UNASSIGNED: Sacral fatigue fractures are a rare injury but should be considered as a differential diagnosis for low back and buttock pain in young adults. Collective reports are limited, most of which have focused on long-distance runners.
UNASSIGNED: To investigate the characteristics of sacral fatigue fractures in adolescents.
UNASSIGNED: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
UNASSIGNED: We analyzed patient background characteristics, physical examination and imaging findings, and treatment courses of those diagnosed with sacral fatigue fractures using magnetic resonance imaging.
UNASSIGNED: Among 34 patients with sacral fatigue fractures, 15 and 19 were male and female patients, respectively, with an age range of 11 to 19 years (mean age, 15.0 years). Almost all patients were athletes, and 29 patients performed their sport ≥5 times a week. Long-distance runners were the most commonly affected, comprising 7 patients, and participants in other common sports such as baseball (6 patients), basketball (4 patients), and soccer (3 patients) were also affected. Physical examination revealed tension sign (Lasègue test) on the affected side in 6 patients and tight hamstrings in 24 patients. Imaging findings included 18 patients with right-side involvement, 12 with left-side involvement, and 4 with involvement on both sides. In 11 patients, spina bifida occulta was observed at S1 and 8 patients had a history of lumbar spondylolysis with 4 patients having concurrent sacral fatigue fractures. Physical therapy was performed concurrently with the cessation of exercise, and return to exercise was permitted if the pain had been relieved after 1 month. All patients returned to sports at a median of 48 days (range, 20-226 days) after symptom onset. However, 2 patients experienced recurrence (1 patient on the ipsilateral side and 1 patient on the contralateral side).
UNASSIGNED: Sacral stress fractures are not limited to long-distance runners in this population and can manifest as lower back pain or buttock pain in athletes participating in a variety of sports. Although the course of treatment was generally good, the possibility of recurrence must always be considered.

UNASSIGNED: The orthopaedic in-training examination (OITE) is a 275-question test for orthopaedic residents administered annually. As the field of orthopaedics changes, the OITE evolves its content. The incidence of hip preservation-related procedures has increased substantially over the past decade; nonetheless, an analysis of the trends of hip preservation questions on the OITE has not yet been performed.
UNASSIGNED: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the number and type of questions on the OITE related to hip preservation to determine whether trends over time paralleled the increases in hip-related care in clinical practice. It was hypothesized that the frequency of hip preservation questions on the OITE would increase with time.
UNASSIGNED: Cross-sectional study.
UNASSIGNED: Each OITE between 2002 and 2021 was reviewed for questions related to hip preservation. The types of questions included under \"hip preservation\" were those related to femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), athletic soft tissue injuries of the hip, acetabular labral tears, hip arthroscopy, and surgical management of adult hip dysplasia-excluding arthroplasty. Questions were quantified and categorized by topic, taxonomy level, associated imaging, and cited sources.
UNASSIGNED: There were 30 hip preservation-related questions between 2002 and 2021. Of these, 77% occurred within the past 10 years. Also, 14 questions (47%) had associated images in the question stem-the most common being radiographs (n = 8 questions). The most commonly tested subcategories were FAI (n = 11 questions [37%]), athletic injuries (n = 7 questions [23%]), and anatomy (n = 7 questions [23%]). Over the last 10 years, 97.9% of citations were from journal articles-the most common being the Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research, and the American Journal of Sports Medicine.
UNASSIGNED: The frequency of hip preservation-related questions on the OITE has increased with time, reflecting trends in clinical practice.

UNASSIGNED: Hamstring strains are common among elite athletes, but their effect on return to the same level of play in American football has been incompletely characterized.
UNASSIGNED: Data on National Collegiate Athletics Association Division I college football players with acute hamstring strains were gathered to identify the effects these injuries have on both return to play and athletic performance regarding velocity, workload, and acceleration.
UNASSIGNED: Case Series; Level of evidence, 4.
UNASSIGNED: Injury data for a single Division I football team were prospectively recorded over a 4-year period. Players wore global navigation satellite system and local positioning system (GNSS/LPS) devices to record movement data in practices and games. The practice and game data were cross-referenced to evaluate players with isolated acute hamstring strains. Comparisons were made regarding players\' pre- and postinjury ability to maintain high velocity (>12 mph [19.3 kph]), maximal velocity, triaxial acceleration, and inertial movement analysis (IMA). There were 58 hamstring injuries in 44 players, of which 25 injuries from 20 players had GNSS/LPS data.
UNASSIGNED: Players were able to return to play from all 25 injury incidences at a mean of 9.2 days. At the final mean follow-up of 425 days, only 4 players had reached preinjury function in all measurements; 12 players were able to return in 2 of the 4 metrics; and only 8 players reached their preinjury ability to maintain high velocity. For those who did not achieve this metric, there was a significant difference between pre- and postinjury values (722 vs 442 m; P = .016). A total of 14 players were able to regain their IMA. Players who returned to prior velocity or acceleration metrics did so at a mean of 163 days across all metrics.
UNASSIGNED: While players may be able to return to play after hamstring strain, many players do not reach preinjury levels of acceleration or velocity, even after 13.5 months. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings, assess clinical relevance on imaging performance, and improve hamstring injury prevention and rehabilitation.

