No abstract

Background: Hip microinstability is an established diagnosis; however, its occurrence is still debated by many physicians. Diagnosis of hip microinstability is often challenging, due to a lack of specific signs or symptoms, and patients may remain undiagnosed for long periods. This may lead to early manifestation of degenerative joint disease. Consequently, careful patient and family history must be obtained and diagnostic imaging should follow. After a thorough clinical evaluation of the patient with suspected hip microinstability, the physician should focus on how to improve symptoms and functionality in daily and sports activities. Purpose: The purpose of this review article was to give a current update regarding this diagnosis and to provide a complete diagnostic approach in order to effectively treat hip microinstability. Methods: We reviewed the literature on the diagnosis, the non-operative and operative indications for the treatment of this complex and often misdiagnosed pathology. Conclusion: Conservative treatment is considered the best initial approach, though, surgical intervention should be considered if symptoms persist or other hip pathology exists. Successful surgical intervention, such as hip arthroscopy, should focus on restoring the normal anatomy of the hip joint in order to regain its functionality.The role of the hip joint capsule has gained particular research interest during the last years, and its repair or reconstruction during hip arthroscopy is considered necessary in order to avoid iatrogenic hip microinstability. Various capsular closure/plication techniques have been developed towards this direction with encouraging results. Level of evidence: V.KEY WORDS: hip arthroscopy, hip microinstability, hip dysplasia.

The global pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2, or COVID-19, continues to impact all facets of daily life. Clinical manifestations of COVID-19 commonly include musculoskeletal symptoms such as myalgias, arthralgias, and neuropathies/myopathies. The inflammatory response and its impact on the respiratory system have been the focus of most studies. However, the literature is more limited regarding the inflammatory response and its implications for other organ systems, specifically the musculoskeletal system. Previous studies have described how systemic inflammation may play a role in bone and joint pathology. Furthermore, it is important to understand the effects current therapeutics used in the treatment of COVID-19 may have on the musculoskeletal system. In this study, we will review the current understanding of the effect COVID-19 has on the musculoskeletal system, provide an overview of musculoskeletal symptoms of patients infected with the virus, and address key issues for clinicians to address during the care of COVID-19 patients.

Background: Labral reconstruction has been shown to result in improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at mid-term follow-up in patients with a deficient labrum. The purpose of this study was to determine survivorship and PROs at a minimum 10-year follow-up. Methods: A retrospective evaluation of a prospectively collected single-surgeon database included 91 hips (89 patients) that underwent arthroscopic labral reconstruction with iliotibial band autograft between 2006 and 2008. The primary PRO was the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-activities of daily living (ADL). The modified Harris hip score (mHHS), HOS-sports, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and patient satisfaction (on a scale of 1 to 10) were also collected at a 10-year minimum follow-up. Survivorship analysis curves were evaluated. Results: Eighty-two hips were evaluated at a 10-year minimum follow-up. Overall survivorship, with revision hip arthroscopy or total hip arthroplasty (THA) as the end point, was 70% at 5 years and 61% at 10 years, and the mean survival time was 9 years (95% confidence interval = 7.6 to 10 years). For the patients who did not undergo subsequent surgery, on average the mHHS increased from 60 preoperatively to 82 at the 10-year follow-up (p = 0.001), the HOS-ADL improved from 69 to 90 (p = 0.004), the HOS-sports improved from 43 to 76 (p = 0.001), and the median patient satisfaction was 10 of 10. Eighty percent of the patients achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the HOS-ADL, and 87% obtained a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). Conclusions: Following arthroscopic labral reconstruction with iliotibial band autograft, 9% of the hips underwent revision arthroscopy and 27% underwent THA. At 10 years, the survival rate, with revision hip arthroscopy or THA as the end point, was 61%; however, for those with >2 mm of joint space, the current indication for labral reconstruction, the 10-year survival rate was 90%. Excellent PROs and patient satisfaction were reported by those who did not require revision or THA. With appropriate patient selection and prevention of postoperative adhesions, labral reconstruction results in excellent outcomes and high patient satisfaction that is sustained at a minimum 10-year follow-up. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No abstract