTO is often performed to protect a knee compartment, typically the medial tibiofemoral compartment, after cartilage or meniscal restoration.^2-4

Compared to most arthroscopic knee surgeries, these osteotomies are much more involved, have longer operative times, and restrict postoperative weight-bearing and range of motion.^2-4 The rates of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) after these osteotomies are not well documented. In addition, there is no documentation of the risks in patients who smoke, are obese, or are using oral contraceptives (OCs) at time of surgery, despite the increased DVT and PE risks posed by smoking, obesity, and OC use in other surgical procedures.^5-7 Although the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) issued clinical practice guidelines for DVT/PE prophylaxis after hip and knee arthroplasty, there is no standard prophylaxis guidelines for DVT/PE prevention after HTO, DFO, or TTO.^8,9 Last, rates of DVT after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are well defined; they range from 2% to 12%.^10,11 These rates may be surrogates for osteotomies about the knee, but this is only conjecture.

We conducted a study to determine the rates of symptomatic DVT and PE after HTO, DFO, or TTO in patients who did not receive postoperative DVT/PE prophylaxis. We also wanted to determine if age, body mass index (BMI), and smoking status have associations with the risk of developing either DVT or PE after HTO, DFO, or TTO. We hypothesized that the DVT and PE rates would both be <1%.

Methods

After this study was approved by our university’s Institutional Review Board, we searched the surgical database of Dr. Cole, a sports medicine fellowship–trained surgeon, to identify all patients who had HTO, DFO, or TTO performed between September 1, 2009 and September 30, 2014. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were used for the search. The code for HTO was 27457: osteotomy, proximal tibia, including fibular excision or osteotomy (includes correction of genu varus [bowleg] or genu valgus [knock-knee]); after epiphyseal closure). The code for DFO was 27450: osteotomy, femur, shaft or supracondylar; with fixation. Last, the code for TTO was 27418: anterior tibial tubercleplasty (eg, Maquet-type procedure). The 141 patients identified in the search were treated by Dr. Cole at a single institution and were included in the study. Study inclusion did not require a minimum follow-up. Follow-up duration was defined as the time between surgery and the final clinic note in the patient chart. No patient was excluded for lack of follow-up clinic visits, and none was lost to follow-up.

Age, BMI, smoking status, and OC use were recorded for all patients. For each procedure, the surgeon’s technique remained the same throughout the study period: HTO, medial opening-wedge osteotomy with plate-and-screw fixation; DFO, lateral opening-wedge osteotomy with plate-and-screw fixation; and TTO, mostly anteromedialization with screw fixation (though this was dictated by patellar contact pressures). A tourniquet was used in all cases. Each patient’s hospital electronic medical record and outpatient office notes were reviewed to determine if symptomatic DVT or PE developed after surgery. The diagnosis of symptomatic DVT was based on clinical symptoms and confirmatory ultrasound, and the PE diagnosis was based on computed tomography. Doppler ultrasound was performed only in symptomatic patients (ie, it was not routinely performed).

Per surgeon protocol, postoperative DVT prophylaxis was not administered. Patients were encouraged to begin dorsiflexion and plantar flexion of the ankle (ankle pumps) immediately and to mobilize as soon as comfortable. Each patient received a cold therapy machine with compression sleeve. Patients were allowed toe-touch weight-bearing for 6 weeks, and then progressed 25% per week for 4 weeks to full weight-bearing by 10 weeks. After surgery, each patient was placed in a brace, which was kept locked in extension for 10 days; when the brace was unlocked, the patient was allowed to range the knee.

Continuous variable data are reported as weighted means and weighted standard deviations. Categorical variable data are reported as frequencies and percentages.

Results

Our database search identified 141 patients (44% male, 56% female) who underwent HTO (47 patients, 33.3%), DFO (13 patients, 9.2%), or TTO (81 patients, 57.5%). Mean (SD) age was 34.28 (9.86) years, mean (SD) BMI was 26.88 (5.11) kg/m², and mean (SD) follow-up was 17.1 (4.1) months. Of the female patients, 36.7% were using OCs at time of surgery. Of all patients, 13.48% were smokers.

Two patients (1.42%) had clinical symptoms consistent with DVT. In each case, the diagnosis was confirmed with Doppler ultrasound. The below-knee DVT was unilateral in 1 case and bilateral in the other.

Discussion

As the rates of DVT and PE after osteotomies about the knee have not been well studied, we wanted to determine these rates after HTO, DFO, and TTO in patients who did not receive postoperative DVT prophylaxis. We hypothesized that DVT and PE rates would both be <1%, and this hypothesis was partly confirmed: The rate of PE after HTO, DFO, and TTO was <1%, and the rate of symptomatic DVT was >1%. Similarly, the patients who developed these complications were nonsmokers and had a BMI no higher than that of the patients who did not develop DVT or PE. In addition, only 1 patient developed DVT and PE, and she was using OCs and had a family history of DVT. Last, the patients who developed these complications were on average 14 years older than the patients who did not develop DVT or PE.

Although there is a plethora of reports on the incidence of DVT and PE after TKA, there is little on the incidence after osteotomies about the knee.^8,12 The rate of DVT after TKA varies, but many studies place it between 2% and 12%, and routinely find a PE rate of <0.5%.^10,11,13,14 Although the AAOS issued a clinical practice guideline for postoperative DVT prophylaxis after TKA, and evaluated the best available evidence, it could not reach consensus on a specific type of DVT prophylaxis, though the workgroup did recommend that patients be administered postoperative DVT prophylaxis of some kind.^8,9 Similarly, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) issued clinical practice guidelines for preventing DVT and PE after elective TKA and total hip arthroplasty.¹⁵ According to the ACCP guidelines, patients should receive prophylaxis—LMWH, fondaparinux, apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, low-dose unfractionated heparin, adjusted-dose vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, or an intermittent pneumatic compression device—for a minimum of 14 days. Unfortunately, though there are similarities between TKAs and peri-knee osteotomies, these procedures are markedly different, and it is difficult to extrapolate and adapt recommendations and produce a consensus statement for knee arthroplasties. In addition, guidelines exist for hospitalized patients who are being treated for medical conditions or have undergone surgery, but all the patients in the present study had their osteotomies performed on an outpatient basis.

Martin and colleagues¹⁶ reviewed 323 cases of medial opening-wedge HTO and found a DVT rate of 1.4% in the absence of routine DVT prophylaxis, except in patients with a history of DVT. Their rate is almost identical to ours, but we also included other osteotomies in our study. Miller and colleagues¹⁷ reviewed 46 cases of medial opening-wedge HTO and found a 4.3% DVT rate, despite routine prophylaxis with once-daily 325-mg aspirin and ankle pumps. This finding contrasts with our 1.42% DVT rate in the absence of postoperative chemical DVT prophylaxis. Motycka and colleagues¹⁸ reviewed 65 HTO cases in which DVT prophylaxis (oral anticoagulant) was given for 6 weeks, and they found a DVT rate of 9.7%. Turner and colleagues¹⁹ performed venous ultrasound on 81 consecutive patients who underwent HTO and received DVT prophylaxis (twice-daily subcutaneous heparin), and they found a DVT rate of 41% and a PE rate of 1.2%, though only 8.6% of the DVT cases were symptomatic. Of note, whereas the lowest postoperative DVT rate was for patients who did not receive postoperative DVT prophylaxis, the rate of symptomatic DVT after these osteotomies ranged from 1.4% to 8.6% in patients who received prophylaxis.^16,19 Given this evidence and our study results, it appears routine chemical DVT prophylaxis after osteotomies about the knee may not be necessary, though higher level evidence is needed in order to make definitive recommendations.

In the present study, the 2 patients who developed symptomatic DVT (1 subsequently developed PE) were nonsmokers in good health. The female patient (DVT plus PE) was using OCs at time of surgery. Studies have shown that patients who smoke and who use OCs are at increased risk for developing DVT or PE after surgery.^5,6,12 Given that only 2 of our patients developed DVT/PE, and neither was a smoker, smoking was not associated with increased DVT or PE risk in this study population, in which 13.48% of patients were smokers at time of surgery. In addition, given that the 1 female patient who developed DVT/PE was using OCs and that 36.7% of all female patients in the study were using OCs, it is difficult to conclude whether OC use increased the female patient’s risk for DVT or PE. Furthermore, neither the literature nor the AAOS consensus statement supports discontinuing OCs for this surgical procedure.

Patients in this study did not receive chemical or mechanical DVT prophylaxis after surgery. Regarding various post-TKA DVT prophylaxis regimens, aspirin is as effective as LMWH in preventing DVT, and the risk for postoperative blood loss and wound complications is lower with aspirin than with rivaroxaban.^20,21 Given that the present study’s postoperative rates of DVT (1.42%) and PE (0.71%) are equal to or less than rates already reported in the literature, routine DVT prophylaxis after osteotomies about the knee may be unnecessary in the absence of other significant risk factors.^16,19 However, our study considered only symptomatic DVT and PE, so it is possible that the number of asymptomatic DVT cases is higher in this patient population. Definitively answering our study’s clinical question will require a multicenter registry study (prospective cohort study).

Study Limitations

The strengths of this study include the large number of patients treated by a single surgeon using the same postoperative protocol. Limitations of this study include the lack of a control group. Although we found a DVT rate of 1.42% and a PE rate of 0.71%, the literature on the accepted risks for DVT and PE after HTO, DFO, and TTO is unclear. With our results stratified by procedure, the DVT rate was 2% in the HTO group, 0% in the DFO group, and 1% in the TTO group. However, we were unable to reliably stratify these results by each specific procedure, as the number of patients in each group would be too low. This study involved reviewing charts; as patients were not contacted, it is possible a patient developed DVT or PE, was treated at an outside facility, and then never followed up with the treating surgeon. Patients were identified by CPT codes, so, if a patient underwent HTO, DFO, or TTO that was recorded under a different CPT code, it is possible the patient was missed by our search. All patients were seen after surgery, and we reviewed the outpatient office notes that were taken, so unless the DVT or PE occurred after a patient’s final postoperative visit, it would have been recorded. Similarly, the DVT and PE rates reported here cannot be extrapolated to overall risks for DVT and PE after osteotomies about the knee in all patients—only in patients who did not receive DVT prophylaxis after surgery.

Conclusion

The rates of DVT and PE after HTO, DFO, and TTO in patients who did not receive chemical prophylaxis are low: 1.42% and 0.71%, respectively. After these osteotomies, DVT/PE prophylaxis in the absence of known risk factors may not be warranted.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E23-E27. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• DVT and PE are uncommon complications following osteotomies about the knee.
• Use of oral contraceptives can increase the risk of a patient sustaining a postoperative DVT and PE following osteotomies about the knee.
• In the absence of significant risk factors, postoperative chemical DVT prophylaxis may be unnecessary in patients undergoing osteotomies about the knee.

High tibial osteotomy (HTO), distal femoral osteotomy (DFO), and tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) are viable treatment options for deformities about the knee and patella maltracking.^1-4 Although TTO can be performed in many ways (eg, anteriorization, anteromedialization, medialization), the basic idea is to move the tibial tubercle to improve patellar tracking or to offload a patellar facet that has sustained trauma or degenerated.² DFO is a surgical option for treating a valgus knee deformity (the lateral tibiofemoral compartment is offloaded) or for protecting a knee compartment after cartilage or meniscal restoration (medial closing wedge or lateral opening wedge).¹ Similarly, HTO is an option for treating a varus knee deformity or isolated medial compartment arthritis; the diseased compartment is offloaded, and any malalignment is corrected. Akin to DFO, HTO is often performed to protect a knee compartment, typically the medial tibiofemoral compartment, after cartilage or meniscal restoration.^2-4

Compared to most arthroscopic knee surgeries, these osteotomies are much more involved, have longer operative times, and restrict postoperative weight-bearing and range of motion.^2-4 The rates of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) after these osteotomies are not well documented. In addition, there is no documentation of the risks in patients who smoke, are obese, or are using oral contraceptives (OCs) at time of surgery, despite the increased DVT and PE risks posed by smoking, obesity, and OC use in other surgical procedures.^5-7 Although the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) issued clinical practice guidelines for DVT/PE prophylaxis after hip and knee arthroplasty, there is no standard prophylaxis guidelines for DVT/PE prevention after HTO, DFO, or TTO.^8,9 Last, rates of DVT after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are well defined; they range from 2% to 12%.^10,11 These rates may be surrogates for osteotomies about the knee, but this is only conjecture.

We conducted a study to determine the rates of symptomatic DVT and PE after HTO, DFO, or TTO in patients who did not receive postoperative DVT/PE prophylaxis. We also wanted to determine if age, body mass index (BMI), and smoking status have associations with the risk of developing either DVT or PE after HTO, DFO, or TTO. We hypothesized that the DVT and PE rates would both be <1%.

Methods

After this study was approved by our university’s Institutional Review Board, we searched the surgical database of Dr. Cole, a sports medicine fellowship–trained surgeon, to identify all patients who had HTO, DFO, or TTO performed between September 1, 2009 and September 30, 2014. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were used for the search. The code for HTO was 27457: osteotomy, proximal tibia, including fibular excision or osteotomy (includes correction of genu varus [bowleg] or genu valgus [knock-knee]); after epiphyseal closure). The code for DFO was 27450: osteotomy, femur, shaft or supracondylar; with fixation. Last, the code for TTO was 27418: anterior tibial tubercleplasty (eg, Maquet-type procedure). The 141 patients identified in the search were treated by Dr. Cole at a single institution and were included in the study. Study inclusion did not require a minimum follow-up. Follow-up duration was defined as the time between surgery and the final clinic note in the patient chart. No patient was excluded for lack of follow-up clinic visits, and none was lost to follow-up.

Age, BMI, smoking status, and OC use were recorded for all patients. For each procedure, the surgeon’s technique remained the same throughout the study period: HTO, medial opening-wedge osteotomy with plate-and-screw fixation; DFO, lateral opening-wedge osteotomy with plate-and-screw fixation; and TTO, mostly anteromedialization with screw fixation (though this was dictated by patellar contact pressures). A tourniquet was used in all cases. Each patient’s hospital electronic medical record and outpatient office notes were reviewed to determine if symptomatic DVT or PE developed after surgery. The diagnosis of symptomatic DVT was based on clinical symptoms and confirmatory ultrasound, and the PE diagnosis was based on computed tomography. Doppler ultrasound was performed only in symptomatic patients (ie, it was not routinely performed).

Per surgeon protocol, postoperative DVT prophylaxis was not administered. Patients were encouraged to begin dorsiflexion and plantar flexion of the ankle (ankle pumps) immediately and to mobilize as soon as comfortable. Each patient received a cold therapy machine with compression sleeve. Patients were allowed toe-touch weight-bearing for 6 weeks, and then progressed 25% per week for 4 weeks to full weight-bearing by 10 weeks. After surgery, each patient was placed in a brace, which was kept locked in extension for 10 days; when the brace was unlocked, the patient was allowed to range the knee.

Continuous variable data are reported as weighted means and weighted standard deviations. Categorical variable data are reported as frequencies and percentages.

Results

Our database search identified 141 patients (44% male, 56% female) who underwent HTO (47 patients, 33.3%), DFO (13 patients, 9.2%), or TTO (81 patients, 57.5%). Mean (SD) age was 34.28 (9.86) years, mean (SD) BMI was 26.88 (5.11) kg/m², and mean (SD) follow-up was 17.1 (4.1) months. Of the female patients, 36.7% were using OCs at time of surgery. Of all patients, 13.48% were smokers.

Two patients (1.42%) had clinical symptoms consistent with DVT. In each case, the diagnosis was confirmed with Doppler ultrasound. The below-knee DVT was unilateral in 1 case and bilateral in the other.

