Modern Radiological Imaging of Osteoarthritis of The Hip Joint With Consideration of Predisposing Conditions

Cutting-Edge Approaches in Arthroplasty: Before, during and after Surgery

Personalised medicine was introduced in arthroplasty a long time ago with the aim of respecting each individual person for their unique personal characteristics in order to further improve outcomes [...].

Minimally Invasive Therapies for Osteoarthritic Hip Pain: a Comprehensive Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent cause of chronic hip pain, affecting 27% of adults aged over 45 years and 42% of adults aged over 75 years. Though OA has traditionally been described as a disorder of "wear-and-tear," recent studies have expanded on this understanding to include a possible inflammatory etiology as well, damage to articular cartilage produces debris in the joint that is phagocytosed by synovial cells which leads to inflammation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with OA of the hip frequently have decreased quality of life due to pain and limited mobility though additional comorbidities of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, poor sleep quality, and obesity have been correlated. Initial treatment with conservative medical management can provide effective symptomatic relief. Physical therapy and exercise are important components of a multimodal approach to osteoarthritic hip pain. Patients with persistent pain may benefit from minimally invasive therapeutic approaches prior to consideration of undergoing total hip arthroplasty. The objective of this review is to provide an update of current minimally invasive therapies for the treatment of pain stemming from hip osteoarthritis; these include intra-articular injection of medication, regenerative therapies, and radiofrequency ablation.

[MR and CT arthrography in cartilage imaging : Indications and implementation]

BACKGROUND

The imaging of chondral pathologies is an essential part in the work-up of acute and chronic joint diseases. Besides conventional MR imaging, CT and MR arthrography are well-established methods in evaluating articular cartilage. The application of these techniques requires knowledge of indications and safe injection procedures by the performing radiologist.

PURPOSE

Our goal is to describe the techniques of cross-sectional arthrographies of different joints, give an overview of general and joint-specific considerations for practical application as well as provide typical indications for cartilage imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A selective PubMed literature search concerning "arthrography", "CT arthrography", "MR arthrography", "arthrography cartilage", "arthrography wrist", "arthrography elbow", "arthrography shoulder", "arthrography hip", "arthrography knee", "arthrography ankle", "arthrography complications", "arthrography imaging guidance" "osteochondral lesion", "cartilage imaging" and "cartilage lesion" was performed.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

CT and MR arthrography are valuable and safe tools in cartilage imaging. They are useful to verify and specify chondral pathologies, usually after conventional MR imaging, and have an important role in evaluating the stability and therefore in therapeutic decision making of osteochondral lesions. CT arthrography is not only a substitute technique in case of MR contraindications, it can be advantageous in small joints (wrist, elbow, ankle) compared to MR arthrography due to its higher image resolution. Fluoroscopic guided joint puncture is still the most commonly used image guidance method, but the role of ultrasound is steadily increasing. Joint traction in MR arthrography is a promising technique to improve cartilage visualization, though it is not yet used in clinical routine imaging.

Is Microfracture Necessary? Acetabular Chondrolabral Debridement/Abrasion Demonstrates Similar Outcomes and Survival to Microfracture in Hip Arthroscopy: A Multicenter Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hip arthroscopy is becoming more advanced and commonly performed. However, significant controversy exists regarding whether high-grade acetabular cartilage lesions should be treated with debridement/abrasion or microfracture. In addition, patients treated with microfracture are subject to extended protected weightbearing rehabilitation to mitigate risk of subchondral plate fracture and to protect fibrocartilage tissue formation.

PURPOSE

To determine the midterm patient-reported outcomes and failure rate of patients with grade 3 and 4 acetabular labrum articular disruption (ALAD) lesions managed with debridement/abrasion or microfracture.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Primary arthroscopic labral repair cases at 2 centers from November 2008 to April 2016 were reviewed for patients aged <55 years with unipolar ALAD grade 3 and 4 chondrolabral acetabular delamination. Patients undergoing microfracture and debridement/abrasion were compared using the visual analog pain scale (VAS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) to determine predictors of outcomes and failure.

