Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Survey results from an international hip course: comparison between experts and non-experts on hip arthroscopy clinical practice and post-operative rehabilitation

  • HIP
  • Published:
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Aims and scope

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical practices between expert and non-expert arthroscopy hip surgeons.

Methods

Registered orthopedic surgeons completed anonymous surveys during a hip arthroscopy meeting. The survey included 60 questions on physician’s level of expertise, surgical anesthesia, procedures performed, hospital stay, pain control, rehabilitation and socioeconomic parameters, and the results are presented. Comparisons were made between hip arthroscopy experts (> 500 cases performed) and non-experts (≤ 500 cases performed) on aspects of patient care.

Results

Forty-eight (74%) surgeons responded. Forty-four questionnaires were filled out completely. There were no significant differences in recommendations between 15 (34%) hip arthroscopy experts and 29 (66%) non-experts on hip capsular management and cartilage repair techniques, use of antithrombotic prophylaxis and opioid analgesics, time of rehabilitation initiation and patient compliance factors, use of hip brace and CPM, and patient evaluation to return to sports following surgery. Surgical expertise was significantly associated with the performance of hip labral reconstruction (p = 0.016), subspine decompression (p = 0.039) and recommendation of a longer period of restricted weight bearing following the performance of microfractures (p = 0.011). There were no significant differences in clinical practice between surgeons who performed hip arthroscopy exclusively versus those who did not.

Conclusions

Hip arthroscopy is a relatively new field, and clinical practice may vary among physicians based on the surgical expertise. In this study, hip arthroscopy experts agree with non-experts on most aspects of patient care. Surgical expertise was associated with performance of advanced techniques and recommendation of longer period of restricted weight bearing following performance of microfractures. This study highlights different care patterns that need to be investigated to determine which treatment results in improved patient care.

Level of evidence

V.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bech NH, Hulst AH, Spuijbroek JA, van Leuken LLA, Haverkamp D (2016) Perioperative pain management in hip arthroscopy; what options are there? J Hip Preserv Surg 3:181–189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Benyamin R, Trescot AM, Datta S, Buenaventura R, Adlaka R, Sehgal N, Glaser SE, Vallejo R (2008) Opioid complications and side effects. Pain physician 11:S105–S120

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bolia IK, Fagotti L, McNamara S, Dornan G, Briggs KK, Philippon MJ (2018) A systematic review-meta-analysis of venous thromboembolic events following primary hip arthroscopy for FAI: clinical and epidemiologic considerations. J Hip Preserv Surg 5(3):190–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bozic KJ, Chan V, Valone FH 3rd, Feeley BT, Vail TP (2013) Trends in hip arthroscopy utilization in the United States. J Arthroplasty 28:140–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen AW, Steffes MJ, Laseter JR, Maldonado DR, Ortiz-Declet V, Perets I, Domb BG (2018) The education and training of future hip preservation surgeons: aggregate recommendations of high-volume surgeons. J Hip Preserv Surg 2018 5(3):307–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Erturan G, Alvand A, Judge A, Pollard TCB, Glyn-Jones S, Rees JL (2018) Prior generic arthroscopic volume correlates with hip arthroscopic proficiency: a simulator study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 100(1):e3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Garner M, Alsheemeri Z, Sardesai A, Khanduja V (2017) A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of fascia iliaca compartment block versus local anesthetic infiltration after hip arthroscopic surgery. Arthroscopy 33:125–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Grzybowski JS, Malloy P, Stegemann C, Bush-Joseph C, Harris JD, Nho SJ (2015) Rehabilitation following hip arthroscopy—a systematic review. Front Surg 2:21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gupta A, Suarez-Ahedo C, Redmond JM, Gerhardt MB, Hanypsiak B, Stake CE, Finch NA, Domb BG (2015) Best practices during hip arthroscopy: aggregate recommendations of high-volume surgeons. Arthroscopy 31:1722–1727

