Greater trochanteric pain syndrome is a common cause of lateral hip pain, encompassing a spectrum of disorders, including trochanteric bursitis, abductor tendon pathology, and external coxa saltans. Greater trochanteric pain syndrome is primarily a clinical diagnosis, and careful clinical examination is essential for accurate diagnosis and treatment. A thorough history and physical exam may be used to help differentiate greater trochanteric pain syndrome from other common causes of hip pain, including osteoarthritis, femoroacetabular impingement, and lumbar stenosis. Although not required for diagnosis, plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging may be useful to exclude alternative pathologies or guide treatment of greater trochanteric pain syndrome. The majority of patients with greater trochanteric pain syndrome respond well to conservative management, including physical therapy, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and corticosteroid injections. Operative management is typically indicated in patients with chronic symptoms refractory to conservative therapy. A wide range of surgical options, both open and endoscopic, are available and should be guided by the specific etiology of pain. The purpose of this review is to highlight pertinent clinical and radiographic features used in the diagnosis and management of greater trochanteric pain syndrome. In addition, treatment indications, techniques, and outcomes are described.

Background: The modified Jobe and docking techniques are the most common techniques used for elbow ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction. Previous systematic reviews have suggested that the docking technique results in superior outcomes as compared with the Jobe (figure-of-8) technique. However, these included results from earlier studies in which the flexor-pronator mass (FPM) was detached and an obligatory submuscular ulnar nerve transposition was performed. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare the outcomes and return-to-play (RTP) time between the docking and figure-of-8 techniques for UCL reconstruction. We hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in the proportion of excellent outcomes between techniques when the FPM was preserved and no obligatory submuscular ulnar nerve transposition was performed. We also hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in RTP time between techniques. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: This study was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. In the primary analysis, techniques were compared in random effects models by using the restricted maximum likelihood method, with weighted effect sizes calculated as the Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformed proportion of excellent outcomes for variance stabilization and with summary effects estimated from the inverse double-arcsine transformation per the harmonic mean of the sample sizes. Mean RTP times for techniques were compared in a separate model. Results: There were 21 eligible articles identified, with results for 1842 UCL reconstructions (n = 320, docking; n = 1466, figure-of-8). Without controlling for the effects of flexor-pronator detachment and submuscular ulnar nerve transposition, a significantly larger proportion of excellent outcomes was observed with docking reconstruction (86.58%; 95% CI, 80.42%-91.85%) than with figure-of-8 reconstruction (76.76%; 95% CI, 69.65%-83.25%; P = .031); however, there was no significant difference between techniques when controlling for FPM preservation or detachment with submuscular nerve transposition ( P = .139). There was no significant difference between techniques in time to return to sports ( P = .729), although no reconstructions with FPM detachment and submuscular ulnar nerve transposition were available for RTP time analysis. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the proportion of excellent Conway Scale outcomes or RTP time between the docking and modified Jobe techniques for UCL reconstruction when the FPM was preserved and routine submuscular ulnar nerve transposition was not performed.

Background: The most commonly used techniques for elbow ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction (UCLR) are the docking and modified Jobe figure-of-8 techniques. Previous literature has suggested that UCLR with the docking technique is associated with fewer complications; however, these studies included results from the original classic Jobe technique without controlling for the effects of flexor pronator mass (FPM) detachment and routine submuscular ulnar nerve transposition (UNT). Purpose/Hypothesis: This study sought to compare the rates of complications and subsequent unplanned surgical procedures between the docking and figure-of-8 techniques. We hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in the rates of complications or subsequent unplanned surgical procedures between the techniques when the FPM was preserved and no routine submuscular UNT was performed. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: This study was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A series of mixed-effects multivariate metaregression models were implemented using the restricted maximum likelihood method. Complications and subsequent unplanned surgical procedures were modeled as Freeman-Tukey transformed incidence rates for variance stabilization, and nerve-specific complications were assessed as the Freeman-Tukey transformed proportion of cases, with back-transformation to estimate summary effects. Results: There were 19 studies eligible for qualitative analysis, consisting of 1788 cases of UCLR (303 docking, 1485 figure-of-8), 18 of which were suitable for quantitative analysis (1769 cases; 291 docking, 1478 figure-of-8). A total of 338 complications were reported (17 for docking, 321 for figure-of-8), the majority of which were nerve related. Additionally, a total of 75 subsequent unplanned surgical procedures were related to the index UCLR procedure. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications ( P = .146) or proportion of cases with nerve-specific complications ( P = .127) between the docking and figure-of-8 techniques when controlling for FPM preservation versus detachment with submuscular UNT. FPM detachment with submuscular UNT was independently associated with a significantly higher proportion of postoperative nerve-related complications ( P = .004). There was also no significant difference in the rates of subsequent unplanned surgical procedures between the docking and figure-of-8 techniques ( P = .961), although FPM detachment with routine submuscular UNT was independently associated with a significantly higher incidence of subsequent unplanned surgical procedures. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate no significant difference in the rates of complications or subsequent unplanned surgical procedures between the figure-of-8 and docking techniques for UCLR when controlling for FPM preservation versus detachment with submuscular UNT. With modern muscle-sparing approaches and avoiding submuscular UNT, the modified Jobe technique does not differ significantly from the docking technique in terms of complication rates, proportions of cases with nerve-specific complications, or rates of subsequent unplanned surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND: Bladder cancer is the most expensive cancer to treat on a per-patient basis. Blue light cystoscopy with hexaminolevulinate (BLC) has demonstrated improved diagnostic accuracy compared with white light cystoscopy (WLC) in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). With higher upfront costs, questions remain about long-term BLC cost outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study seeks to investigate the 5-year cost comparison of BLC and WLC from the Medicare payer perspective. METHODS: A representative 5-year NMIBC management model was constructed and Medicare reimbursement values were overlaid. The primary outcome was mean year-over-year cumulative cost discounted to present value at a 3% annual percentage rate. The secondary outcome was the rate of clinical events. RESULTS: Patients in the BLC cohort experienced fewer recurrences. On a cumulative present value cost basis, BLC was more expensive per patient in years 1, 2, and 3 than WLC, however, in years 4 and 5, BLC was economically favorable. Year 5 BLC mean cumulative cost savings was $1,172 per patient. Overall, 31.6% of all patients in the BLC group generated cumulative cost savings compared to WLC at year 1 compared with 50.9% at the end of year 5. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a higher initial annual cost, a slight cumulative economic advantage of BLC is realized after surveillance year 3. Additionally, a greater proportion of patients who received BLC achieved cost savings at the end of year 5. As novel technology emerges, economic models can help health care systems predict associated costs and quality improvements.