The transtendinous technique has been used to treat partial-thickness gluteus medius tears in the setting of concomitant arthroscopy for labral tears. The tendon compression bridge technique for gluteus medius repair has been developed as an alternative method, providing several advantages; however, comparative studies between the 2 techniques are lacking in the literature.
(1) To evaluate the short-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of the tendon compression bridge technique and (2) to compare these findings with short-term PROs of the transtendinous technique.
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Data were prospectively collected on patients who were followed for a minimum of 2 years after an endoscopic tendon compression bridge procedure for gluteus medius repair in the setting of concomitant hip arthroscopy for labral tears. The following PROs were collected preoperatively and postoperatively: modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, visual analog scale score for pain, and the International Hip Outcome Tool. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the Patient Acceptable Symptom State, minimal clinically important difference, and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold. Patients were propensity matched 1:1 to a cohort that underwent gluteus medius repair using the endoscopic transtendinous technique with concomitant hip arthroscopy.
A total of 48 hips (48 patients) that met inclusion criteria (age, 53.3 ± 9.8 years; 92% female; body mass index, 26.7 ± 4.6), with a mean follow-up of 38.5 ± 15.7 months, were matched to 48 hips (46 patients) that underwent gluteus medius repair using the transtendinous technique. Both groups demonstrated significant improvement from preoperative scores to latest follow-up (P < .05). Mean magnitude of improvement and latest follow-up scores were not significantly different between the tendon compression bridge group and the transtendinous group, and the groups demonstrated similar favorable rates of achieving Minimal Clinically Important Difference (79% vs 79%, respectively), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (73% vs 73%, respectively), and Maximum Outcome Improvement Satisfaction threshold (65% vs 58%, respectively) for modified Harris Hip Score (P > .05). Patient satisfaction between groups was similar (8.1 ± 2.2 vs 7.7 ± 2.7, respectively) (P = .475).
At minimum 2-year follow-up, the endoscopic tendon compression bridge technique for partial-thickness gluteus medius tears, when performed with concomitant hip arthroscopy, was associated with significant improvement in functional outcomes. These postoperative results were comparable with those of a matched cohort that underwent the endoscopic transtendinous technique for partial-thickness gluteus medius tears, suggesting that the tendon compression bridge technique for gluteus medius repair is an effective treatment option for partial-thickness gluteus medius tears.

To identify patient preoperative history, examination, and imaging characteristics that increase the risk of postoperative failure of gluteus medius/minimus repair, and to develop a decision-making aid predictive of clinical outcomes for patients undergoing gluteus medius/minimus repair.
Patients from 2012 to 2020 at a single institution undergoing gluteus medius/minimus repair with minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. MRIs were graded according to the \"three-grade\" classification system: grade 1: partial-thickness tear, grade 2: full-thickness tears with <2 cm of retraction, grade 3: full-thickness tears with ≥2 cm retraction. Failure was defined as undergoing revision within 2 years postoperatively or not achieving both a cohort-calculated minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and responding \"no\" to patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). Inversely, success was defined as reaching both an MCID and responding \"yes\" to PASS. Predictors of failure were verified on logistic regression and a predictive scoring model, the Gluteus-Score-7, was generated to guide treatment-decision making.
In total, 30 of 142 patients (21.1%) were clinical failures at mean ± SD follow-up of 27.0 ± 5.2 months. Preoperative smoking (odds ratio [OR], 3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.0-8.4; P = .041), lower back pain (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.1-7.3; P = .038), presence of a limp or Trendelenburg gait (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.5-10.2; P = .006), history of psychiatric diagnosis (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.3-10.8; P = .014), and increased MRI classification grades (P ≤ .042) were independent predictors of failure. The Gluteus-Score-7 was generated with each history/examination predictor assigned 1 point and MRI classes assigned corresponding 1-3 points (min 1, max 7 score). A score of ≥4/7 points was associated with risk of failure and a score ≤2/7 points was associated with clinical success.
Independent risk factors for revision or not achieving either MCID or PASS after gluteus medius and/or minimus tendon repair include smoking, preoperative lower back pain, psychiatric history, Trendelenburg gait, and full-thickness tears, especially tears with ≥2 cm retraction. The Gluteus-Score-7 tool incorporating these factors can identify patients at risk of both surgical treatment failure and success, which may be useful for clinical decision-making.
Level IV, prognostic case series.