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Haldane CE, Ekhtiari S, de Sa D, Simunovic N, Safran M, Randelli F, Duong A, Farrokhyar F, Ayeni OR (2018) Venous thromboembolism events after hip arthroscopy: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 34:321–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kautzner J, Zeman P, Stancak A, Havlas V (2017) Hip arthroscopy learning curve: a prospective single-surgeon study. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3666-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kay J, de Sa D, Memon M, Simunovic N, Paul J, Ayeni OR (2016) Examining the role of perioperative nerve blocks in hip arthroscopy: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 32:704–715.e1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Krych AJ, Baran S, Kuzma SA, Smith HM, Johnson RL, Levy BA (2014) Utility of multimodal analgesia with fascia iliaca blockade for acute pain management following hip arthroscopy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:843–847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Mancuso CA, Wentzel CH, Ghomrawi HMK, Kelly BT (2017) Hip preservation surgery expectations survey: a new method to measure patients’ preoperative expectations. Arthroscopy 33:959–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Mehta N, Chamberlin P, Marx RG, Hidaka C, Ge Y, Nawabi DH, Lyman S (2018) Defining the learning curve for hip arthroscopy: a threshold analysis of the volume-outcomes relationship. Am J Sports Med 1:3635465517749219

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mohtadi NG (2017) Editorial commentary: yet another way to measure hip surgery patient outcomes. Will This Ever End? Arthroscopy 33(5):969–970

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nogier A, Boyer T, Khan MT (2014) Hip arthroscopy: less invasive technique. Arthrosc Techn 3:e101–e106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Philippon MJ, Briggs KK, Hay CJ, Kuppersmith DA, Dewing CB, Huang MJ (2010) Arthroscopic labral reconstruction in the hip using iliotibial band autograft: technique and early outcomes. Arthroscopy 26:750–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rath E, Sharfman ZT, Paret M, Amar E, Drexler M, Bonin N (2017) Hip arthroscopy protocol: expert opinions on post-operative weight bearing and return to sports guidelines. J Hip Preserv Surg 4:60–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith KM, Gerrie BJ, McCulloch PC, Lewis BD, Mather RC, Van Thiel G, Nho SJ, Harris JD (2017) Arthroscopic hip preservation surgery practice patterns: an international survey. J Hip Preserv Surg 4:18–29

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Worner T, Thorborg K, Moksnes H, Eek F (2018) Similar views on rehabilitation following hip arthroscopy among physiotherapists and surgeons in Scandinavia: a specialized care survey. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(8):2519–2526

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Yu HC, Al-Shehri M, Johnston KD, Endersby R, Baghirzada L (2016) Anesthesia for hip arthroscopy: a narrative review. Can J Anaesth 63:1277–1290

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this project. This project was conducted independently of the company that organized the training course.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Steadman Philippon Research Institute, 181 W. Meadow Dr., Vail, CO, 81657, USA

    Ioanna K. Bolia, Karen K. Briggs & Lauren Matheny

  2. The Steadman Clinic and Steadman Philippon Research Institute, 181 W. Meadow Dr., Vail, CO, 81657, USA

    Marc J. Philippon

Authors
  1. Ioanna K. Bolia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Karen K. Briggs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lauren Matheny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marc J. Philippon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen K. Briggs.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Marc J. Philippon, MD receives royalties from Smith and Nephew, Arthrosurface, Arthrex, Bledsoe, DonJoy, ConMed Linvatec, Slack Inc, and Elsevier; is a paid consultant for Smith and Nephew; a stockholder in Arthrosurface, MJP Innovations, LLC, MIS, Vail Valley Surgery Center; receives research support from Smith and Nephew, Ossur, Siemens. Ioanna K. Bolia, MD, Lauren Matheny, MPH, and Karen K. Briggs, MPH, have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

For this type of study, an IRB was not required. The study did not include any patients and all data was collected and stored anonymously.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 35 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bolia, I.K., Briggs, K.K., Matheny, L. et al. Survey results from an international hip course: comparison between experts and non-experts on hip arthroscopy clinical practice and post-operative rehabilitation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28, 1270–1275 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5289-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5289-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation