Emersonwichmann6990

001). In subgroup analysis of women, the intra-operative laxity group had a higher rate of capsular thinning compared with the non-laxity group (85% versus 45%; P = 0.01). A 82% of women with capsular thinning also had intra-operative laxity, compared with 40% without capsular thinning (P = 0.01). There were no differences regarding the width of the anterior joint recess. In this study, there was an association between capsular thinning and intra-operative laxity in female patients. Measuring anterior capsule thickness on a pre-operative MRA may be useful for the diagnosis of hip microinstability.Hip instability due to mild dysplasia can be a diagnostic challenge. The physical exam is an important adjunct to radiographic evaluation for the clinical diagnosis of hip instability. Herein, we describe a new maneuver to replicate hip instability pain, called the PART (Prone Apprehension Relocation Test). We retrospectively identified patients in our institution's hip preservation registry who presented for evaluation of hip pain. We divided patients into 'positive' or 'negative' PART and analyzed associated clinical and radiographic findings. Ninety patients (159 hips) were included, 83 female and 7 male, average age 27.3 ± 9.1 years. Thirty-four hips (21.4%) had a positive PART. There were no significant differences in hip range of motion, lateral center edge angle, or in acetabular depth. There was, however, a significant difference in acetabular version at 3 o'clock between the two test groups (18.5 ± 6.9° in negative, 21.2 ± 4.9° in positive, P = 0.045). There was no association between PART and previously described anterior apprehension testing. Historical methods of diagnosing hip dysplasia may not adequately identify patients with clinical hip instability. We describe a new provocative exam, the PART, which may be helpful in replicating hip instability symptoms in patients with anterior acetabular undercoverage. UPR inhibitor PART positive patients had significantly more acetabular anteversion at the 3 o'clock position, which is measured on computed tomography and is not visible on standard anteroposterior (AP) pelvis or false profile radiographs. We believe that the PART is a valuable supplement to clinical examination and radiographic measurements to identify patients with symptomatic hip instability.Loss to follow-up in registry studies is a problem due to potential selection bias. There is no consensus on the effect of response rate. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between responders and initial non-responders (INR) in a hip arthroscopy registry and to examine whether demographics affect the response rate. Data from hip arthroscopies performed at two centres in Gothenburg were collected and the patients were followed up with PROMs. The follow-up was a minimum of 2 years after surgery. All 536 patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopies during 2015 and 2016 and had recorded pre-operative PROMs were included. A total of 396 patients completed the follow-up and were labelled 'Responders' (R) and 107 patients responded after reminders were sent and labelled 'Initial non-responders' (INR). The mean time of follow-up was 24.7 ± 2.9 and 42.5 ± 7.0 months for the R- and INR-group, respectively. There were no differences between the two groups at the follow-up for the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score, European Quality of life 5 dimensions questionnaire, EQ-VAS, International Hip Outcome Tool or a visual analogue scale for hip function. A larger proportion of R was satisfied after hip arthroscopy compared with INR (86% versus 70%, P = 0.0003). INR were younger than responders (31.5 ± 12.5 versus 35.6 ± 12.7 years of age). The conclusion of the study was that there were no differences between R and INR at the follow-up across the PROMs except patient satisfaction, where responders were more satisfied.The purpose of this study was to determine (i) if failing to achieve a patient-reported outcome (PRO) threshold at 1 year was associated with secondary operations at minimum 2-year follow-up and (ii)what outcome measure and threshold has the highest association with future surgeries. Inclusion criteria for this study were cases of primary hip arthroscopy between July 2014 and April 2017. Included patients had recorded pre-operative and 1-year post-operative modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and 12-item international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) scores. Patients were classified based on their ability to achieve minimal clinical important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for each PRO and the status of secondary operations at minimum 2-year follow-up. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio for these thresholds were calculated. Of 425 eligible cases, 369 (86.8%) had minimum 2-year follow-up. Of the included patients, 28 underwent secondary operations (7.59%), with 14 undergoing secondary arthroscopies (3.79%) and 14 converting to total hip arthroplasty (3.79%). For mHHS, 267 (72.4%), 173 (46.9%) and 277 (75.1%) hips met MCID, SCB and PASS, respectively. For iHOT-12, 234 (63.4%), 218 (59.1%) and 280 (75.9%) hips met the respective thresholds. The highest specificity, sensitivity and accuracy were identified as for iHOT-12 MCID (0.79), iHOT-12 PASS (0.79) and iHOT-12 MCID (0.77), respectively. Patients not attaining MCID and PASS for mHHS and iHOT-12 at 1-year post-operatively are at increased risk of secondary operation. The most accurate threshold associated with secondary operation (0.77) is not achieving iHOT-12 MCID. Level of evidence retrospective case series level IV.The purpose of the current study was to present pre-operative comparisons for recreational athletes attempting a return to running following hip arthroscopy, and the return to running progression protocol used to guide them. A prospective, non-randomized cohort study was conducted to evaluate recreational athletes that returned to running following hip arthroscopy. Return to running was the primary outcome measure and defined as the ability to run at least one mile three times weekly while maintaining patient-reported relief of pre-operative symptoms. Patients included were correlated with the following pre-operative patient-reported outcome measures hip outcome score (HOS), 12-item international outcome tool (iHOT-12), visual analog scale for pain (VAS) and the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12). Of the 99 included patients, 94 (95%) returned to running successfully with an average return of 4.8 months. There was no statistical difference in pre-operative comparisons between patients that returned to running and did not return to running (P ≥ 0.