Discussion

As the rates of DVT and PE after osteotomies about the knee have not been well studied, we wanted to determine these rates after HTO, DFO, and TTO in patients who did not receive postoperative DVT prophylaxis. We hypothesized that DVT and PE rates would both be <1%, and this hypothesis was partly confirmed: The rate of PE after HTO, DFO, and TTO was <1%, and the rate of symptomatic DVT was >1%. Similarly, the patients who developed these complications were nonsmokers and had a BMI no higher than that of the patients who did not develop DVT or PE. In addition, only 1 patient developed DVT and PE, and she was using OCs and had a family history of DVT. Last, the patients who developed these complications were on average 14 years older than the patients who did not develop DVT or PE.

Although there is a plethora of reports on the incidence of DVT and PE after TKA, there is little on the incidence after osteotomies about the knee.^8,12 The rate of DVT after TKA varies, but many studies place it between 2% and 12%, and routinely find a PE rate of <0.5%.^10,11,13,14 Although the AAOS issued a clinical practice guideline for postoperative DVT prophylaxis after TKA, and evaluated the best available evidence, it could not reach consensus on a specific type of DVT prophylaxis, though the workgroup did recommend that patients be administered postoperative DVT prophylaxis of some kind.^8,9 Similarly, the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) issued clinical practice guidelines for preventing DVT and PE after elective TKA and total hip arthroplasty.¹⁵ According to the ACCP guidelines, patients should receive prophylaxis—LMWH, fondaparinux, apixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, low-dose unfractionated heparin, adjusted-dose vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, or an intermittent pneumatic compression device—for a minimum of 14 days. Unfortunately, though there are similarities between TKAs and peri-knee osteotomies, these procedures are markedly different, and it is difficult to extrapolate and adapt recommendations and produce a consensus statement for knee arthroplasties. In addition, guidelines exist for hospitalized patients who are being treated for medical conditions or have undergone surgery, but all the patients in the present study had their osteotomies performed on an outpatient basis.

Martin and colleagues¹⁶ reviewed 323 cases of medial opening-wedge HTO and found a DVT rate of 1.4% in the absence of routine DVT prophylaxis, except in patients with a history of DVT. Their rate is almost identical to ours, but we also included other osteotomies in our study. Miller and colleagues¹⁷ reviewed 46 cases of medial opening-wedge HTO and found a 4.3% DVT rate, despite routine prophylaxis with once-daily 325-mg aspirin and ankle pumps. This finding contrasts with our 1.42% DVT rate in the absence of postoperative chemical DVT prophylaxis. Motycka and colleagues¹⁸ reviewed 65 HTO cases in which DVT prophylaxis (oral anticoagulant) was given for 6 weeks, and they found a DVT rate of 9.7%. Turner and colleagues¹⁹ performed venous ultrasound on 81 consecutive patients who underwent HTO and received DVT prophylaxis (twice-daily subcutaneous heparin), and they found a DVT rate of 41% and a PE rate of 1.2%, though only 8.6% of the DVT cases were symptomatic. Of note, whereas the lowest postoperative DVT rate was for patients who did not receive postoperative DVT prophylaxis, the rate of symptomatic DVT after these osteotomies ranged from 1.4% to 8.6% in patients who received prophylaxis.^16,19 Given this evidence and our study results, it appears routine chemical DVT prophylaxis after osteotomies about the knee may not be necessary, though higher level evidence is needed in order to make definitive recommendations.

In the present study, the 2 patients who developed symptomatic DVT (1 subsequently developed PE) were nonsmokers in good health. The female patient (DVT plus PE) was using OCs at time of surgery. Studies have shown that patients who smoke and who use OCs are at increased risk for developing DVT or PE after surgery.^5,6,12 Given that only 2 of our patients developed DVT/PE, and neither was a smoker, smoking was not associated with increased DVT or PE risk in this study population, in which 13.48% of patients were smokers at time of surgery. In addition, given that the 1 female patient who developed DVT/PE was using OCs and that 36.7% of all female patients in the study were using OCs, it is difficult to conclude whether OC use increased the female patient’s risk for DVT or PE. Furthermore, neither the literature nor the AAOS consensus statement supports discontinuing OCs for this surgical procedure.

Patients in this study did not receive chemical or mechanical DVT prophylaxis after surgery. Regarding various post-TKA DVT prophylaxis regimens, aspirin is as effective as LMWH in preventing DVT, and the risk for postoperative blood loss and wound complications is lower with aspirin than with rivaroxaban.^20,21 Given that the present study’s postoperative rates of DVT (1.42%) and PE (0.71%) are equal to or less than rates already reported in the literature, routine DVT prophylaxis after osteotomies about the knee may be unnecessary in the absence of other significant risk factors.^16,19 However, our study considered only symptomatic DVT and PE, so it is possible that the number of asymptomatic DVT cases is higher in this patient population. Definitively answering our study’s clinical question will require a multicenter registry study (prospective cohort study).

Study Limitations

The strengths of this study include the large number of patients treated by a single surgeon using the same postoperative protocol. Limitations of this study include the lack of a control group. Although we found a DVT rate of 1.42% and a PE rate of 0.71%, the literature on the accepted risks for DVT and PE after HTO, DFO, and TTO is unclear. With our results stratified by procedure, the DVT rate was 2% in the HTO group, 0% in the DFO group, and 1% in the TTO group. However, we were unable to reliably stratify these results by each specific procedure, as the number of patients in each group would be too low. This study involved reviewing charts; as patients were not contacted, it is possible a patient developed DVT or PE, was treated at an outside facility, and then never followed up with the treating surgeon. Patients were identified by CPT codes, so, if a patient underwent HTO, DFO, or TTO that was recorded under a different CPT code, it is possible the patient was missed by our search. All patients were seen after surgery, and we reviewed the outpatient office notes that were taken, so unless the DVT or PE occurred after a patient’s final postoperative visit, it would have been recorded. Similarly, the DVT and PE rates reported here cannot be extrapolated to overall risks for DVT and PE after osteotomies about the knee in all patients—only in patients who did not receive DVT prophylaxis after surgery.

Conclusion

The rates of DVT and PE after HTO, DFO, and TTO in patients who did not receive chemical prophylaxis are low: 1.42% and 0.71%, respectively. After these osteotomies, DVT/PE prophylaxis in the absence of known risk factors may not be warranted.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E23-E27. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• History and physical examination are key in identifying possible etiologies of orthopedic infections.
• If identified in the acute setting, periprosthetic infections can successfully be treated with irrigation, débridement, and polyethylene liner exchange.
• Discussion with an interdisciplinary medical team, including infectious disease specialists, can aide in improved diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic infections.

Periprosthetic infection is a leading cause of morbidity after total joint arthroplasty.¹ Despite advances in modern surgical practices, infection rates continue to range from 1% to 3% among all arthroplasty procedures performed in the United States.^2-5 The most common causes of periprosthetic infection include Staphylococcus aureus, streptococcus, enterococcus, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.⁶ However, many other pathogens that cause periprosthetic infection should be considered in the clinical setting. In this case report, periprosthetic knee infection with P shigelloides occurred after consumption of raw oysters.

P shigelloides is a gram-negative facultative anaerobic organism in the Vibrionaceae family,⁷ which also includes Vibrio vulnificus and Vibrio parahaemolyticus. P shigelloides is most well-known for causing diarrhea and septicemia in people who have consumed raw oysters or shellfish in the United States.^8,9 Although P shigelloides infection is rare, there have been clinically significant outbreaks from contaminated water in Japan,¹⁰ consumption of freshwater fish in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,¹¹ and consumption of raw oysters in the United States.^8,9 Children and immunosuppressed people are most susceptible to the disease, which most commonly manifests as self-limiting watery diarrhea, with septicemia only in advanced cases.¹²There are very few reports of P shigelloides in the orthopedic population. In the medical literature, we found only 1 case of septic arthritis in a native knee; disease progression resulted in the patient’s death.¹³In this article, we report a case of P shigelloides septicemia that caused periprosthetic knee infection in a chemically and biologically immunosuppressed patient. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

Out of concern about a periprosthetic knee infection, a 66-year-old man was transferred from a regional medical center to our tertiary referral center. The patient reported a 3-day history of significant knee pain, swelling, and erythema that started the day after he consumed raw oysters at a seafood bar. He was unable to bear weight on the right knee and remained at home 1 day before presenting to the regional medical center.

The patient had undergone elective right total knee arthroplasty 18 months earlier, without previous issue (Figures A, B), and had a medical history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, psoriatic arthritis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, hypothyroidism, and benign prostatic hypertrophy.

Discussion

This case is a reminder that periprosthetic knee infection can occur from a variety of pathologic organisms and that obtaining a complete history is an important part of any diagnostic work-up. Although P shigelloides infection is rare, our patient had important historical findings that led to suspicion of Vibrionaceae infection: recent consumption of raw oysters, immunosuppression with etanercept and prednisone for psoriatic arthritis, and diabetes with hemoglobin A_1c of 9.9% and presenting blood sugar of 338 mg/dL. His positive blood cultures represented P shigelloides septicemia, which seeded the knee prosthesis and led to acute periprosthetic infection. To our knowledge, this is the first report of P shigelloides periprosthetic infection in the orthopedic literature. The only other reported case of P shigelloides septicemia leading to septic arthritis in a native knee occurred in a 68-year-old Australian man who had end-stage liver disease and eventually died from complications of the P shigelloides infection.¹³

Although P shigelloides infection is rare, outbreaks have occurred around the world.^7-11,14 Infections are most commonly associated with consumption of raw shellfish or freshwater fish or with water contamination.¹² In the United States, the only described vector for disease has been consumption of raw oysters and shellfish—in particular, those harvested from the warm waters of the Gulf Coast.^8,9P shigelloides usually causes a self-limiting watery diarrhea. However, in children and immunosuppressed patients, P shigelloides can lead to life-threatening septicemia.¹² In the United States, P shigelloides cases often occur in the summer, likely related to the easy growth of the bacteria from shellfish in the Gulf Coast’s warm water and mud.⁸ This predilection for summer infections has been documented around the world.¹⁵Our patient reported eating raw oysters imported to the US Southwest from an unknown location. He likely was susceptible to P shigelloides infection, as he was immunosuppressed with etanercept and prednisone. However, there were no traditional diarrheal symptoms. Case reports have described nondiarrheal symptoms in children and other immunosuppressed people.¹²There is much to learn from this case report. Most important, it highlights the need to obtain a complete history and perform a thorough physical examination. Our patient’s 2 key historical findings, immunosuppressive medication use and raw oyster consumption, point strongly toward Vibrionaceae infection. Although a majority of periprosthetic infections are caused by common organisms, such as Staphylococcus and Streptococcus species, orthopedic clinicians should continue to expand their knowledge of periprosthetic infections, as many other pathogens can cause disease.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E32-E34. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• History and physical examination are key in identifying possible etiologies of orthopedic infections.
• If identified in the acute setting, periprosthetic infections can successfully be treated with irrigation, débridement, and polyethylene liner exchange.
• Discussion with an interdisciplinary medical team, including infectious disease specialists, can aide in improved diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic infections.

Periprosthetic infection is a leading cause of morbidity after total joint arthroplasty.¹ Despite advances in modern surgical practices, infection rates continue to range from 1% to 3% among all arthroplasty procedures performed in the United States.^2-5 The most common causes of periprosthetic infection include Staphylococcus aureus, streptococcus, enterococcus, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.⁶ However, many other pathogens that cause periprosthetic infection should be considered in the clinical setting. In this case report, periprosthetic knee infection with P shigelloides occurred after consumption of raw oysters.

P shigelloides is a gram-negative facultative anaerobic organism in the Vibrionaceae family,⁷ which also includes Vibrio vulnificus and Vibrio parahaemolyticus. P shigelloides is most well-known for causing diarrhea and septicemia in people who have consumed raw oysters or shellfish in the United States.^8,9 Although P shigelloides infection is rare, there have been clinically significant outbreaks from contaminated water in Japan,¹⁰ consumption of freshwater fish in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,¹¹ and consumption of raw oysters in the United States.^8,9 Children and immunosuppressed people are most susceptible to the disease, which most commonly manifests as self-limiting watery diarrhea, with septicemia only in advanced cases.¹²There are very few reports of P shigelloides in the orthopedic population. In the medical literature, we found only 1 case of septic arthritis in a native knee; disease progression resulted in the patient’s death.¹³In this article, we report a case of P shigelloides septicemia that caused periprosthetic knee infection in a chemically and biologically immunosuppressed patient. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

Out of concern about a periprosthetic knee infection, a 66-year-old man was transferred from a regional medical center to our tertiary referral center. The patient reported a 3-day history of significant knee pain, swelling, and erythema that started the day after he consumed raw oysters at a seafood bar. He was unable to bear weight on the right knee and remained at home 1 day before presenting to the regional medical center.

The patient had undergone elective right total knee arthroplasty 18 months earlier, without previous issue (Figures A, B), and had a medical history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, psoriatic arthritis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, hypothyroidism, and benign prostatic hypertrophy.

Discussion

This case is a reminder that periprosthetic knee infection can occur from a variety of pathologic organisms and that obtaining a complete history is an important part of any diagnostic work-up. Although P shigelloides infection is rare, our patient had important historical findings that led to suspicion of Vibrionaceae infection: recent consumption of raw oysters, immunosuppression with etanercept and prednisone for psoriatic arthritis, and diabetes with hemoglobin A_1c of 9.9% and presenting blood sugar of 338 mg/dL. His positive blood cultures represented P shigelloides septicemia, which seeded the knee prosthesis and led to acute periprosthetic infection. To our knowledge, this is the first report of P shigelloides periprosthetic infection in the orthopedic literature. The only other reported case of P shigelloides septicemia leading to septic arthritis in a native knee occurred in a 68-year-old Australian man who had end-stage liver disease and eventually died from complications of the P shigelloides infection.¹³

Although P shigelloides infection is rare, outbreaks have occurred around the world.^7-11,14 Infections are most commonly associated with consumption of raw shellfish or freshwater fish or with water contamination.¹² In the United States, the only described vector for disease has been consumption of raw oysters and shellfish—in particular, those harvested from the warm waters of the Gulf Coast.^8,9P shigelloides usually causes a self-limiting watery diarrhea. However, in children and immunosuppressed patients, P shigelloides can lead to life-threatening septicemia.¹² In the United States, P shigelloides cases often occur in the summer, likely related to the easy growth of the bacteria from shellfish in the Gulf Coast’s warm water and mud.⁸ This predilection for summer infections has been documented around the world.¹⁵Our patient reported eating raw oysters imported to the US Southwest from an unknown location. He likely was susceptible to P shigelloides infection, as he was immunosuppressed with etanercept and prednisone. However, there were no traditional diarrheal symptoms. Case reports have described nondiarrheal symptoms in children and other immunosuppressed people.¹²There is much to learn from this case report. Most important, it highlights the need to obtain a complete history and perform a thorough physical examination. Our patient’s 2 key historical findings, immunosuppressive medication use and raw oyster consumption, point strongly toward Vibrionaceae infection. Although a majority of periprosthetic infections are caused by common organisms, such as Staphylococcus and Streptococcus species, orthopedic clinicians should continue to expand their knowledge of periprosthetic infections, as many other pathogens can cause disease.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E32-E34. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• History and physical examination are key in identifying possible etiologies of orthopedic infections.
• If identified in the acute setting, periprosthetic infections can successfully be treated with irrigation, débridement, and polyethylene liner exchange.
• Discussion with an interdisciplinary medical team, including infectious disease specialists, can aide in improved diagnosis and treatment of periprosthetic infections.

Periprosthetic infection is a leading cause of morbidity after total joint arthroplasty.¹ Despite advances in modern surgical practices, infection rates continue to range from 1% to 3% among all arthroplasty procedures performed in the United States.^2-5 The most common causes of periprosthetic infection include Staphylococcus aureus, streptococcus, enterococcus, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.⁶ However, many other pathogens that cause periprosthetic infection should be considered in the clinical setting. In this case report, periprosthetic knee infection with P shigelloides occurred after consumption of raw oysters.

