f surgical treatment.
 
  Level IV (case series).
 Level IV (case series).
  The purposes of this study were to assess clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthroscopically-assisted, anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction using tendon allograft (AA-ACCR) for the treatment of Rockwood type III-V injuries at minimum 2-year follow-up and to perform subgroup analyses of clinical and radiographic outcomes for acute versus chronic and type III versus type IV-V injuries.
 
  In this retrospective study of prospectively collected data, patients who underwent primary AA-ACCR for the treatment of type III-V dislocations and had minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) were collected, including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Single Numeric Assessment Evaluation score, Short Form-12 Physical Component Summary, Quick Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand score, and patient satisfaction. Preoperative and postoperative coracoclavicular distance (CCD) was obtained. PROs and CCD were reported for the totare to after surgery in those who did not undergo revision surgery. Furthermore, subgroup analyses revealed that acute and chronic, and type III and type IV-V injuries benefitted similarly from AA-ACCR.
 
  Level IV; therapeutic case series.
 Level IV; therapeutic case series.
  To compare minimum 2-year follow-up patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) in patients who underwent primary acetabular circumferential and segmental labral reconstruction for irreparable labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).
 
  Data were reviewed from August 2010 to December 2017. Patients with primary labral reconstruction and minimum 2-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were included. Circumferential and segmental reconstruction were selected in each case based on the extent of the labral pathology. Exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip surgery/conditions, dysplasia, or Tönnis grade >1.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/ly333531.html  Patients were propensity matched 11 based on age, sex, and body mass index. Secondary surgeries were reported. The P value was set at <.05.
 
  In total, 144 hips were eligible, and 17 hips were lost to follow-up, leaving 127 hips (88.2%) r the mHHS, 55.3% and 55.0% for the HOS-SSS, and 75.6% and 71.1% for the International Hip Outcome Tool 12, respectively.
 
  At minimum 2-year follow-up, patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for either circumferential or segmental labral reconstruction for irreparable labra and FAIS reported significant improvement and similar postoperative scores for all PROs, with no difference in psychometric outcomes and rate of secondary surgeries. A customized approach, using the extent of the irreparable labral tear, seems to be an appropriate strategy.
 
  Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.
 Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.
  To verify whether lateral hinge fracture (LHF) affects correction accuracy in open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO) and to identify the fracture characteristics responsible for inaccurate correction, including LHF type and hinge location.
 
  Patients undergoing OWHTO with locking plate fixation between 2010 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who did not have a minimum 2-year of follow-up or postoperative long-standing hip-to-ankle radiographs were excluded. Correction accuracy was assessed using the weight-bearing line ratio 57% to 67%, planned correction; 50% to 70%, acceptable correction; otherwise, inappropriate correction. The association between LHF and correction accuracy was assessed using the χ
  test. To identify the fracture characteristics responsible for inaccurate correction, LHF type (stable type 1 and unstable types 2 and 3) and hinge location (shallow osteotomy, deep osteotomy, and occult complete osteotomy) were analyzed using ordinal logistic regression analysis, taking oth with occult complete osteotomy could lead to inaccurate correction.
 
  Level III, retrospective cohort study.
 Level III, retrospective cohort study.
  To evaluate long-term patient-reported outcomes and revision surgery after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with or without acromioplasty.
 
  Between 2007 and 2011, prospectively enrolled patients undergoing arthroscopic repair for full-thickness rotator cuff tears, with any acromial morphology, were randomized into either acromioplasty or nonacromioplasty groups. Patients with revision surgery, subscapularis involvement, advanced neurologic conditions, or death were excluded. Baseline and long-term follow-up questionnaires, including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, and Constant scores were obtained. Rates of symptomatic retear, revision rotator cuff surgery, or secondary reoperation were recorded. Averages with standard deviation were calculated, and t-tests were used to compare outcomes of interest between cohorts.
 
  In total, 69 of 90 patients (76.7%) were available at 92.4 months This randomized trial, with mean 7.5-year follow-up, found no difference in validated patient-reported outcomes, retear rate, or revision surgery rate between patients undergoing rotator cuff repair with or without acromioplasty.
 
  II, prospective randomized controlled trial.
 II, prospective randomized controlled trial.
  To (1) report on pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores for patients undergoing repeat revision surgery in short-term follow-up and (2) compare minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state achievement between primary, revision, and repeat revision hip arthroscopy cohorts.
 
  Data from consecutive patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy from January 2012 to February 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Hips that underwent 2 revision hip arthroscopic surgeries were identified and matched 13 to patients undergoing revision surgery and 13 to patients undergoing primary surgery by age, sex, and body mass index. Baseline demographic data, surgical indications, and hip-specific PROs were collected were obtained preoperatively and at minimum 1-year follow-up. MCID was calculated individually for each cohort.
 
  Twenty patients who underwent repeat revision were matched to 60 patients who underwent revision and 60 primary patients. Patients who underwent repeat revision achieved MCID on all investigated PROs at a similar rate to patients undergoing primary surgery (90.