RESULTS

A total of 113 hips in 110 patients (66 males, 44 females; mean age, 34.5 ± 1.1 years) undergoing debridement/abrasion (n = 82) or microfracture (n = 31) were followed for a mean of 4.9 years (range, 2.0-8.5 years). Lesion size was not statistically different between the debridement/abrasion (1.3 ± 1.0 cm²) and microfracture cohorts (1.4 ± 1.0 cm²) ( P = .47). Patients undergoing debridement/abrasion achieved 3.6-point mean improvements in VAS ( P < .01), 21.2-point improvements in mHHS ( P < .01), and 25.4-point improvements in HOS-SSS ( P < .01), which were not significantly different from those observed in microfracture patients ( P≥ .20). The 5-year rate of survival free of revision surgery was 84.0% in the debridement/abrasion group and 85.6% in the microfracture group ( P = .78). The cartilage treatment technique was found not to be predictive of revision risk during both univariate (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; P = .98) and multivariate (HR, 0.93; P = .90) analysis accounting for patient age, lesion grade, and acetabular coverage.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing debridement/abrasion of high-grade unipolar acetabular cartilage lesions demonstrate similar outcome scores and revision rates compared with those of patients undergoing microfracture. These outcomes support the consideration of preferential debridement/abrasion at the discretion of the treating surgeon to optimize recovery while maintaining established positive outcomes after hip arthroscopy.

Are Results of Arthroscopic Labral Repair Durable in Dysplasia at Midterm Follow-up? A 2-Center Matched Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies assessing dysplasia's effect on hip arthroscopy are often limited to the short term and unable to account for demographic factors that may vary between dysplastic and nondysplastic populations.

PURPOSE

To determine the midterm failure rate and patient-reported outcomes of arthroscopic labral repair in the setting of dysplasia and make subsequent failure and outcome comparisons with a rigorously matched nondysplastic control group.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Primary arthroscopic labral repair cases at 2 centers from 2008 to 2011 were reviewed. Patients with lateral center edge angle (LCEA) <25° were matched to nondysplastic controls by age, sex, laterality, body mass index (BMI), Tönnis grade, and capsular repair per a 1:2 matching algorithm. Groups were compared with a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) to determine predictors of outcome and failure.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients with dysplasia (mean LCEA, 21.6°; range, 13.0°-24.9°; n = 25 with capsular repair) were matched to 96 controls (mean LCEA, 32.1°; range, 25°-52°; n = 50 with capsular repair) and followed for a mean of 5.7 years (range, 5.0-7.7 years). Patients achieved mean VAS improvements of 3.3 points, mHHS of 19.5, and HOS-SSS of 29.0 points ( P < .01) with no significant differences between the dysplasia and control populations ( P > .05). Five-year failure-free survival was 83.3% for patients with dysplasia and 78.1% for controls ( P = .53). No survival or outcomes difference was observed between patients with dysplasia who did or did not have capsular repair ( P ≥ .45) or when comparing LCEA <20° and LCEA 20° to 25° ( P ≥ .60). BMI ≤30 was associated with increased revision surgery risk ( P < .01). Age >35 years ( P < .05) and Tönnis grade 0 radiographs ( P < .01) predicted failure to reach minimal clinically important differences.

CONCLUSION

With careful selection and modern techniques, patients with dysplasia can benefit significantly and durably from arthroscopic labral repair. The dysplastic cohort had outcomes and failure rates similar to those of rigorously matched controls at midterm follow-up. Subanalyses comparing LCEA <20° and LCEA 20° to 25° are presented for completeness; however, this study was not designed to detect differences in dysplastic subpopulations. BMI ≤30 was associated with increased revision risk. Age >35 years and Tönnis grade 0 radiographs predicted failure to achieve minimal clinically important differences.