P shigelloides is a gram-negative facultative anaerobic organism in the Vibrionaceae family,⁷ which also includes Vibrio vulnificus and Vibrio parahaemolyticus. P shigelloides is most well-known for causing diarrhea and septicemia in people who have consumed raw oysters or shellfish in the United States.^8,9 Although P shigelloides infection is rare, there have been clinically significant outbreaks from contaminated water in Japan,¹⁰ consumption of freshwater fish in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,¹¹ and consumption of raw oysters in the United States.^8,9 Children and immunosuppressed people are most susceptible to the disease, which most commonly manifests as self-limiting watery diarrhea, with septicemia only in advanced cases.¹²There are very few reports of P shigelloides in the orthopedic population. In the medical literature, we found only 1 case of septic arthritis in a native knee; disease progression resulted in the patient’s death.¹³In this article, we report a case of P shigelloides septicemia that caused periprosthetic knee infection in a chemically and biologically immunosuppressed patient. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

Out of concern about a periprosthetic knee infection, a 66-year-old man was transferred from a regional medical center to our tertiary referral center. The patient reported a 3-day history of significant knee pain, swelling, and erythema that started the day after he consumed raw oysters at a seafood bar. He was unable to bear weight on the right knee and remained at home 1 day before presenting to the regional medical center.

The patient had undergone elective right total knee arthroplasty 18 months earlier, without previous issue (Figures A, B), and had a medical history of type 2 diabetes mellitus, psoriatic arthritis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, hypothyroidism, and benign prostatic hypertrophy.

Discussion

This case is a reminder that periprosthetic knee infection can occur from a variety of pathologic organisms and that obtaining a complete history is an important part of any diagnostic work-up. Although P shigelloides infection is rare, our patient had important historical findings that led to suspicion of Vibrionaceae infection: recent consumption of raw oysters, immunosuppression with etanercept and prednisone for psoriatic arthritis, and diabetes with hemoglobin A_1c of 9.9% and presenting blood sugar of 338 mg/dL. His positive blood cultures represented P shigelloides septicemia, which seeded the knee prosthesis and led to acute periprosthetic infection. To our knowledge, this is the first report of P shigelloides periprosthetic infection in the orthopedic literature. The only other reported case of P shigelloides septicemia leading to septic arthritis in a native knee occurred in a 68-year-old Australian man who had end-stage liver disease and eventually died from complications of the P shigelloides infection.¹³

Although P shigelloides infection is rare, outbreaks have occurred around the world.^7-11,14 Infections are most commonly associated with consumption of raw shellfish or freshwater fish or with water contamination.¹² In the United States, the only described vector for disease has been consumption of raw oysters and shellfish—in particular, those harvested from the warm waters of the Gulf Coast.^8,9P shigelloides usually causes a self-limiting watery diarrhea. However, in children and immunosuppressed patients, P shigelloides can lead to life-threatening septicemia.¹² In the United States, P shigelloides cases often occur in the summer, likely related to the easy growth of the bacteria from shellfish in the Gulf Coast’s warm water and mud.⁸ This predilection for summer infections has been documented around the world.¹⁵Our patient reported eating raw oysters imported to the US Southwest from an unknown location. He likely was susceptible to P shigelloides infection, as he was immunosuppressed with etanercept and prednisone. However, there were no traditional diarrheal symptoms. Case reports have described nondiarrheal symptoms in children and other immunosuppressed people.¹²There is much to learn from this case report. Most important, it highlights the need to obtain a complete history and perform a thorough physical examination. Our patient’s 2 key historical findings, immunosuppressive medication use and raw oyster consumption, point strongly toward Vibrionaceae infection. Although a majority of periprosthetic infections are caused by common organisms, such as Staphylococcus and Streptococcus species, orthopedic clinicians should continue to expand their knowledge of periprosthetic infections, as many other pathogens can cause disease.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E32-E34. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Music therapists use patient-preferred live music, increasing neurologic cues that enhance movement—a seminal recovery function in postoperative spine patients.
• Music therapy is an evidence-based, integrative treatment addressing body, mind, and spirit.
• Tension release through music therapy can serve as a critical mechanism for building resilience related to pain management.
• Music therapy and music medicine are distinct forms of clinical practice that focus on mind-body integration in the healing process.
• Music therapists, board-certified and licensed by the state as recognized healthcare professionals, address pain management, which is an increasing subspecialty in postoperative care.

About 70% of people in the United States experience at least 1 episode of back pain in their lifetime,¹ and more than 5 million are temporarily or permanently disabled by spinal disorders.^2-4 Some require surgery, which may rectify injury, but pain during recovery is often inevitable, and the road to recovery is not guaranteed to be smooth.^5-20

Postoperative spine patients are at major risk for pain management challenges.^14,15,18,20 Treatment is primarily pharmacologic and based on the surgical team’s pain management orders. Nursing care consists of monitoring the airway, vital signs, and neurovascular status and having patients rate their pain on a visual analog scale (VAS; 0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable). Nurses have the challenge of monitoring and continually assessing to make sure patients are achieving the optimal outcomes, particularly during the immediate postoperative period, when pain and anxiety are prominently increased.

Variability in spine surgery outcomes can be explained at least partly on the basis of prognostic psychological factors, including hypochondriasis, hysteria, depression, and poor pain coping strategies (eg, catastrophizing).²¹ In spine surgery patients, kinesiophobia (fear of moving) is a common component of distress that can impede recuperation.^21-23Psychological interventions that assist with the secondary stressors associated with pain and loss during physical recuperation are recommended, with increased attention given to the importance of treating the whole person: body, mind, and spirit.^24-29 Conventional pain-alleviating medical interventions can be enhanced with integrative therapies that empower patients to marshal their inner resources during recovery.^25-28Music therapy may be particularly suited to this effort, as it is adaptable to the patient’s individual and culturally specific needs.^29-33

Rationale for Live Music

Pain is subjective and personal, and warrants an individualized approach to care. There is a body of music medicine research on the use of recorded music in modulating psychological and physiological factors in pain perception.^30,32,34-54 This research supports the unique relationship of music to well-being, and the understanding that controlling any of these factors affects the duration, intensity, and quality of that experience.^41,43,52

These findings provide incentive for breathing-entrained music therapy interventions, which enhance the relaxation response and release of pain-related tension;^32,55-58 empower patients to unlock physical and emotional tension;^32,57,58 provide a channel for expression and body movement; and enhance blood flow and/or alleviate pain by activating neurologic areas involved in the experience of pain.^59-62Studies have found that physical endurance may be enhanced when movement is rhythmically coordinated with a musical stimulus.^63-66 Music may prolong physical endurance by inhibiting psychological feedback associated with physical exertion related to fatigue, which may translate into accelerated recovery periods. When we listen to a rhythmic sound, our brains tend to automatically synchronize, or entrain, to external rhythmic cues that can stimulate increased motor control and coordination.⁶³ Sound can arouse and raise the excitability of spinal motor neurons mediated by auditory-motor neuronal connections on the brain stem and spinal cord level.^64-66 Rhythmically organized sounds serve as a neurological function in our capacity to organize predictable timing cues that are apparent in music, and may result in an effective treatment intervention in recovery.^63,64

Music Therapy in Recovery From Spine Surgery

In music therapy, music is used within a therapeutic relationship to support or affect change in the patient and the treatment regimen.^32,33,56-58 Research on music therapy with patients who are recovering from spine surgery is scant.^67-69 Kleiber and Adamek⁶⁷ studied perceptions of music therapy in 8 adolescents after spinal fusion surgery. In their study, a music therapist provided patients with a postoperative music therapy session focusing on the use of patient-preferred live music for relaxation and expression. Although their qualitative query was based on a therapeutic approach similar to that used in the present study, only 1 session was offered during the recovery period, and follow-up was conducted by survey invitation and telephone. In addition, the number of participants was small, and there was no quantitative measure of pain or other symptoms.

Another study focused on the effects of listening to music on pain intensity and distress after spine surgery.⁶⁸ Patients in the study’s music group made their selections from prerecorded classical music and domestic and international popular songs from various genres and listened to their chosen recordings 30 minutes a day. Although the study was not a music therapy study per se, it showed a positive impact of listening to music on anxiety and pain perception in 60 adults who were randomly assigned to the music group or to a non-music control group (n = 30 in each). Differences between the music and control groups’ VAS ratings of anxiety (Ps = .018-.001) and pain (P = .001) were statistically significant.

Different from our study, the aforementioned studies did not include tension release–focused live music offered within a therapeutic relationship. Our 1.5-year pilot study, conducted prior to the present study indicated that music therapy led to increased resilience and recovery mechanisms.⁵⁸

Methods

Our mixed-methods study design combined standard medical treatment with integrative music therapy interventions based on pain assessments to better understand the effects of music therapy on the recovery of patients after spine surgery.

The Spine Institute of New York within the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at Mount Sinai Beth Israel provides surgical treatment of common spinal cord conditions. Prioritizing patient satisfaction and positive outcomes,^27,28 the institute integrates music therapy through the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine to enhance treatment of pain symptoms.

Patients were recruited by the research team as per the daily surgical schedule, or through referral by the medical team or patient care navigator. Sixty patients (35 female, 25 male) ranging in age from 40 to 55 years underwent anterior, posterior, or anterior-posterior spinal fusion and were enrolled in the study after signing a participation consent form. Minorities, women, and patients with Medicaid and Medicare were included. Patients who received a diagnosis of clinical psychosis or depression prior to spine injury were excluded.

The experimental group received music therapy plus standard care (medical and nursing care with scheduled pharmacologic pain intervention), and a wait-listed control group received standard care only. A randomization chart created by a blinded statistician who did not have access to the patient census determined the intervention–nonintervention schedule. Patients in the music therapy group received one 30-minute music therapy session during an 8-hour period within 72 hours after surgery.

For both groups, measurements were completed before and after the study window. Control patients were offered music therapy after completion of the post-intervention surveys in order to minimize the ethical dilemma of denying potentially helpful pain intervention. For this same reason, both groups were given the option of receiving follow-up music therapy sessions for the duration of their hospitalization.

The research team consisted of 2 licensed, board-certified music therapists. In addition, Master’s-level music therapy interns completing clinical hours as part of the trajectory for board certification served on the research team over the 5-year period 2009 to 2014, and 13 blinded research assistants helped with enrolling and collecting data on patients.

Intervention

Each music therapy session included a warm-up phase of verbal or musical discourse. Next was the treatment phase, which was based on patient need as assessed during warm-up. Treatment options included use of patient-preferred live music that supported tension release/relaxation through incentive-based clinical improvisation, singing, and/or rhythmic drumming or through breathwork and visualization. Psychoeducation about mind–body awareness through the use of breath and imagery was introduced and explained by the therapist at this time.

The improvised music intervention was focused on making salient the natural harmonic tension-resolution cycles that occur in music and that were entrained to the patient’s presentation (respiratory rate, verbal report, clinical presentation). When patient-preferred precomposed songs were used, tension resolution was achieved by sustaining cadence and resolution, also entrained to the patient’s respiratory cycles.^32,57,58

After the music therapy intervention, a period of closure or integration was facilitated by the therapist contingent on the patient’s degree of alertness. If awake, the patient was supported in a reflexive process of thoughts, impressions, or issues that may have contributed to the overall experience. If the patient was asleep, the researcher returned within 30 minutes for post-intervention interviewing. Interview information was recorded in a qualitative post-participation survey. To prevent bias, researchers who were not the treating clinicians conducted the surveys.

Outcome Measures

Both primary and secondary outcome measures were collected before and after the intervention. The primary outcome measure was VAS pain ratings, and the secondary outcome measures were scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and the Color Analysis Scale (CAS).

VAS. With the VAS, images are used to rate pain. The scale has points labeled 0 to 10 and corresponding faces representing progression in pain intensity. The scale is quickly rendered and can be interpreted according to the patient’s recovery phase at time of rendering.

HADS. The HADS⁷⁰ provides a specific baseline for anxiety and depression as an indicator of how the patient might fare during hospitalization (admission through recovery and discharge).

TSK. The TSK⁷¹ provides insight into the patient’s perception of fear-related movement, which is an important factor in this study because of the movement required for rehabilitation. We used a shortened version of the TSK to accommodate the sensitive threshold for pain tolerance and pharmacologic side effects commonly experienced by spine patients.

CAS. The CAS was developed at the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine to assess comorbidities and dynamic aspects of pain. Through a coloring exercise, patients illustrate their pain experience, which gives tangible form to the abstract experience of pain.

Coding

We collected patients’ demographic data, including age, sex, and diagnoses. Clinical indicators of the preoperative baseline included lifestyle, surgical history, and prior experience with music or other mind–body strategies for self-regulation.

As fundamental to qualitative methodology,^72,73 the reported responses to questions were grouped into themes that were peer-tested with members of the research team before and during the coding process.

Statistical Methods

Means and standard deviations were used for continuous variables, and frequencies (percentages) for categorical variables. All outcomes were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare changes in outcomes from before to after intervention for the music and control groups. In particular, a statistically significant Group (music vs control) × Time (before vs after intervention) interaction would support the hypothesis that there would be more benefit (less pain) in the music group as a result of the music therapy. For all tests, significance was set at P < .05. SPSS Version 20 (IBM) was used for all statistical analyses. Based on previously found differences in heart rate and mobility,³¹ we assumed an effect size of 0.71 for the difference between music and control (no music), which would require 32 patients per group to achieve a power of 0.8 with an α of 0.05.

Results

Of the 136 patients who were asked to participate in the study, 76 were not enrolled; the other 60 were equally assigned to either the control group or the music therapy group (n = 30 in each) according to randomization indicated by a blinded statistician (Figure 1).

Table 2 lists the pre-intervention and post-intervention comparisons of the main outcomes between groups.

Relationship with music was coded for significance and included reports of music as a resource accessed for stimulation and/or relaxation through listening; direct involvement with instrument playing; and history of music training. 

Perceptions of surgical outcome in patients’ responses were coded across 3 themes: (1) optimistic (belief and hope in returning to original baseline of functionality), (2) indifferent (neither hopeful nor cynical about results of surgery), and (3) pessimistic (belief that nothing will restore the quality of life that existed before the spinal condition).

The CAS helped us better understand the diversity and complexity of the pain experience.

Discussion

Our hospital has the unique capability of providing music therapy to postoperative and other hospitalized patients. In this study, we compared the impact of a structured postoperative music therapy program on spine patients relative to control patients who did not receive music therapy after spine surgery.

We found a significant benefit in VAS pain levels (>1 point) but no statistically significant differences in HADS Anxiety, HADS Depression, or TSK scores. Although a 2-point difference is usually considered clinically significant, the degree of change in the music group is notable for having been achieved by nonpharmacologic means with scant chance of adverse effects. We suspect the lack of significant change in HADS Anxiety, HADS Depression, and TSK scores is attributable to the narrow study window. Given the observational data from our pilot study⁵⁸ and ongoing results with spine patients,³² it seems clear that both mood state and resilience in coping are enhanced through an ongoing relationship with music therapy.

The study of a population as vulnerable as patients recovering from spine surgery raises many issues for providers and researchers. Although it is worthwhile to determine the efficacy of integrative modalities in serving these patients, the request for participation in a protocol at such a vulnerable time was often resisted. During our pilot work, it became clear that the ability of potential subjects to comprehend and complete protocol surveys was impacted by adverse effects, including sedation drowsiness; respiratory depression; nausea and vomiting; pruritus; and urinary retention caused by the medications used for postoperative pain management. Consequently, after piloting 5 cases before the main study, we extended the enrollment window to 72 hours.

Other unforeseen intrinsic or external obstacles were identified: Patient-related issues—including availability, level of interest in participation, and inability to participate because of the medication adverse effects mentioned.

Staff investment/education—addressed over the first 3 study years with several in-services, starting with the surgical team and continuing with nursing and support staff in various combinations. These meetings led to the creation of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved educational sheet for inclusion in the information packet given to surgical patients on registration.