There is a paucity of information available to clinicians on outcomes of patients undergoing endoscopic surgery for labral repairs and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome with simultaneous repair of the gluteus medius and/or minimus muscles.
To determine whether patients with labral tears and concomitant gluteal pathology who undergo simultaneous endoscopic labral and gluteus medius and/or minimus repair experience similar outcomes to patients with isolated labral tears who undergo endoscopic labral repair alone.
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
A matched retrospective comparative cohort study was performed. Patients who underwent gluteus medius and/or minimus repair with concomitant labral repair between January 2012 and November 2019 were identified. These patients were matched in a 1:3 ratio by sex, age, and body mass index (BMI) to patients who underwent labral repair alone. Preoperative radiographs were assessed. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. PRO measures included the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living and Sports subscales, modified Harris Hip Score, 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool, and visual analog scales for pain and satisfaction. Published labral repair minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds were utilized for these measures.
A total of 31 patients who underwent gluteus medius and/or minimus repair with concomitant labral repair (27 female, 4 male; age, 50.8 ± 7.3 years; BMI, 27.9 ± 5.2) were matched with 93 patients who underwent labral repair alone (81 female, 12 male; age, 50.9 ± 8.1 years; BMI, 28.5 ± 6.2). There were no significant differences in sex (P > .99), age (P = .869), or BMI (P = .592); preoperative radiographic measurements; or preoperative or 2-year postoperative PRO scores (P≥ .081). Changes between preoperative and 2-year postoperative PRO scores were significantly different for both groups for all PROs assessed (P < .001 for all). There were no significant differences in MCID or PASS achievement rates (P≥ .123), with low PASS achievement rates of 40% to 60% found in both groups.
Patients who were treated with endoscopic gluteus medius and/or minimus repair with concomitant labral repair demonstrated comparable outcomes with those who were treated with endoscopic labral repair alone.

The purpose of this current concepts review is to highlight the evaluation and workup of hamstring injuries, nonoperative treatment options, and surgical decision-making based on patient presentation and injury patterns. Hamstring injuries, which are becoming increasingly recognized, affect professional and recreational athletes alike, commonly occurring after forceful eccentric contraction mechanisms. Injuries occur in the proximal tendon at the ischial tuberosity, in the muscle belly substance, or in the distal tendon insertion on the tibia or fibula. Patients may present with ecchymoses, pain, and weakness. Magnetic resonance imaging remains the gold standard for diagnosis and may help guide treatment. Treatment is dictated by the specific tendon(s) injured, tear location, severity, and chronicity. Many hamstring injuries can be successfully managed with nonoperative measures such as activity modification and physical therapy; adjuncts such as platelet-rich plasma injections are currently being investigated. Operative treatment of proximal hamstring injuries, including endoscopic or open approaches, is traditionally reserved for 2-tendon injuries with >2 cm of retraction, 3-tendon injuries, or injuries that do not improve with 6 months of nonoperative management. Acute surgical treatment of proximal hamstring injuries tends to be favorable. Distal hamstring injuries may initially be managed nonoperatively, although biceps femoris injuries are frequently managed surgically, and return to sport may be faster for semitendinosus injuries treated acutely with excision or tendon stripping in high-level athletes.

