Aims Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and multiligament knee (MLK) injuries increase the risk of development of knee osteoarthritis and eventual need for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). There are limited data regarding implant use and outcomes in these patients. The aim of this study was to compare the use of constrained implants and outcomes among patients undergoing TKA with a history of prior knee ligament reconstruction (PKLR) versus a matched cohort of patients undergoing TKA with no history of PKLR. Patients and Methods Patients with a history of ACL or MLK reconstruction who underwent TKA between 2007 and 2017 were identified in a single-institution registry. There were 223 patients who met inclusion criteria (188 ACL reconstruction patients, 35 MLK reconstruction patients). A matched cohort, also of 223 patients, was identified based on patient age, body mass index (BMI), sex, and year of surgery. There were 144 male patients and 79 female patients in both cohorts. Mean age at the time of TKA was 57.2 years (31 to 88). Mean BMI was 29.7 kg/m2 (19.5 to 55.7). Results There was a significantly higher use of constrained implants among patients with PKLR (76 of 223, 34.1%) compared with the control group (40 of 223, 17.9%; p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed a higher use of constrained implants among patients with prior MLK reconstruction (21 of 35, 60.0%) compared with ACL reconstruction (55 of 188, 29.3%; p < 0.001). Removal of hardware was performed in 69.5% of patients with PKLR. Mean operative time (p < 0.001) and tourniquet time (p < 0.001) were longer in patients with PKLR compared with controls. There were no significant differences in rates of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, infection, transfusion, postoperative knee range of movement (ROM), or need for revision surgery. There was no significant difference in preoperative or postoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR) scores between groups. Conclusion Results of this study suggest a history of PKLR results in increased use of constrained implants but no difference in postoperative knee ROM, patient-reported outcomes, or incidence of revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):77–83

Background: While the association between spinal disease and hip arthroplasty outcomes has been well studied, there is less known about the effect of spinal pathology in hip arthroscopy (HA) outcomes. Lumbosacral transitional vertebrae (LSTV) are anatomic variations where caudal vertebrae articulate or fuse with the sacrum or ilium. Hypothesis: LSTV can lead to inferior outcomes after HA for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the prospectively collected Hip Arthroscopy Database at our institution for patients with LSTV who underwent HA between 2010 and 2017. A total of 62 patients with LSTV were identified and then matched to controls. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected, including the modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score–Sports, and the 33-item International Hip Outcome Tool. They were collected at 4 time points: preoperatively and 5 to 11 months, 12 to 23 months, and 24 to 35 months postoperatively. Longitudinal analysis of the PROMs was done using generalized estimating equation modeling. Additionally, alpha angles were measured from preoperative radiographic data. Results: Preoperatively, there was no significant difference between patients with and without LSTV on 3 of the 4 PROMs; however, patients with LSTV did have significantly lower preoperative scores than controls for the Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living ( P = .029). Patients with LSTV reported significantly lower scores on all 4 PROMs at each postoperative time point. Radiographic data showed no significant difference in alpha angles across cohorts. When LSTV were compared by Castellvi type, types 3 and 4 tended to have lower scores than types 1 and 2; however, these comparisons were not significant. Conclusion: The data support our hypothesis that HA has less benefit in patients with LSTV as compared with patients without LSTV. In patients with LSTV, careful evaluation of the anomaly is recommended to help guide surgical counseling and manage expectations.

No abstract

This study compared patient reported outcomes scores (PROMs) between patients undergoing hip arthroscopy who have and have not had previous lumbar spine surgery. We aimed to determine if prior spine surgery impacts the outcome of hip arthroscopy. Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed in patients who underwent hip arthroscopy between 2010 and 2017. Twenty cases were identified for analysis and matched to a control group. Four PROMs were collected pre-operatively and between 6 months and 2 years post-operatively (mean 16.2 months): Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score-Sports (HOS-Sports) and the 33-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33). Patients with previous spine surgery reported significantly worse (P-value <0.001) post-operative scores on all PROMs and smaller net changes on all PROMs with the difference on the mHHS (P-value 0.007), HOS-Sport (P-value 0.009) and iHOT-33 (P-value 0.007) being significant. Subsequent analyses revealed that the type of spine surgery matters. Patients with a spine fusion reported worse post-operative scores on all PROMs compared with patients with a spine decompression surgery with the difference on the mHHS (P-value 0.001), HOS-ADL (P-value 0.011) and HOS-Sport (P-value 0.035) being significant. Overall, patients with prior decompression surgery experienced considerable improvements from hip arthroscopy whereas patients with a prior spine fusion reported poor post-operative outcomes. Given these results, it is vital that hip preservation surgeons understand the impact of the lumbar spine on the outcome of hip arthroscopy.

No abstract