Programming interruptions—caused by the convergence of several unanticipated factors, including a delay in expedited review of the IRB renewal during the year of Hurricane Sandy and an interruption in the spine team’s service for administrative and program modification.

Conclusion

Music therapy interventions (eg, use of patient-preferred live music) offered within a therapeutic relationship favorably affected pain perceptions in patients recovering from spine surgery. This effect was achieved through several therapeutic entry points, including support of expression and opportunities for emotional catharsis.

At the core of music therapy’s efficacy is individualized treatment, through which patients are supported in their recovery of “self.” Measurable benefits—including increased comfort; reduced pain; improved gait; increased range of motion, endurance, and ability to relax; and empowerment to actively participate in one’s own care through daily activities imbued with an enhanced sense of agency—are of cardinal importance, as they may lead to quicker recovery perceptions and enhanced quality of life.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E13-E22. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Music therapists use patient-preferred live music, increasing neurologic cues that enhance movement—a seminal recovery function in postoperative spine patients.
• Music therapy is an evidence-based, integrative treatment addressing body, mind, and spirit.
• Tension release through music therapy can serve as a critical mechanism for building resilience related to pain management.
• Music therapy and music medicine are distinct forms of clinical practice that focus on mind-body integration in the healing process.
• Music therapists, board-certified and licensed by the state as recognized healthcare professionals, address pain management, which is an increasing subspecialty in postoperative care.

About 70% of people in the United States experience at least 1 episode of back pain in their lifetime,¹ and more than 5 million are temporarily or permanently disabled by spinal disorders.^2-4 Some require surgery, which may rectify injury, but pain during recovery is often inevitable, and the road to recovery is not guaranteed to be smooth.^5-20

Postoperative spine patients are at major risk for pain management challenges.^14,15,18,20 Treatment is primarily pharmacologic and based on the surgical team’s pain management orders. Nursing care consists of monitoring the airway, vital signs, and neurovascular status and having patients rate their pain on a visual analog scale (VAS; 0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable). Nurses have the challenge of monitoring and continually assessing to make sure patients are achieving the optimal outcomes, particularly during the immediate postoperative period, when pain and anxiety are prominently increased.

Variability in spine surgery outcomes can be explained at least partly on the basis of prognostic psychological factors, including hypochondriasis, hysteria, depression, and poor pain coping strategies (eg, catastrophizing).²¹ In spine surgery patients, kinesiophobia (fear of moving) is a common component of distress that can impede recuperation.^21-23Psychological interventions that assist with the secondary stressors associated with pain and loss during physical recuperation are recommended, with increased attention given to the importance of treating the whole person: body, mind, and spirit.^24-29 Conventional pain-alleviating medical interventions can be enhanced with integrative therapies that empower patients to marshal their inner resources during recovery.^25-28Music therapy may be particularly suited to this effort, as it is adaptable to the patient’s individual and culturally specific needs.^29-33

Rationale for Live Music

Pain is subjective and personal, and warrants an individualized approach to care. There is a body of music medicine research on the use of recorded music in modulating psychological and physiological factors in pain perception.^30,32,34-54 This research supports the unique relationship of music to well-being, and the understanding that controlling any of these factors affects the duration, intensity, and quality of that experience.^41,43,52

These findings provide incentive for breathing-entrained music therapy interventions, which enhance the relaxation response and release of pain-related tension;^32,55-58 empower patients to unlock physical and emotional tension;^32,57,58 provide a channel for expression and body movement; and enhance blood flow and/or alleviate pain by activating neurologic areas involved in the experience of pain.^59-62Studies have found that physical endurance may be enhanced when movement is rhythmically coordinated with a musical stimulus.^63-66 Music may prolong physical endurance by inhibiting psychological feedback associated with physical exertion related to fatigue, which may translate into accelerated recovery periods. When we listen to a rhythmic sound, our brains tend to automatically synchronize, or entrain, to external rhythmic cues that can stimulate increased motor control and coordination.⁶³ Sound can arouse and raise the excitability of spinal motor neurons mediated by auditory-motor neuronal connections on the brain stem and spinal cord level.^64-66 Rhythmically organized sounds serve as a neurological function in our capacity to organize predictable timing cues that are apparent in music, and may result in an effective treatment intervention in recovery.^63,64

Music Therapy in Recovery From Spine Surgery

In music therapy, music is used within a therapeutic relationship to support or affect change in the patient and the treatment regimen.^32,33,56-58 Research on music therapy with patients who are recovering from spine surgery is scant.^67-69 Kleiber and Adamek⁶⁷ studied perceptions of music therapy in 8 adolescents after spinal fusion surgery. In their study, a music therapist provided patients with a postoperative music therapy session focusing on the use of patient-preferred live music for relaxation and expression. Although their qualitative query was based on a therapeutic approach similar to that used in the present study, only 1 session was offered during the recovery period, and follow-up was conducted by survey invitation and telephone. In addition, the number of participants was small, and there was no quantitative measure of pain or other symptoms.

Another study focused on the effects of listening to music on pain intensity and distress after spine surgery.⁶⁸ Patients in the study’s music group made their selections from prerecorded classical music and domestic and international popular songs from various genres and listened to their chosen recordings 30 minutes a day. Although the study was not a music therapy study per se, it showed a positive impact of listening to music on anxiety and pain perception in 60 adults who were randomly assigned to the music group or to a non-music control group (n = 30 in each). Differences between the music and control groups’ VAS ratings of anxiety (Ps = .018-.001) and pain (P = .001) were statistically significant.

Different from our study, the aforementioned studies did not include tension release–focused live music offered within a therapeutic relationship. Our 1.5-year pilot study, conducted prior to the present study indicated that music therapy led to increased resilience and recovery mechanisms.⁵⁸

Methods

Our mixed-methods study design combined standard medical treatment with integrative music therapy interventions based on pain assessments to better understand the effects of music therapy on the recovery of patients after spine surgery.

The Spine Institute of New York within the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at Mount Sinai Beth Israel provides surgical treatment of common spinal cord conditions. Prioritizing patient satisfaction and positive outcomes,^27,28 the institute integrates music therapy through the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine to enhance treatment of pain symptoms.

Patients were recruited by the research team as per the daily surgical schedule, or through referral by the medical team or patient care navigator. Sixty patients (35 female, 25 male) ranging in age from 40 to 55 years underwent anterior, posterior, or anterior-posterior spinal fusion and were enrolled in the study after signing a participation consent form. Minorities, women, and patients with Medicaid and Medicare were included. Patients who received a diagnosis of clinical psychosis or depression prior to spine injury were excluded.

The experimental group received music therapy plus standard care (medical and nursing care with scheduled pharmacologic pain intervention), and a wait-listed control group received standard care only. A randomization chart created by a blinded statistician who did not have access to the patient census determined the intervention–nonintervention schedule. Patients in the music therapy group received one 30-minute music therapy session during an 8-hour period within 72 hours after surgery.

For both groups, measurements were completed before and after the study window. Control patients were offered music therapy after completion of the post-intervention surveys in order to minimize the ethical dilemma of denying potentially helpful pain intervention. For this same reason, both groups were given the option of receiving follow-up music therapy sessions for the duration of their hospitalization.

The research team consisted of 2 licensed, board-certified music therapists. In addition, Master’s-level music therapy interns completing clinical hours as part of the trajectory for board certification served on the research team over the 5-year period 2009 to 2014, and 13 blinded research assistants helped with enrolling and collecting data on patients.

Intervention

Each music therapy session included a warm-up phase of verbal or musical discourse. Next was the treatment phase, which was based on patient need as assessed during warm-up. Treatment options included use of patient-preferred live music that supported tension release/relaxation through incentive-based clinical improvisation, singing, and/or rhythmic drumming or through breathwork and visualization. Psychoeducation about mind–body awareness through the use of breath and imagery was introduced and explained by the therapist at this time.

The improvised music intervention was focused on making salient the natural harmonic tension-resolution cycles that occur in music and that were entrained to the patient’s presentation (respiratory rate, verbal report, clinical presentation). When patient-preferred precomposed songs were used, tension resolution was achieved by sustaining cadence and resolution, also entrained to the patient’s respiratory cycles.^32,57,58

After the music therapy intervention, a period of closure or integration was facilitated by the therapist contingent on the patient’s degree of alertness. If awake, the patient was supported in a reflexive process of thoughts, impressions, or issues that may have contributed to the overall experience. If the patient was asleep, the researcher returned within 30 minutes for post-intervention interviewing. Interview information was recorded in a qualitative post-participation survey. To prevent bias, researchers who were not the treating clinicians conducted the surveys.

Outcome Measures

Both primary and secondary outcome measures were collected before and after the intervention. The primary outcome measure was VAS pain ratings, and the secondary outcome measures were scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and the Color Analysis Scale (CAS).

VAS. With the VAS, images are used to rate pain. The scale has points labeled 0 to 10 and corresponding faces representing progression in pain intensity. The scale is quickly rendered and can be interpreted according to the patient’s recovery phase at time of rendering.

HADS. The HADS⁷⁰ provides a specific baseline for anxiety and depression as an indicator of how the patient might fare during hospitalization (admission through recovery and discharge).

TSK. The TSK⁷¹ provides insight into the patient’s perception of fear-related movement, which is an important factor in this study because of the movement required for rehabilitation. We used a shortened version of the TSK to accommodate the sensitive threshold for pain tolerance and pharmacologic side effects commonly experienced by spine patients.

CAS. The CAS was developed at the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine to assess comorbidities and dynamic aspects of pain. Through a coloring exercise, patients illustrate their pain experience, which gives tangible form to the abstract experience of pain.

Coding

We collected patients’ demographic data, including age, sex, and diagnoses. Clinical indicators of the preoperative baseline included lifestyle, surgical history, and prior experience with music or other mind–body strategies for self-regulation.

As fundamental to qualitative methodology,^72,73 the reported responses to questions were grouped into themes that were peer-tested with members of the research team before and during the coding process.

Statistical Methods

Means and standard deviations were used for continuous variables, and frequencies (percentages) for categorical variables. All outcomes were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare changes in outcomes from before to after intervention for the music and control groups. In particular, a statistically significant Group (music vs control) × Time (before vs after intervention) interaction would support the hypothesis that there would be more benefit (less pain) in the music group as a result of the music therapy. For all tests, significance was set at P < .05. SPSS Version 20 (IBM) was used for all statistical analyses. Based on previously found differences in heart rate and mobility,³¹ we assumed an effect size of 0.71 for the difference between music and control (no music), which would require 32 patients per group to achieve a power of 0.8 with an α of 0.05.

Results

Of the 136 patients who were asked to participate in the study, 76 were not enrolled; the other 60 were equally assigned to either the control group or the music therapy group (n = 30 in each) according to randomization indicated by a blinded statistician (Figure 1).

Table 2 lists the pre-intervention and post-intervention comparisons of the main outcomes between groups.

Relationship with music was coded for significance and included reports of music as a resource accessed for stimulation and/or relaxation through listening; direct involvement with instrument playing; and history of music training. 

Perceptions of surgical outcome in patients’ responses were coded across 3 themes: (1) optimistic (belief and hope in returning to original baseline of functionality), (2) indifferent (neither hopeful nor cynical about results of surgery), and (3) pessimistic (belief that nothing will restore the quality of life that existed before the spinal condition).

The CAS helped us better understand the diversity and complexity of the pain experience.

Discussion

Our hospital has the unique capability of providing music therapy to postoperative and other hospitalized patients. In this study, we compared the impact of a structured postoperative music therapy program on spine patients relative to control patients who did not receive music therapy after spine surgery.

We found a significant benefit in VAS pain levels (>1 point) but no statistically significant differences in HADS Anxiety, HADS Depression, or TSK scores. Although a 2-point difference is usually considered clinically significant, the degree of change in the music group is notable for having been achieved by nonpharmacologic means with scant chance of adverse effects. We suspect the lack of significant change in HADS Anxiety, HADS Depression, and TSK scores is attributable to the narrow study window. Given the observational data from our pilot study⁵⁸ and ongoing results with spine patients,³² it seems clear that both mood state and resilience in coping are enhanced through an ongoing relationship with music therapy.

The study of a population as vulnerable as patients recovering from spine surgery raises many issues for providers and researchers. Although it is worthwhile to determine the efficacy of integrative modalities in serving these patients, the request for participation in a protocol at such a vulnerable time was often resisted. During our pilot work, it became clear that the ability of potential subjects to comprehend and complete protocol surveys was impacted by adverse effects, including sedation drowsiness; respiratory depression; nausea and vomiting; pruritus; and urinary retention caused by the medications used for postoperative pain management. Consequently, after piloting 5 cases before the main study, we extended the enrollment window to 72 hours.

Other unforeseen intrinsic or external obstacles were identified: Patient-related issues—including availability, level of interest in participation, and inability to participate because of the medication adverse effects mentioned.

Staff investment/education—addressed over the first 3 study years with several in-services, starting with the surgical team and continuing with nursing and support staff in various combinations. These meetings led to the creation of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved educational sheet for inclusion in the information packet given to surgical patients on registration.

Programming interruptions—caused by the convergence of several unanticipated factors, including a delay in expedited review of the IRB renewal during the year of Hurricane Sandy and an interruption in the spine team’s service for administrative and program modification.

Conclusion

Music therapy interventions (eg, use of patient-preferred live music) offered within a therapeutic relationship favorably affected pain perceptions in patients recovering from spine surgery. This effect was achieved through several therapeutic entry points, including support of expression and opportunities for emotional catharsis.

At the core of music therapy’s efficacy is individualized treatment, through which patients are supported in their recovery of “self.” Measurable benefits—including increased comfort; reduced pain; improved gait; increased range of motion, endurance, and ability to relax; and empowerment to actively participate in one’s own care through daily activities imbued with an enhanced sense of agency—are of cardinal importance, as they may lead to quicker recovery perceptions and enhanced quality of life.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E13-E22. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Music therapists use patient-preferred live music, increasing neurologic cues that enhance movement—a seminal recovery function in postoperative spine patients.
• Music therapy is an evidence-based, integrative treatment addressing body, mind, and spirit.
• Tension release through music therapy can serve as a critical mechanism for building resilience related to pain management.
• Music therapy and music medicine are distinct forms of clinical practice that focus on mind-body integration in the healing process.
• Music therapists, board-certified and licensed by the state as recognized healthcare professionals, address pain management, which is an increasing subspecialty in postoperative care.

About 70% of people in the United States experience at least 1 episode of back pain in their lifetime,¹ and more than 5 million are temporarily or permanently disabled by spinal disorders.^2-4 Some require surgery, which may rectify injury, but pain during recovery is often inevitable, and the road to recovery is not guaranteed to be smooth.^5-20

Postoperative spine patients are at major risk for pain management challenges.^14,15,18,20 Treatment is primarily pharmacologic and based on the surgical team’s pain management orders. Nursing care consists of monitoring the airway, vital signs, and neurovascular status and having patients rate their pain on a visual analog scale (VAS; 0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain imaginable). Nurses have the challenge of monitoring and continually assessing to make sure patients are achieving the optimal outcomes, particularly during the immediate postoperative period, when pain and anxiety are prominently increased.