It is currently unknown whether the addition of arthroscopic labral repair in the setting of periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) provides any clinical benefit.
The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of patients who underwent arthroscopic labral repair concomitantly with PAO versus patients who underwent PAO alone. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between the cohorts.
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Patients undergoing PAO from a single-center prospective hip preservation registry were eligible for this study if they completed pre- and postoperative PROMs (minimum, 1 year). PROMs were collected at 1 year, 2 years, and latest follow-up at 6.05 years for PAO group and 4.2 years for scope/PAO group. The study group consisted of 53 patients who underwent arthroscopic labral repair at the time of their PAO, and the comparison group consisted of 170 patients who underwent PAO alone. A subset of the PAO group who had radiologic evidence of a detached labral tear (n = 33) was also compared with the rest of the PAO-alone group. PROMs were compared at every time point for both groups as well as the subset of patients who underwent PAO alone despite a labral tear.
The mean follow-up of all patients was 2 years (range, 1-6 years). Overall, 85.2% of the PAO group and 85.7% of the scope/PAO group met the minimal clinically important difference for either the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) or the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) at the most recent follow-up. There was no difference in improvement between groups (mHHS, P = .670; iHOT-33, P = .944). Patients who had a radiologically diagnosed detached labral tear and underwent PAO alone had no difference in outcomes when compared with the rest of the PAO cohort (mHHS, P = .981; iHOT-33, P = .909).
There was no significant benefit measured by PROMs at follow-up for concomitant arthroscopic labral repair in the setting of PAO.

The Doha agreement classification is used to classify groin pain in athletes. We evaluated the inter-examiner reliability of this classification system. We prospectively recruited 48 male athletes (66 symptomatic sides) with groin pain between 10-2017 and 03-2020 at a sports medicine hospital in Qatar. Two examiners (23 and 10 years of clinical experience) performed history taking, and a standardized clinical examination blinded to each other\'s findings. Examiners classified groin pain using the Doha agreement terminology (adductor-, inguinal-, iliopsoas-, pubic-, hip-related groin pain, or other causes of groin pain). Multiple entities were ranked in order of perceived clinical importance. Each side was classified separately for bilateral groin pain. Inter-examiner reliability was calculated using Cohen\'s Kappa statistic (κ). Inter-examiner reliability was slight to moderate for adductor- (κ = 0.40), inguinal- (κ = 0.44), iliopsoas- (κ = 0.57), and pubic-related groin pain (κ = 0.12), substantial for hip-related groin pain (κ = 0.62), and slight for \"other causes of groin pain\" (κ = 0.13). Ranking entities in order of perceived clinical importance improved inter-examiner reliability for adductor-, inguinal-, and iliopsoas-related groin pain (κ = 0.52-0.65), but not for pubic (κ = 0.12), hip (κ = 0.51), and \"other causes of groin pain\" (κ = 0.03). For participants with unilateral groin pain classified with a single entity (n = 7), there was 100% agreement between the two examiners. Inter-examiner reliability of the Doha agreement meeting classification system varied from slight to substantial, depending on the clinical entity. Agreement between examiners was perfect when athletes were classified with a single clinical entity of groin pain, but lower when athletes were classified with multiple clinical entities.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the literature on patients undergoing periacetabular osteotomy after failed hip arthroscopy (PAO-FHA) for (1) patient demographics and hip morphology, (2) changes in preoperative to postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and (3) PROs in comparison to primary periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) patients.
METHODS: A systematic literature search of Pubmed, CINAHL/Medline, and cochrane databases was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The search phrase was \"(periacetabular osteotomy or PAO or rotational osteotomy) and (hip arthroscopy or arthroscopic)\". The titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened for studies on PAO-FHA. Study quality was assessed, and relevant data were collected. A meta-analysis was not performed due to study heterogeneity.
RESULTS: The search identified 7 studies, including 151 hips (148 patients, 93.9% female) undergoing PAO-FHA, out of an initial 593 studies, with three Level IV and four Level III studies. Mean time from hip arthroscopy to PAO ranged from 17.0 to 29.6 months. Heterogenous hip morphologies and radiologic findings prior to PAO were observed, though patients most frequently demonstrated moderate-to-severe dysplasia (mean or median lateral center edge angle < 20°) and minimal osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade 0 or 1). In all 5 studies that reported concomitant procedures with PAO, femoral and/or acetabular osteoplasty was performed via arthroscopy or arthrotomy. Following PAO-FHA, radiographic acetabular coverage and PROs improved in all 6 studies that reported postoperative outcomes. All four comparative studies of primary PAO vs. PAO-FHA included patients with mean or median LCEAs < 20°, reporting mixed outcomes for the optimal treatment approach.
CONCLUSIONS: PAO-FHA is reported in a heterogenous patient population that frequently includes hips with moderate-to-severe dysplasia and minimal osteoarthritis. Regardless of hip morphology or concomitant procedures, all studies that reported postoperative outcomes demonstrated improved PROs following PAO-FHA.
METHODS: Level IV.