Variability in spine surgery outcomes can be explained at least partly on the basis of prognostic psychological factors, including hypochondriasis, hysteria, depression, and poor pain coping strategies (eg, catastrophizing).²¹ In spine surgery patients, kinesiophobia (fear of moving) is a common component of distress that can impede recuperation.^21-23Psychological interventions that assist with the secondary stressors associated with pain and loss during physical recuperation are recommended, with increased attention given to the importance of treating the whole person: body, mind, and spirit.^24-29 Conventional pain-alleviating medical interventions can be enhanced with integrative therapies that empower patients to marshal their inner resources during recovery.^25-28Music therapy may be particularly suited to this effort, as it is adaptable to the patient’s individual and culturally specific needs.^29-33

Rationale for Live Music

Pain is subjective and personal, and warrants an individualized approach to care. There is a body of music medicine research on the use of recorded music in modulating psychological and physiological factors in pain perception.^30,32,34-54 This research supports the unique relationship of music to well-being, and the understanding that controlling any of these factors affects the duration, intensity, and quality of that experience.^41,43,52

These findings provide incentive for breathing-entrained music therapy interventions, which enhance the relaxation response and release of pain-related tension;^32,55-58 empower patients to unlock physical and emotional tension;^32,57,58 provide a channel for expression and body movement; and enhance blood flow and/or alleviate pain by activating neurologic areas involved in the experience of pain.^59-62Studies have found that physical endurance may be enhanced when movement is rhythmically coordinated with a musical stimulus.^63-66 Music may prolong physical endurance by inhibiting psychological feedback associated with physical exertion related to fatigue, which may translate into accelerated recovery periods. When we listen to a rhythmic sound, our brains tend to automatically synchronize, or entrain, to external rhythmic cues that can stimulate increased motor control and coordination.⁶³ Sound can arouse and raise the excitability of spinal motor neurons mediated by auditory-motor neuronal connections on the brain stem and spinal cord level.^64-66 Rhythmically organized sounds serve as a neurological function in our capacity to organize predictable timing cues that are apparent in music, and may result in an effective treatment intervention in recovery.^63,64

Music Therapy in Recovery From Spine Surgery

In music therapy, music is used within a therapeutic relationship to support or affect change in the patient and the treatment regimen.^32,33,56-58 Research on music therapy with patients who are recovering from spine surgery is scant.^67-69 Kleiber and Adamek⁶⁷ studied perceptions of music therapy in 8 adolescents after spinal fusion surgery. In their study, a music therapist provided patients with a postoperative music therapy session focusing on the use of patient-preferred live music for relaxation and expression. Although their qualitative query was based on a therapeutic approach similar to that used in the present study, only 1 session was offered during the recovery period, and follow-up was conducted by survey invitation and telephone. In addition, the number of participants was small, and there was no quantitative measure of pain or other symptoms.

Another study focused on the effects of listening to music on pain intensity and distress after spine surgery.⁶⁸ Patients in the study’s music group made their selections from prerecorded classical music and domestic and international popular songs from various genres and listened to their chosen recordings 30 minutes a day. Although the study was not a music therapy study per se, it showed a positive impact of listening to music on anxiety and pain perception in 60 adults who were randomly assigned to the music group or to a non-music control group (n = 30 in each). Differences between the music and control groups’ VAS ratings of anxiety (Ps = .018-.001) and pain (P = .001) were statistically significant.

Different from our study, the aforementioned studies did not include tension release–focused live music offered within a therapeutic relationship. Our 1.5-year pilot study, conducted prior to the present study indicated that music therapy led to increased resilience and recovery mechanisms.⁵⁸

Methods

Our mixed-methods study design combined standard medical treatment with integrative music therapy interventions based on pain assessments to better understand the effects of music therapy on the recovery of patients after spine surgery.

The Spine Institute of New York within the Department of Orthopedic Surgery at Mount Sinai Beth Israel provides surgical treatment of common spinal cord conditions. Prioritizing patient satisfaction and positive outcomes,^27,28 the institute integrates music therapy through the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine to enhance treatment of pain symptoms.

Patients were recruited by the research team as per the daily surgical schedule, or through referral by the medical team or patient care navigator. Sixty patients (35 female, 25 male) ranging in age from 40 to 55 years underwent anterior, posterior, or anterior-posterior spinal fusion and were enrolled in the study after signing a participation consent form. Minorities, women, and patients with Medicaid and Medicare were included. Patients who received a diagnosis of clinical psychosis or depression prior to spine injury were excluded.

The experimental group received music therapy plus standard care (medical and nursing care with scheduled pharmacologic pain intervention), and a wait-listed control group received standard care only. A randomization chart created by a blinded statistician who did not have access to the patient census determined the intervention–nonintervention schedule. Patients in the music therapy group received one 30-minute music therapy session during an 8-hour period within 72 hours after surgery.

For both groups, measurements were completed before and after the study window. Control patients were offered music therapy after completion of the post-intervention surveys in order to minimize the ethical dilemma of denying potentially helpful pain intervention. For this same reason, both groups were given the option of receiving follow-up music therapy sessions for the duration of their hospitalization.

The research team consisted of 2 licensed, board-certified music therapists. In addition, Master’s-level music therapy interns completing clinical hours as part of the trajectory for board certification served on the research team over the 5-year period 2009 to 2014, and 13 blinded research assistants helped with enrolling and collecting data on patients.

Intervention

Each music therapy session included a warm-up phase of verbal or musical discourse. Next was the treatment phase, which was based on patient need as assessed during warm-up. Treatment options included use of patient-preferred live music that supported tension release/relaxation through incentive-based clinical improvisation, singing, and/or rhythmic drumming or through breathwork and visualization. Psychoeducation about mind–body awareness through the use of breath and imagery was introduced and explained by the therapist at this time.

The improvised music intervention was focused on making salient the natural harmonic tension-resolution cycles that occur in music and that were entrained to the patient’s presentation (respiratory rate, verbal report, clinical presentation). When patient-preferred precomposed songs were used, tension resolution was achieved by sustaining cadence and resolution, also entrained to the patient’s respiratory cycles.^32,57,58

After the music therapy intervention, a period of closure or integration was facilitated by the therapist contingent on the patient’s degree of alertness. If awake, the patient was supported in a reflexive process of thoughts, impressions, or issues that may have contributed to the overall experience. If the patient was asleep, the researcher returned within 30 minutes for post-intervention interviewing. Interview information was recorded in a qualitative post-participation survey. To prevent bias, researchers who were not the treating clinicians conducted the surveys.

Outcome Measures

Both primary and secondary outcome measures were collected before and after the intervention. The primary outcome measure was VAS pain ratings, and the secondary outcome measures were scores on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK), and the Color Analysis Scale (CAS).

VAS. With the VAS, images are used to rate pain. The scale has points labeled 0 to 10 and corresponding faces representing progression in pain intensity. The scale is quickly rendered and can be interpreted according to the patient’s recovery phase at time of rendering.

HADS. The HADS⁷⁰ provides a specific baseline for anxiety and depression as an indicator of how the patient might fare during hospitalization (admission through recovery and discharge).

TSK. The TSK⁷¹ provides insight into the patient’s perception of fear-related movement, which is an important factor in this study because of the movement required for rehabilitation. We used a shortened version of the TSK to accommodate the sensitive threshold for pain tolerance and pharmacologic side effects commonly experienced by spine patients.

CAS. The CAS was developed at the Louis Armstrong Center for Music and Medicine to assess comorbidities and dynamic aspects of pain. Through a coloring exercise, patients illustrate their pain experience, which gives tangible form to the abstract experience of pain.

Coding

We collected patients’ demographic data, including age, sex, and diagnoses. Clinical indicators of the preoperative baseline included lifestyle, surgical history, and prior experience with music or other mind–body strategies for self-regulation.

As fundamental to qualitative methodology,^72,73 the reported responses to questions were grouped into themes that were peer-tested with members of the research team before and during the coding process.

Statistical Methods

Means and standard deviations were used for continuous variables, and frequencies (percentages) for categorical variables. All outcomes were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare changes in outcomes from before to after intervention for the music and control groups. In particular, a statistically significant Group (music vs control) × Time (before vs after intervention) interaction would support the hypothesis that there would be more benefit (less pain) in the music group as a result of the music therapy. For all tests, significance was set at P < .05. SPSS Version 20 (IBM) was used for all statistical analyses. Based on previously found differences in heart rate and mobility,³¹ we assumed an effect size of 0.71 for the difference between music and control (no music), which would require 32 patients per group to achieve a power of 0.8 with an α of 0.05.

Results

Of the 136 patients who were asked to participate in the study, 76 were not enrolled; the other 60 were equally assigned to either the control group or the music therapy group (n = 30 in each) according to randomization indicated by a blinded statistician (Figure 1).

Table 2 lists the pre-intervention and post-intervention comparisons of the main outcomes between groups.

Relationship with music was coded for significance and included reports of music as a resource accessed for stimulation and/or relaxation through listening; direct involvement with instrument playing; and history of music training. 

Perceptions of surgical outcome in patients’ responses were coded across 3 themes: (1) optimistic (belief and hope in returning to original baseline of functionality), (2) indifferent (neither hopeful nor cynical about results of surgery), and (3) pessimistic (belief that nothing will restore the quality of life that existed before the spinal condition).

The CAS helped us better understand the diversity and complexity of the pain experience.

Discussion

Our hospital has the unique capability of providing music therapy to postoperative and other hospitalized patients. In this study, we compared the impact of a structured postoperative music therapy program on spine patients relative to control patients who did not receive music therapy after spine surgery.

We found a significant benefit in VAS pain levels (>1 point) but no statistically significant differences in HADS Anxiety, HADS Depression, or TSK scores. Although a 2-point difference is usually considered clinically significant, the degree of change in the music group is notable for having been achieved by nonpharmacologic means with scant chance of adverse effects. We suspect the lack of significant change in HADS Anxiety, HADS Depression, and TSK scores is attributable to the narrow study window. Given the observational data from our pilot study⁵⁸ and ongoing results with spine patients,³² it seems clear that both mood state and resilience in coping are enhanced through an ongoing relationship with music therapy.

The study of a population as vulnerable as patients recovering from spine surgery raises many issues for providers and researchers. Although it is worthwhile to determine the efficacy of integrative modalities in serving these patients, the request for participation in a protocol at such a vulnerable time was often resisted. During our pilot work, it became clear that the ability of potential subjects to comprehend and complete protocol surveys was impacted by adverse effects, including sedation drowsiness; respiratory depression; nausea and vomiting; pruritus; and urinary retention caused by the medications used for postoperative pain management. Consequently, after piloting 5 cases before the main study, we extended the enrollment window to 72 hours.

Other unforeseen intrinsic or external obstacles were identified: Patient-related issues—including availability, level of interest in participation, and inability to participate because of the medication adverse effects mentioned.

Staff investment/education—addressed over the first 3 study years with several in-services, starting with the surgical team and continuing with nursing and support staff in various combinations. These meetings led to the creation of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved educational sheet for inclusion in the information packet given to surgical patients on registration.

Programming interruptions—caused by the convergence of several unanticipated factors, including a delay in expedited review of the IRB renewal during the year of Hurricane Sandy and an interruption in the spine team’s service for administrative and program modification.

Conclusion

Music therapy interventions (eg, use of patient-preferred live music) offered within a therapeutic relationship favorably affected pain perceptions in patients recovering from spine surgery. This effect was achieved through several therapeutic entry points, including support of expression and opportunities for emotional catharsis.

At the core of music therapy’s efficacy is individualized treatment, through which patients are supported in their recovery of “self.” Measurable benefits—including increased comfort; reduced pain; improved gait; increased range of motion, endurance, and ability to relax; and empowerment to actively participate in one’s own care through daily activities imbued with an enhanced sense of agency—are of cardinal importance, as they may lead to quicker recovery perceptions and enhanced quality of life.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E13-E22. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Preoperative radiographic templating alerts surgeons to certain intraoperative issues that may arise during surgery.
• Intraoperative fluoroscopy has been shown to significantly improve the position and orientation of the implanted hip arthroplasty components.
• Numerous measuring devices have been designed to help restore leg length, but in many cases the purchase cost and required maintenance outweigh their utility.
• A radiopaque line generated by the guide rod serves as a reference point that permits immediate objective comparison of femoral leg length and offset intraoperatively.
• The modified ball-tip guide rod is relatively inexpensive and has several practical purposes in total joint surgery.

Patient satisfaction scores after total hip arthroplasty (THA) approach 100%.¹ Goals of this surgery include pain alleviation, motion restoration, and normalization of leg-length inequality. Asymmetric leg lengths are associated with nerve traction injuries, lower extremity joint pain, sacroiliac discomfort, low back pain, and patient dissatisfaction.^1-3 For these reasons, postoperative leg-length discrepancy has become the most common reason for THA-related litigation.^1,4

With preoperative education, patients and surgeons can discuss realistic THA goals and expectations. Besides ensuring that the correct tools and implants are available for the procedure, radiographic templating alerts surgeons to certain intraoperative issues that may arise during cases. For instance, an extremity may need to be lengthened during the surgery in order to generate the amount of soft-tissue tension needed to convey adequate stability to the hip joint.

In asymptomatic populations, lower extremity leg lengths inherently vary by an average of 5 mm.⁵ Studies have found normal populations are unable to accurately perceive a leg-length inequality of <1 cm.^3,6,7 Lengthening an extremity >2.5 cm causes sciatic nerve symptoms.² Patients may notice a leg-length discrepancy during the first few months after hip replacement, but this perception often subsides as gait normalizes and soft tissues acclimatize.

Our hospital uses a special arthroplasty table and intraoperative fluoroscopy for direct anterior (DA) THA cases. The table permits the operative extremity to undergo traction and the necessary mobility for proximal femur exposure. Fluoroscopy has been shown to significantly improve the position and orientation of the implanted hip components.⁸We have developed an innovative use for a ball-tip guide rod (3.0 mm × 1000 mm; Smith & Nephew) to help accurately restore leg length and femoral offset after DA-THA. The ball-tip guide rod was modified to a length of 500 mm and rough edges were smoothed.

Technique

After the patient is prepared and draped in standard fashion on the operating table, a 10-cm skin incision is made directly over the proximal aspect of the tensor fascia lata muscle. Soft tissues are dissected down to the hip capsule, which is then incised and tagged for closure at the end of the case.

The fluoroscopic C-arm is sterilely draped and positioned from the nonoperative side. The image intensifier is centered over the pubic symphysis and lowered within 1 inch of the perineal post and surgical drapes. The C-arm unit is then aimed 10° to 15° cephalad until the size and orientation of the obturator foramens on fluoroscopic imaging coincide with the preoperative template.

Next, the modified guide rod, ball tip first, is carefully advanced toward the nonoperative side and over the surgical drapes between the pelvis and the C-arm image intensifier. Care is taken to avoid violating the sterile field by inadvertently puncturing the surgical drapes with the guide rod. The lower extremities are externally rotated 20° to bring the lesser tuberosities into profile view. With use of several fluoroscopic views, the guide rod is aligned with the inferior borders of the ischial tuberosities or the obturator foramens, whichever are more readily identified on the intraoperative images. A skin marker is then used to illustrate the position of the guide rod on the operative drapes for future reference.

At this point, the relationship between the radiopaque guide rod and the lesser trochanters is noted to gain a sense of native femoral leg length and offset, and the image (Figure 1) is saved in the C-arm computer for later recall and comparison views.

Discussion

Various techniques of assessing intraoperative leg length have been described, and each has its advantages and disadvantages. Relying on abductor tension or comparing leg lengths on the operating table is not always accurate and is strongly dependent on patient position.^2,6

Referencing the tip of the greater trochanter to a Steinmann pin inserted into the ilium provides a precise reference point, but this invasive technique has the potential for fracture propagation through the drill hole.^2,7Superimposing a trial femoral component over the proximal femur to determine the appropriate femoral neck osteotomy has been described, but this process can be difficult through a tight DA approach.⁹Numerous measuring devices have been designed to help restore leg length, but in many cases the purchase cost and required maintenance outweigh their utility.² Gililland and colleagues¹⁰ developed a reusable fluoroscopic transparent grid system that significantly improves component positioning during DA-THA.

The modified ball-tip guide rod is relatively inexpensive (<$100) and has several practical purposes in total joint surgery. The guide rod historically has been used to sound the center of the femoral canal before broaching. In revision cases and in cases of poor bone stock, the tool can be used to verify that cortical perforation has not occurred during canal preparation. In this article, we describe another realistic use for the guide rod: to create, during DA-THA, a radiographic reference line that can be used to help restore leg length and femoral offset.

Several authors have mentioned surgeons’ drawing the reference line on paper printouts of intraoperative images.¹¹ Not only is this practice fraught with potential contamination of the operative field, but valuable time is lost waiting for paper copies and putting on a new gown and gloves before reentering the sterile field.

We used to train a radiologic technician or operating room nurse to draw a computerized reference line connecting the lesser trochanters on the fluoroscopic image. Problems arose in working with revolving nursing staff and in distinguishing the thin black line on computer monitors. In contrast, the radiopaque line from the guide rod is easily differentiated on fluoroscopic images, the technique poses less of a risk to the sterile field, and proper orientation of the guide rod to obtain the appropriate reference line is entirely surgeon-dependent.

A drawback of this technique is the additional radiation exposure that occurs when extra images are obtained to ensure satisfactory alignment of the guide rod. Another issue is fluoroscopic parallax. Some machines in the operating department generate a magnetic field that can interfere with the fluoroscopy beam and thereby slightly distort the intraoperative images.⁸ Therefore, it is imperative that the guide rod remain perfectly straight to avoid confounding measurements.

Our modified guide rod technique is a reliable, quick, and inexpensive intraoperative tool that helps in accurately restoring leg length and femoral offset during DA-THA.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E10-E12. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Preoperative radiographic templating alerts surgeons to certain intraoperative issues that may arise during surgery.
• Intraoperative fluoroscopy has been shown to significantly improve the position and orientation of the implanted hip arthroplasty components.
• Numerous measuring devices have been designed to help restore leg length, but in many cases the purchase cost and required maintenance outweigh their utility.
• A radiopaque line generated by the guide rod serves as a reference point that permits immediate objective comparison of femoral leg length and offset intraoperatively.
• The modified ball-tip guide rod is relatively inexpensive and has several practical purposes in total joint surgery.

Patient satisfaction scores after total hip arthroplasty (THA) approach 100%.¹ Goals of this surgery include pain alleviation, motion restoration, and normalization of leg-length inequality. Asymmetric leg lengths are associated with nerve traction injuries, lower extremity joint pain, sacroiliac discomfort, low back pain, and patient dissatisfaction.^1-3 For these reasons, postoperative leg-length discrepancy has become the most common reason for THA-related litigation.^1,4

With preoperative education, patients and surgeons can discuss realistic THA goals and expectations. Besides ensuring that the correct tools and implants are available for the procedure, radiographic templating alerts surgeons to certain intraoperative issues that may arise during cases. For instance, an extremity may need to be lengthened during the surgery in order to generate the amount of soft-tissue tension needed to convey adequate stability to the hip joint.

In asymptomatic populations, lower extremity leg lengths inherently vary by an average of 5 mm.⁵ Studies have found normal populations are unable to accurately perceive a leg-length inequality of <1 cm.^3,6,7 Lengthening an extremity >2.5 cm causes sciatic nerve symptoms.² Patients may notice a leg-length discrepancy during the first few months after hip replacement, but this perception often subsides as gait normalizes and soft tissues acclimatize.

Our hospital uses a special arthroplasty table and intraoperative fluoroscopy for direct anterior (DA) THA cases. The table permits the operative extremity to undergo traction and the necessary mobility for proximal femur exposure. Fluoroscopy has been shown to significantly improve the position and orientation of the implanted hip components.⁸We have developed an innovative use for a ball-tip guide rod (3.0 mm × 1000 mm; Smith & Nephew) to help accurately restore leg length and femoral offset after DA-THA. The ball-tip guide rod was modified to a length of 500 mm and rough edges were smoothed.

Technique

After the patient is prepared and draped in standard fashion on the operating table, a 10-cm skin incision is made directly over the proximal aspect of the tensor fascia lata muscle. Soft tissues are dissected down to the hip capsule, which is then incised and tagged for closure at the end of the case.

The fluoroscopic C-arm is sterilely draped and positioned from the nonoperative side. The image intensifier is centered over the pubic symphysis and lowered within 1 inch of the perineal post and surgical drapes. The C-arm unit is then aimed 10° to 15° cephalad until the size and orientation of the obturator foramens on fluoroscopic imaging coincide with the preoperative template.

Next, the modified guide rod, ball tip first, is carefully advanced toward the nonoperative side and over the surgical drapes between the pelvis and the C-arm image intensifier. Care is taken to avoid violating the sterile field by inadvertently puncturing the surgical drapes with the guide rod. The lower extremities are externally rotated 20° to bring the lesser tuberosities into profile view. With use of several fluoroscopic views, the guide rod is aligned with the inferior borders of the ischial tuberosities or the obturator foramens, whichever are more readily identified on the intraoperative images. A skin marker is then used to illustrate the position of the guide rod on the operative drapes for future reference.

At this point, the relationship between the radiopaque guide rod and the lesser trochanters is noted to gain a sense of native femoral leg length and offset, and the image (Figure 1) is saved in the C-arm computer for later recall and comparison views.

Discussion

Various techniques of assessing intraoperative leg length have been described, and each has its advantages and disadvantages. Relying on abductor tension or comparing leg lengths on the operating table is not always accurate and is strongly dependent on patient position.^2,6

Referencing the tip of the greater trochanter to a Steinmann pin inserted into the ilium provides a precise reference point, but this invasive technique has the potential for fracture propagation through the drill hole.^2,7Superimposing a trial femoral component over the proximal femur to determine the appropriate femoral neck osteotomy has been described, but this process can be difficult through a tight DA approach.⁹Numerous measuring devices have been designed to help restore leg length, but in many cases the purchase cost and required maintenance outweigh their utility.² Gililland and colleagues¹⁰ developed a reusable fluoroscopic transparent grid system that significantly improves component positioning during DA-THA.

The modified ball-tip guide rod is relatively inexpensive (<$100) and has several practical purposes in total joint surgery. The guide rod historically has been used to sound the center of the femoral canal before broaching. In revision cases and in cases of poor bone stock, the tool can be used to verify that cortical perforation has not occurred during canal preparation. In this article, we describe another realistic use for the guide rod: to create, during DA-THA, a radiographic reference line that can be used to help restore leg length and femoral offset.

Several authors have mentioned surgeons’ drawing the reference line on paper printouts of intraoperative images.¹¹ Not only is this practice fraught with potential contamination of the operative field, but valuable time is lost waiting for paper copies and putting on a new gown and gloves before reentering the sterile field.

We used to train a radiologic technician or operating room nurse to draw a computerized reference line connecting the lesser trochanters on the fluoroscopic image. Problems arose in working with revolving nursing staff and in distinguishing the thin black line on computer monitors. In contrast, the radiopaque line from the guide rod is easily differentiated on fluoroscopic images, the technique poses less of a risk to the sterile field, and proper orientation of the guide rod to obtain the appropriate reference line is entirely surgeon-dependent.

A drawback of this technique is the additional radiation exposure that occurs when extra images are obtained to ensure satisfactory alignment of the guide rod. Another issue is fluoroscopic parallax. Some machines in the operating department generate a magnetic field that can interfere with the fluoroscopy beam and thereby slightly distort the intraoperative images.⁸ Therefore, it is imperative that the guide rod remain perfectly straight to avoid confounding measurements.

Our modified guide rod technique is a reliable, quick, and inexpensive intraoperative tool that helps in accurately restoring leg length and femoral offset during DA-THA.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E10-E12. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Preoperative radiographic templating alerts surgeons to certain intraoperative issues that may arise during surgery.
• Intraoperative fluoroscopy has been shown to significantly improve the position and orientation of the implanted hip arthroplasty components.
• Numerous measuring devices have been designed to help restore leg length, but in many cases the purchase cost and required maintenance outweigh their utility.
• A radiopaque line generated by the guide rod serves as a reference point that permits immediate objective comparison of femoral leg length and offset intraoperatively.
• The modified ball-tip guide rod is relatively inexpensive and has several practical purposes in total joint surgery.

Patient satisfaction scores after total hip arthroplasty (THA) approach 100%.¹ Goals of this surgery include pain alleviation, motion restoration, and normalization of leg-length inequality. Asymmetric leg lengths are associated with nerve traction injuries, lower extremity joint pain, sacroiliac discomfort, low back pain, and patient dissatisfaction.^1-3 For these reasons, postoperative leg-length discrepancy has become the most common reason for THA-related litigation.^1,4

With preoperative education, patients and surgeons can discuss realistic THA goals and expectations. Besides ensuring that the correct tools and implants are available for the procedure, radiographic templating alerts surgeons to certain intraoperative issues that may arise during cases. For instance, an extremity may need to be lengthened during the surgery in order to generate the amount of soft-tissue tension needed to convey adequate stability to the hip joint.

In asymptomatic populations, lower extremity leg lengths inherently vary by an average of 5 mm.⁵ Studies have found normal populations are unable to accurately perceive a leg-length inequality of <1 cm.^3,6,7 Lengthening an extremity >2.5 cm causes sciatic nerve symptoms.² Patients may notice a leg-length discrepancy during the first few months after hip replacement, but this perception often subsides as gait normalizes and soft tissues acclimatize.

Our hospital uses a special arthroplasty table and intraoperative fluoroscopy for direct anterior (DA) THA cases. The table permits the operative extremity to undergo traction and the necessary mobility for proximal femur exposure. Fluoroscopy has been shown to significantly improve the position and orientation of the implanted hip components.⁸We have developed an innovative use for a ball-tip guide rod (3.0 mm × 1000 mm; Smith & Nephew) to help accurately restore leg length and femoral offset after DA-THA. The ball-tip guide rod was modified to a length of 500 mm and rough edges were smoothed.

Technique

After the patient is prepared and draped in standard fashion on the operating table, a 10-cm skin incision is made directly over the proximal aspect of the tensor fascia lata muscle. Soft tissues are dissected down to the hip capsule, which is then incised and tagged for closure at the end of the case.

The fluoroscopic C-arm is sterilely draped and positioned from the nonoperative side. The image intensifier is centered over the pubic symphysis and lowered within 1 inch of the perineal post and surgical drapes. The C-arm unit is then aimed 10° to 15° cephalad until the size and orientation of the obturator foramens on fluoroscopic imaging coincide with the preoperative template.

Next, the modified guide rod, ball tip first, is carefully advanced toward the nonoperative side and over the surgical drapes between the pelvis and the C-arm image intensifier. Care is taken to avoid violating the sterile field by inadvertently puncturing the surgical drapes with the guide rod. The lower extremities are externally rotated 20° to bring the lesser tuberosities into profile view. With use of several fluoroscopic views, the guide rod is aligned with the inferior borders of the ischial tuberosities or the obturator foramens, whichever are more readily identified on the intraoperative images. A skin marker is then used to illustrate the position of the guide rod on the operative drapes for future reference.

At this point, the relationship between the radiopaque guide rod and the lesser trochanters is noted to gain a sense of native femoral leg length and offset, and the image (Figure 1) is saved in the C-arm computer for later recall and comparison views.

Discussion

Various techniques of assessing intraoperative leg length have been described, and each has its advantages and disadvantages. Relying on abductor tension or comparing leg lengths on the operating table is not always accurate and is strongly dependent on patient position.^2,6

Referencing the tip of the greater trochanter to a Steinmann pin inserted into the ilium provides a precise reference point, but this invasive technique has the potential for fracture propagation through the drill hole.^2,7Superimposing a trial femoral component over the proximal femur to determine the appropriate femoral neck osteotomy has been described, but this process can be difficult through a tight DA approach.⁹Numerous measuring devices have been designed to help restore leg length, but in many cases the purchase cost and required maintenance outweigh their utility.² Gililland and colleagues¹⁰ developed a reusable fluoroscopic transparent grid system that significantly improves component positioning during DA-THA.

The modified ball-tip guide rod is relatively inexpensive (<$100) and has several practical purposes in total joint surgery. The guide rod historically has been used to sound the center of the femoral canal before broaching. In revision cases and in cases of poor bone stock, the tool can be used to verify that cortical perforation has not occurred during canal preparation. In this article, we describe another realistic use for the guide rod: to create, during DA-THA, a radiographic reference line that can be used to help restore leg length and femoral offset.

Several authors have mentioned surgeons’ drawing the reference line on paper printouts of intraoperative images.¹¹ Not only is this practice fraught with potential contamination of the operative field, but valuable time is lost waiting for paper copies and putting on a new gown and gloves before reentering the sterile field.

We used to train a radiologic technician or operating room nurse to draw a computerized reference line connecting the lesser trochanters on the fluoroscopic image. Problems arose in working with revolving nursing staff and in distinguishing the thin black line on computer monitors. In contrast, the radiopaque line from the guide rod is easily differentiated on fluoroscopic images, the technique poses less of a risk to the sterile field, and proper orientation of the guide rod to obtain the appropriate reference line is entirely surgeon-dependent.

A drawback of this technique is the additional radiation exposure that occurs when extra images are obtained to ensure satisfactory alignment of the guide rod. Another issue is fluoroscopic parallax. Some machines in the operating department generate a magnetic field that can interfere with the fluoroscopy beam and thereby slightly distort the intraoperative images.⁸ Therefore, it is imperative that the guide rod remain perfectly straight to avoid confounding measurements.

Our modified guide rod technique is a reliable, quick, and inexpensive intraoperative tool that helps in accurately restoring leg length and femoral offset during DA-THA.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E10-E12. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Using the NSQIP database, the authors report that the overall complication rate was 1.21% after hip arthroscopy.
• The most common complications cited were bleeding requiring transfusion (0.45%), return to OR (0.23%), superficial infection (0.23%), and thrombophlebitis (0.15).
• Most common 10CPT code was arthroscopic débridement in 50% of cases, reflecting the types of cases being performed in the time period.
• FAI codes were less common in this database–labral repair in 24%, femoral osteochondroplasty in 16%, and acetabuloplasty in 9%.
• Use caution in patients over age 65 years as this appears to be a risk factor for morbidity.

Hip arthroscopy is a well-described method for treating a number of pathologies.^1-3 Surgical indications are wide-ranging and include femoral acetabular impingement (FAI), labral tears, loose bodies, osteochondral injuries, ruptured ligamentum teres, and synovitis, as well as extra-articular injuries, including hip abductor tears and sciatic nerve entrapment.^2,4-6 Authors have suggested that the advantages of hip arthroscopy over open procedures include less traumatic access to the hip joint and faster recovery,^7,8 and hip arthroscopy has been found cost-effective in select groups of patients.⁹

Overall complications have been reported in 1% to 20% of hip arthroscopy patients,^6,8,10,11 and a meta-analysis identified an overall complication rate of 4%.⁸ Complications include iatrogenic chondrolabral injury, nerve injury, superficial surgical-site infection, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), instrument failure, portal wound bleeding, soft-tissue injury, and intra-abdominal fluid extravasation.^6,8,10-13 Rates of major complications are relatively low, 0.3% to 0.58%, according to several recent systematic reviews.^8,12 Given the lack of universally accepted definitions, reports of minor complications (eg, iatrogenic chondrolabral injury, neuropraxia) in hip arthroscopy vary widely.⁸ Furthermore, many of the series with high complication rates represent early experience with the technique, and later authors suggested that complications should decrease with improvements in technique and technology.^12,14,15The literature is lacking in reports of risk factors for patient morbidity and large multi-institutional cohorts in the setting of hip arthroscopy. We conducted a study of elective hip arthroscopy patients to determine type and incidence of complications and rates of and risk factors for minor and major morbidity.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study was deemed compliant with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) and exempt from the need for Institutional Review Board approval. In the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), academic and private medical institutions prospectively collect patient preoperative and operative data as well as 30-day outcome data from more than 500 hospitals throughout the United States.^16-21 Surgical clinical reviewers, who are responsible for data acquisition, prospectively collect morbidity data for 30 days after surgery through a chart review of patient progress notes, operative notes, and follow-up clinic visits. Patients may be contacted by a surgical clinical reviewer if they have not had a clinic visit within 30 days after a procedure to verify the presence or absence of complications or admissions at outside institutions, and in this way even outpatient complications should be captured. If the medical record is unclear, the reviewer may also contact the surgeon directly. In addition, NSQIP data are routinely audited; the interobserver disagreement rate is 1.56%.²²

We used Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) billing codes to retrospectively survey the NSQIP database for hip arthroscopies performed between 2006 and 2013. Excluding cases of compromised surgical wounds, emergent surgeries, surgeries involving fracture, hip dislocations, preoperative sepsis, septic joints, and osteomyelitis, we identified 1325 cases with CPT codes 29861 (hip arthroscopy), 29862 (arthroscopic hip débridement, shaving), 29914 (arthroscopic femoroplasty), 29915 (arthroscopic acetabuloplasty), and 29916 (arthroscopic labral repair). Postoperative outcomes were categorized as major morbidity or mortality, minor morbidity, and any complication. A major complication was a systemic life-threatening event or a substantial threat to a vital organ, whereas a minor complication did not pose a major systemic threat and was localized to the operative extremity (previously used definitions^23,24). We have used similar methods to report the rates of and risk factors for complications of knee arthroscopy, shoulder arthroscopy, and total shoulder arthroplasty.^16,20,21 For any-complication outcomes, we included both major and minor morbidities, and mortality. NSQIP applies strict definitions (listed in its user file¹⁷) to patient comorbidities and complications. Data points collected included patient demographics, medical comorbidities, laboratory values, and surgical characteristics.

Initially, we performed a univariate analysis that considered age, sex, race, body mass index, current alcohol abuse, current smoking status, recent weight loss, dyspnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CPT code, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, esophageal varices, disseminated cancer, steroid use, bleeding disorder, dialysis, chemotherapy within previous 30 days, radiation therapy within previous 90 days, operation within previous 30 days, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, operative time, resident involvement, and patient functional status. We also included mean preoperative sodium, blood urea nitrogen, and albumin levels; white blood cell count; hematocrit; platelet count; and international normalized ratio. The analysis revealed unadjusted differences between patients with and without complications (t test was used for continuous variables, χ² test for categorical variables). Any variable with P < .2 in the univariate analysis and more than 80% complete data was considered fit for our multivariate model. We controlled for confounders by performing a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Three separate analyses were performed; the outcome variables were major morbidity or mortality, minor morbidity, and any complication. P < .05 was used for statistical significance across all models. We used SAS Version 9.3 (SAS Institute) for statistical analysis. Model quality was evaluated for calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test) and discrimination (C statistics). The calibration test yielded a modified χ² statistic, and P > .05 indicated the model was appropriate and fit the data well. Good discrimination is commonly reported to be between 0.65 and 0.85.

Results

Of the 1325 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy, 60% were female. Regarding age, 52% were younger than 40 years, and 45% were between 45 years and 60 years. The most common diagnoses were articular cartilage disorder involving the pelvic region (15%), enthesopathy of the hip (12%), and joint pain involving the pelvic region or thigh (11%). The most common primary CPT code (50%) was for hip arthroscopic débridement (29862), followed by 24% for arthroscopic labral repair (29916), 16% for arthroscopic femoroplasty (29914), and 9% for arthroscopic acetabuloplasty (29915). Of the 16 complications found, 12 involved hip arthroscopic débridement, and 4 involved hip arthroscopic femoroplasty. There were no complications of arthroscopic acetabuloplasty (29915), arthroscopic labral repair (29916), or hip arthroscopy (29861).

Of the 1325 hip arthroscopy patients, 16 (1.21%) had at least 1 complication (Table 1).

Discussion

Earlier reports on hip arthroscopy did not consider risk factors for systemic morbidity and were mainly single-institution case series.^{3,10,11,13,25} Given a renewed focus on outcomes measurement and quality assessment in orthopedic surgery, we wanted to describe short-term complications of and risk factors for morbidity in hip arthroscopy. In this article, we report baseline data from a large multicenter cohort. For hip arthroscopy, we found low rates of short-term complications (1.21%) and major morbidities (0.45%). We considered many modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors for complications and found age over 65 years to be an independent risk factor for any complication and minor morbidity. Several of our findings merit further discussion.

Other authors have reported hip arthroscopy complication rates of 1% to 20%, citing both systemic and local complications,^6,8,10-12 and major complication rates of 0.3% to 0.58%.^8,12 Minor complications of hip arthroscopy vary, and depend on definition, with long-term consequences unknown in some cases.⁸ Sensory neuropraxia, a relatively common minor complication in hip arthroscopy, is thought to be affected by the amount of traction against a perineal post and by increased operative time, with operative time under 2 hours previously suggested.^{3,6,10,11,13,25,26}

In the present study, the overall rate of any complication of hip arthroscopy was 1.21%, and the most common complications were bleeding resulting in transfusion, return to operating room, superficial surgical-site infection, and DVT/thrombophlebitis. When we excluded bleeding resulting in transfusion, the overall complication rate fell to 0.75%. Operative time was relatively short, <2 hours for 70% of patients. Last, there were no mortalities. As our data set did not include variables encompassing sensory neuropraxia or iatrogenic chondrolabral injury, we were unable to report on these data.

Surgeons and healthcare systems should be advised that rates of systemic complications in hip arthroscopy are low and that hip arthroscopy is a relatively safe procedure. Surgeons and healthcare systems can refer to our reported complication rates and risk factors when assessing quality and performing cost analysis in hip arthroscopy. For our 1325 patients, the major morbidity rate was 0.45%, within the range of previous reports.^8,12 There were no nerve injuries in our patient cohort, likely because of the strict NSQIP definitions of nerve injury. We cannot report on sensory neuropraxia and iatrogenic chondrolabral injury. We speculate that lack of these variables may have artificially lowered our minor complication rate.

Some authors have reported clinical benefits of hip arthroscopy in older patients,^27-29 whereas others have suggested age may be a negative prognostic factor.^27,30 Suggested indications for hip arthroscopy in an elderly population include chondral defects, labral tears, and FAI in the absence of significant arthritic changes.^28,29 Larson and colleagues,³⁰ who reported a 52% failure rate for osteoarthritis patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAI, concluded that arthroscopy should not be offered to patients with evidence of advanced radiographic joint space narrowing. Others have noted that patients who were under age 55 years and had minimal osteoarthritic changes had a longer interval between hip arthroscopy and total hip arthroplasty in comparison with patients over age 55 years.³¹ Previous work in knee arthroscopy found older age (40-65 years vs <40 years) was an independent predictor of short-term complications (1.5 times increased risk).²¹ In the present study, 7.69% of patients who were over age 65 years when they underwent hip arthroscopy had a complication, and we report age over 65 years as an independent risk factor for any complication (OR, 6.52) and minor morbidity (OR, 7.97). Surgeons should be aware that advanced age is an independent risk factor for complications in hip arthroscopy. Potential benefits of hip arthroscopy should be carefully weighed against the increased risk in this patient cohort, and surgeons should ascertain the scope of an elderly patient’s disease to determine if hip arthroscopy is indicated and worth the potential risks.

To our knowledge, bleeding resulting in transfusion was not previously described as a complication of hip arthroscopy. In the present study, bleeding resulting in transfusion was the most common complication (6 patients, 0.45%), and all the affected patients had a primary CPT code for arthroscopic débridement (29862). The 6 primary diagnoses were hip osteoarthrosis (3), thigh/pelvis pain (1), unspecified injury (1), and congenital hip deformity (1). The 6 transfusion patients also tended to be older (ages 30, 53, 64, 67, 76, and 90 years). Although drawing firm conclusions from so few patients would be inappropriate, we acknowledge that the majority who received a transfusion were older, underwent arthroscopic débridement of a hip, and had a primary diagnosis of osteoarthrosis or pain. As transfusion practices can differ between surgeons and groups, we conclude that the risk for bleeding requiring transfusion is low in hip arthroscopy. Patients who are older and who undergo arthroscopic débridement of an osteoarthritic hip may be at elevated risk for transfusion.

This study had several limitations. First, with use of the NSQIP database, follow-up was limited to 30 days. We speculate that longer follow-up might yield higher complication rates and additional risk factors. Second, we could not distinguish individual surgeon or site data and acknowledge complications might differ between surgeons and sites that perform hip arthroscopy more frequently. Third, as data were limited to medical and broadly applicable surgical variables included in the NSQIP database, they might not be specific to hip arthroscopy, and we cannot report on iatrogenic chondrolabral injury and neuropraxia, 2 previously reported minor complications in hip arthroscopy. We speculate that data collection focused on problems specific to hip arthroscopy would yield more complications and risk factors.

Conclusion

According to the NSQIP data, the rate of short-term morbidity after elective hip arthroscopy was low, 1.21%. Surgeons may use our reported complications and risk factors when counseling patients, and healthcare systems may use our data when assessing quality and performance in hip arthroscopy. Surgeons who perform elective hip arthroscopy should be aware that age over 65 years is an independent predictor of complications. Careful attention should be given to this patient group when indicating hip arthroscopy procedures.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E1-E9. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Using the NSQIP database, the authors report that the overall complication rate was 1.21% after hip arthroscopy.
• The most common complications cited were bleeding requiring transfusion (0.45%), return to OR (0.23%), superficial infection (0.23%), and thrombophlebitis (0.15).
• Most common 10CPT code was arthroscopic débridement in 50% of cases, reflecting the types of cases being performed in the time period.
• FAI codes were less common in this database–labral repair in 24%, femoral osteochondroplasty in 16%, and acetabuloplasty in 9%.
• Use caution in patients over age 65 years as this appears to be a risk factor for morbidity.

Hip arthroscopy is a well-described method for treating a number of pathologies.^1-3 Surgical indications are wide-ranging and include femoral acetabular impingement (FAI), labral tears, loose bodies, osteochondral injuries, ruptured ligamentum teres, and synovitis, as well as extra-articular injuries, including hip abductor tears and sciatic nerve entrapment.^2,4-6 Authors have suggested that the advantages of hip arthroscopy over open procedures include less traumatic access to the hip joint and faster recovery,^7,8 and hip arthroscopy has been found cost-effective in select groups of patients.⁹

Overall complications have been reported in 1% to 20% of hip arthroscopy patients,^6,8,10,11 and a meta-analysis identified an overall complication rate of 4%.⁸ Complications include iatrogenic chondrolabral injury, nerve injury, superficial surgical-site infection, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), instrument failure, portal wound bleeding, soft-tissue injury, and intra-abdominal fluid extravasation.^6,8,10-13 Rates of major complications are relatively low, 0.3% to 0.58%, according to several recent systematic reviews.^8,12 Given the lack of universally accepted definitions, reports of minor complications (eg, iatrogenic chondrolabral injury, neuropraxia) in hip arthroscopy vary widely.⁸ Furthermore, many of the series with high complication rates represent early experience with the technique, and later authors suggested that complications should decrease with improvements in technique and technology.^12,14,15The literature is lacking in reports of risk factors for patient morbidity and large multi-institutional cohorts in the setting of hip arthroscopy. We conducted a study of elective hip arthroscopy patients to determine type and incidence of complications and rates of and risk factors for minor and major morbidity.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study was deemed compliant with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) and exempt from the need for Institutional Review Board approval. In the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), academic and private medical institutions prospectively collect patient preoperative and operative data as well as 30-day outcome data from more than 500 hospitals throughout the United States.^16-21 Surgical clinical reviewers, who are responsible for data acquisition, prospectively collect morbidity data for 30 days after surgery through a chart review of patient progress notes, operative notes, and follow-up clinic visits. Patients may be contacted by a surgical clinical reviewer if they have not had a clinic visit within 30 days after a procedure to verify the presence or absence of complications or admissions at outside institutions, and in this way even outpatient complications should be captured. If the medical record is unclear, the reviewer may also contact the surgeon directly. In addition, NSQIP data are routinely audited; the interobserver disagreement rate is 1.56%.²²

We used Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) billing codes to retrospectively survey the NSQIP database for hip arthroscopies performed between 2006 and 2013. Excluding cases of compromised surgical wounds, emergent surgeries, surgeries involving fracture, hip dislocations, preoperative sepsis, septic joints, and osteomyelitis, we identified 1325 cases with CPT codes 29861 (hip arthroscopy), 29862 (arthroscopic hip débridement, shaving), 29914 (arthroscopic femoroplasty), 29915 (arthroscopic acetabuloplasty), and 29916 (arthroscopic labral repair). Postoperative outcomes were categorized as major morbidity or mortality, minor morbidity, and any complication. A major complication was a systemic life-threatening event or a substantial threat to a vital organ, whereas a minor complication did not pose a major systemic threat and was localized to the operative extremity (previously used definitions^23,24). We have used similar methods to report the rates of and risk factors for complications of knee arthroscopy, shoulder arthroscopy, and total shoulder arthroplasty.^16,20,21 For any-complication outcomes, we included both major and minor morbidities, and mortality. NSQIP applies strict definitions (listed in its user file¹⁷) to patient comorbidities and complications. Data points collected included patient demographics, medical comorbidities, laboratory values, and surgical characteristics.

Initially, we performed a univariate analysis that considered age, sex, race, body mass index, current alcohol abuse, current smoking status, recent weight loss, dyspnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CPT code, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, esophageal varices, disseminated cancer, steroid use, bleeding disorder, dialysis, chemotherapy within previous 30 days, radiation therapy within previous 90 days, operation within previous 30 days, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, operative time, resident involvement, and patient functional status. We also included mean preoperative sodium, blood urea nitrogen, and albumin levels; white blood cell count; hematocrit; platelet count; and international normalized ratio. The analysis revealed unadjusted differences between patients with and without complications (t test was used for continuous variables, χ² test for categorical variables). Any variable with P < .2 in the univariate analysis and more than 80% complete data was considered fit for our multivariate model. We controlled for confounders by performing a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Three separate analyses were performed; the outcome variables were major morbidity or mortality, minor morbidity, and any complication. P < .05 was used for statistical significance across all models. We used SAS Version 9.3 (SAS Institute) for statistical analysis. Model quality was evaluated for calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test) and discrimination (C statistics). The calibration test yielded a modified χ² statistic, and P > .05 indicated the model was appropriate and fit the data well. Good discrimination is commonly reported to be between 0.65 and 0.85.

Results

Of the 1325 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy, 60% were female. Regarding age, 52% were younger than 40 years, and 45% were between 45 years and 60 years. The most common diagnoses were articular cartilage disorder involving the pelvic region (15%), enthesopathy of the hip (12%), and joint pain involving the pelvic region or thigh (11%). The most common primary CPT code (50%) was for hip arthroscopic débridement (29862), followed by 24% for arthroscopic labral repair (29916), 16% for arthroscopic femoroplasty (29914), and 9% for arthroscopic acetabuloplasty (29915). Of the 16 complications found, 12 involved hip arthroscopic débridement, and 4 involved hip arthroscopic femoroplasty. There were no complications of arthroscopic acetabuloplasty (29915), arthroscopic labral repair (29916), or hip arthroscopy (29861).

Of the 1325 hip arthroscopy patients, 16 (1.21%) had at least 1 complication (Table 1).

Discussion

Earlier reports on hip arthroscopy did not consider risk factors for systemic morbidity and were mainly single-institution case series.^{3,10,11,13,25} Given a renewed focus on outcomes measurement and quality assessment in orthopedic surgery, we wanted to describe short-term complications of and risk factors for morbidity in hip arthroscopy. In this article, we report baseline data from a large multicenter cohort. For hip arthroscopy, we found low rates of short-term complications (1.21%) and major morbidities (0.45%). We considered many modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors for complications and found age over 65 years to be an independent risk factor for any complication and minor morbidity. Several of our findings merit further discussion.

Other authors have reported hip arthroscopy complication rates of 1% to 20%, citing both systemic and local complications,^6,8,10-12 and major complication rates of 0.3% to 0.58%.^8,12 Minor complications of hip arthroscopy vary, and depend on definition, with long-term consequences unknown in some cases.⁸ Sensory neuropraxia, a relatively common minor complication in hip arthroscopy, is thought to be affected by the amount of traction against a perineal post and by increased operative time, with operative time under 2 hours previously suggested.^{3,6,10,11,13,25,26}

In the present study, the overall rate of any complication of hip arthroscopy was 1.21%, and the most common complications were bleeding resulting in transfusion, return to operating room, superficial surgical-site infection, and DVT/thrombophlebitis. When we excluded bleeding resulting in transfusion, the overall complication rate fell to 0.75%. Operative time was relatively short, <2 hours for 70% of patients. Last, there were no mortalities. As our data set did not include variables encompassing sensory neuropraxia or iatrogenic chondrolabral injury, we were unable to report on these data.

Surgeons and healthcare systems should be advised that rates of systemic complications in hip arthroscopy are low and that hip arthroscopy is a relatively safe procedure. Surgeons and healthcare systems can refer to our reported complication rates and risk factors when assessing quality and performing cost analysis in hip arthroscopy. For our 1325 patients, the major morbidity rate was 0.45%, within the range of previous reports.^8,12 There were no nerve injuries in our patient cohort, likely because of the strict NSQIP definitions of nerve injury. We cannot report on sensory neuropraxia and iatrogenic chondrolabral injury. We speculate that lack of these variables may have artificially lowered our minor complication rate.

Some authors have reported clinical benefits of hip arthroscopy in older patients,^27-29 whereas others have suggested age may be a negative prognostic factor.^27,30 Suggested indications for hip arthroscopy in an elderly population include chondral defects, labral tears, and FAI in the absence of significant arthritic changes.^28,29 Larson and colleagues,³⁰ who reported a 52% failure rate for osteoarthritis patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAI, concluded that arthroscopy should not be offered to patients with evidence of advanced radiographic joint space narrowing. Others have noted that patients who were under age 55 years and had minimal osteoarthritic changes had a longer interval between hip arthroscopy and total hip arthroplasty in comparison with patients over age 55 years.³¹ Previous work in knee arthroscopy found older age (40-65 years vs <40 years) was an independent predictor of short-term complications (1.5 times increased risk).²¹ In the present study, 7.69% of patients who were over age 65 years when they underwent hip arthroscopy had a complication, and we report age over 65 years as an independent risk factor for any complication (OR, 6.52) and minor morbidity (OR, 7.97). Surgeons should be aware that advanced age is an independent risk factor for complications in hip arthroscopy. Potential benefits of hip arthroscopy should be carefully weighed against the increased risk in this patient cohort, and surgeons should ascertain the scope of an elderly patient’s disease to determine if hip arthroscopy is indicated and worth the potential risks.

To our knowledge, bleeding resulting in transfusion was not previously described as a complication of hip arthroscopy. In the present study, bleeding resulting in transfusion was the most common complication (6 patients, 0.45%), and all the affected patients had a primary CPT code for arthroscopic débridement (29862). The 6 primary diagnoses were hip osteoarthrosis (3), thigh/pelvis pain (1), unspecified injury (1), and congenital hip deformity (1). The 6 transfusion patients also tended to be older (ages 30, 53, 64, 67, 76, and 90 years). Although drawing firm conclusions from so few patients would be inappropriate, we acknowledge that the majority who received a transfusion were older, underwent arthroscopic débridement of a hip, and had a primary diagnosis of osteoarthrosis or pain. As transfusion practices can differ between surgeons and groups, we conclude that the risk for bleeding requiring transfusion is low in hip arthroscopy. Patients who are older and who undergo arthroscopic débridement of an osteoarthritic hip may be at elevated risk for transfusion.

This study had several limitations. First, with use of the NSQIP database, follow-up was limited to 30 days. We speculate that longer follow-up might yield higher complication rates and additional risk factors. Second, we could not distinguish individual surgeon or site data and acknowledge complications might differ between surgeons and sites that perform hip arthroscopy more frequently. Third, as data were limited to medical and broadly applicable surgical variables included in the NSQIP database, they might not be specific to hip arthroscopy, and we cannot report on iatrogenic chondrolabral injury and neuropraxia, 2 previously reported minor complications in hip arthroscopy. We speculate that data collection focused on problems specific to hip arthroscopy would yield more complications and risk factors.

Conclusion

According to the NSQIP data, the rate of short-term morbidity after elective hip arthroscopy was low, 1.21%. Surgeons may use our reported complications and risk factors when counseling patients, and healthcare systems may use our data when assessing quality and performance in hip arthroscopy. Surgeons who perform elective hip arthroscopy should be aware that age over 65 years is an independent predictor of complications. Careful attention should be given to this patient group when indicating hip arthroscopy procedures.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E1-E9. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Using the NSQIP database, the authors report that the overall complication rate was 1.21% after hip arthroscopy.
• The most common complications cited were bleeding requiring transfusion (0.45%), return to OR (0.23%), superficial infection (0.23%), and thrombophlebitis (0.15).
• Most common 10CPT code was arthroscopic débridement in 50% of cases, reflecting the types of cases being performed in the time period.
• FAI codes were less common in this database–labral repair in 24%, femoral osteochondroplasty in 16%, and acetabuloplasty in 9%.
• Use caution in patients over age 65 years as this appears to be a risk factor for morbidity.

Hip arthroscopy is a well-described method for treating a number of pathologies.^1-3 Surgical indications are wide-ranging and include femoral acetabular impingement (FAI), labral tears, loose bodies, osteochondral injuries, ruptured ligamentum teres, and synovitis, as well as extra-articular injuries, including hip abductor tears and sciatic nerve entrapment.^2,4-6 Authors have suggested that the advantages of hip arthroscopy over open procedures include less traumatic access to the hip joint and faster recovery,^7,8 and hip arthroscopy has been found cost-effective in select groups of patients.⁹

Overall complications have been reported in 1% to 20% of hip arthroscopy patients,^6,8,10,11 and a meta-analysis identified an overall complication rate of 4%.⁸ Complications include iatrogenic chondrolabral injury, nerve injury, superficial surgical-site infection, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), instrument failure, portal wound bleeding, soft-tissue injury, and intra-abdominal fluid extravasation.^6,8,10-13 Rates of major complications are relatively low, 0.3% to 0.58%, according to several recent systematic reviews.^8,12 Given the lack of universally accepted definitions, reports of minor complications (eg, iatrogenic chondrolabral injury, neuropraxia) in hip arthroscopy vary widely.⁸ Furthermore, many of the series with high complication rates represent early experience with the technique, and later authors suggested that complications should decrease with improvements in technique and technology.^12,14,15The literature is lacking in reports of risk factors for patient morbidity and large multi-institutional cohorts in the setting of hip arthroscopy. We conducted a study of elective hip arthroscopy patients to determine type and incidence of complications and rates of and risk factors for minor and major morbidity.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study was deemed compliant with HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) and exempt from the need for Institutional Review Board approval. In the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP), academic and private medical institutions prospectively collect patient preoperative and operative data as well as 30-day outcome data from more than 500 hospitals throughout the United States.^16-21 Surgical clinical reviewers, who are responsible for data acquisition, prospectively collect morbidity data for 30 days after surgery through a chart review of patient progress notes, operative notes, and follow-up clinic visits. Patients may be contacted by a surgical clinical reviewer if they have not had a clinic visit within 30 days after a procedure to verify the presence or absence of complications or admissions at outside institutions, and in this way even outpatient complications should be captured. If the medical record is unclear, the reviewer may also contact the surgeon directly. In addition, NSQIP data are routinely audited; the interobserver disagreement rate is 1.56%.²²

We used Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) billing codes to retrospectively survey the NSQIP database for hip arthroscopies performed between 2006 and 2013. Excluding cases of compromised surgical wounds, emergent surgeries, surgeries involving fracture, hip dislocations, preoperative sepsis, septic joints, and osteomyelitis, we identified 1325 cases with CPT codes 29861 (hip arthroscopy), 29862 (arthroscopic hip débridement, shaving), 29914 (arthroscopic femoroplasty), 29915 (arthroscopic acetabuloplasty), and 29916 (arthroscopic labral repair). Postoperative outcomes were categorized as major morbidity or mortality, minor morbidity, and any complication. A major complication was a systemic life-threatening event or a substantial threat to a vital organ, whereas a minor complication did not pose a major systemic threat and was localized to the operative extremity (previously used definitions^23,24). We have used similar methods to report the rates of and risk factors for complications of knee arthroscopy, shoulder arthroscopy, and total shoulder arthroplasty.^16,20,21 For any-complication outcomes, we included both major and minor morbidities, and mortality. NSQIP applies strict definitions (listed in its user file¹⁷) to patient comorbidities and complications. Data points collected included patient demographics, medical comorbidities, laboratory values, and surgical characteristics.

Initially, we performed a univariate analysis that considered age, sex, race, body mass index, current alcohol abuse, current smoking status, recent weight loss, dyspnea, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, CPT code, congestive heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, esophageal varices, disseminated cancer, steroid use, bleeding disorder, dialysis, chemotherapy within previous 30 days, radiation therapy within previous 90 days, operation within previous 30 days, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, operative time, resident involvement, and patient functional status. We also included mean preoperative sodium, blood urea nitrogen, and albumin levels; white blood cell count; hematocrit; platelet count; and international normalized ratio. The analysis revealed unadjusted differences between patients with and without complications (t test was used for continuous variables, χ² test for categorical variables). Any variable with P < .2 in the univariate analysis and more than 80% complete data was considered fit for our multivariate model. We controlled for confounders by performing a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Three separate analyses were performed; the outcome variables were major morbidity or mortality, minor morbidity, and any complication. P < .05 was used for statistical significance across all models. We used SAS Version 9.3 (SAS Institute) for statistical analysis. Model quality was evaluated for calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test) and discrimination (C statistics). The calibration test yielded a modified χ² statistic, and P > .05 indicated the model was appropriate and fit the data well. Good discrimination is commonly reported to be between 0.65 and 0.85.

Results

Of the 1325 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy, 60% were female. Regarding age, 52% were younger than 40 years, and 45% were between 45 years and 60 years. The most common diagnoses were articular cartilage disorder involving the pelvic region (15%), enthesopathy of the hip (12%), and joint pain involving the pelvic region or thigh (11%). The most common primary CPT code (50%) was for hip arthroscopic débridement (29862), followed by 24% for arthroscopic labral repair (29916), 16% for arthroscopic femoroplasty (29914), and 9% for arthroscopic acetabuloplasty (29915). Of the 16 complications found, 12 involved hip arthroscopic débridement, and 4 involved hip arthroscopic femoroplasty. There were no complications of arthroscopic acetabuloplasty (29915), arthroscopic labral repair (29916), or hip arthroscopy (29861).

Of the 1325 hip arthroscopy patients, 16 (1.21%) had at least 1 complication (Table 1).

Discussion

Earlier reports on hip arthroscopy did not consider risk factors for systemic morbidity and were mainly single-institution case series.^{3,10,11,13,25} Given a renewed focus on outcomes measurement and quality assessment in orthopedic surgery, we wanted to describe short-term complications of and risk factors for morbidity in hip arthroscopy. In this article, we report baseline data from a large multicenter cohort. For hip arthroscopy, we found low rates of short-term complications (1.21%) and major morbidities (0.45%). We considered many modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors for complications and found age over 65 years to be an independent risk factor for any complication and minor morbidity. Several of our findings merit further discussion.

Other authors have reported hip arthroscopy complication rates of 1% to 20%, citing both systemic and local complications,^6,8,10-12 and major complication rates of 0.3% to 0.58%.^8,12 Minor complications of hip arthroscopy vary, and depend on definition, with long-term consequences unknown in some cases.⁸ Sensory neuropraxia, a relatively common minor complication in hip arthroscopy, is thought to be affected by the amount of traction against a perineal post and by increased operative time, with operative time under 2 hours previously suggested.^{3,6,10,11,13,25,26}

In the present study, the overall rate of any complication of hip arthroscopy was 1.21%, and the most common complications were bleeding resulting in transfusion, return to operating room, superficial surgical-site infection, and DVT/thrombophlebitis. When we excluded bleeding resulting in transfusion, the overall complication rate fell to 0.75%. Operative time was relatively short, <2 hours for 70% of patients. Last, there were no mortalities. As our data set did not include variables encompassing sensory neuropraxia or iatrogenic chondrolabral injury, we were unable to report on these data.

Surgeons and healthcare systems should be advised that rates of systemic complications in hip arthroscopy are low and that hip arthroscopy is a relatively safe procedure. Surgeons and healthcare systems can refer to our reported complication rates and risk factors when assessing quality and performing cost analysis in hip arthroscopy. For our 1325 patients, the major morbidity rate was 0.45%, within the range of previous reports.^8,12 There were no nerve injuries in our patient cohort, likely because of the strict NSQIP definitions of nerve injury. We cannot report on sensory neuropraxia and iatrogenic chondrolabral injury. We speculate that lack of these variables may have artificially lowered our minor complication rate.

Some authors have reported clinical benefits of hip arthroscopy in older patients,^27-29 whereas others have suggested age may be a negative prognostic factor.^27,30 Suggested indications for hip arthroscopy in an elderly population include chondral defects, labral tears, and FAI in the absence of significant arthritic changes.^28,29 Larson and colleagues,³⁰ who reported a 52% failure rate for osteoarthritis patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAI, concluded that arthroscopy should not be offered to patients with evidence of advanced radiographic joint space narrowing. Others have noted that patients who were under age 55 years and had minimal osteoarthritic changes had a longer interval between hip arthroscopy and total hip arthroplasty in comparison with patients over age 55 years.³¹ Previous work in knee arthroscopy found older age (40-65 years vs <40 years) was an independent predictor of short-term complications (1.5 times increased risk).²¹ In the present study, 7.69% of patients who were over age 65 years when they underwent hip arthroscopy had a complication, and we report age over 65 years as an independent risk factor for any complication (OR, 6.52) and minor morbidity (OR, 7.97). Surgeons should be aware that advanced age is an independent risk factor for complications in hip arthroscopy. Potential benefits of hip arthroscopy should be carefully weighed against the increased risk in this patient cohort, and surgeons should ascertain the scope of an elderly patient’s disease to determine if hip arthroscopy is indicated and worth the potential risks.

To our knowledge, bleeding resulting in transfusion was not previously described as a complication of hip arthroscopy. In the present study, bleeding resulting in transfusion was the most common complication (6 patients, 0.45%), and all the affected patients had a primary CPT code for arthroscopic débridement (29862). The 6 primary diagnoses were hip osteoarthrosis (3), thigh/pelvis pain (1), unspecified injury (1), and congenital hip deformity (1). The 6 transfusion patients also tended to be older (ages 30, 53, 64, 67, 76, and 90 years). Although drawing firm conclusions from so few patients would be inappropriate, we acknowledge that the majority who received a transfusion were older, underwent arthroscopic débridement of a hip, and had a primary diagnosis of osteoarthrosis or pain. As transfusion practices can differ between surgeons and groups, we conclude that the risk for bleeding requiring transfusion is low in hip arthroscopy. Patients who are older and who undergo arthroscopic débridement of an osteoarthritic hip may be at elevated risk for transfusion.

This study had several limitations. First, with use of the NSQIP database, follow-up was limited to 30 days. We speculate that longer follow-up might yield higher complication rates and additional risk factors. Second, we could not distinguish individual surgeon or site data and acknowledge complications might differ between surgeons and sites that perform hip arthroscopy more frequently. Third, as data were limited to medical and broadly applicable surgical variables included in the NSQIP database, they might not be specific to hip arthroscopy, and we cannot report on iatrogenic chondrolabral injury and neuropraxia, 2 previously reported minor complications in hip arthroscopy. We speculate that data collection focused on problems specific to hip arthroscopy would yield more complications and risk factors.

Conclusion

According to the NSQIP data, the rate of short-term morbidity after elective hip arthroscopy was low, 1.21%. Surgeons may use our reported complications and risk factors when counseling patients, and healthcare systems may use our data when assessing quality and performance in hip arthroscopy. Surgeons who perform elective hip arthroscopy should be aware that age over 65 years is an independent predictor of complications. Careful attention should be given to this patient group when indicating hip arthroscopy procedures.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(1):E1-E9. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.