Aims. This study aimed to determine the minimal detectable change (MDC), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) under distribution- and anchor-based methods for the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) and range of movement (ROM) after open elbow arthrolysis (OEA). We also assessed the proportion of patients who achieved MCID and SCB; and identified the factors associated with achieving MCID. Methods. A cohort of 265 patients treated by OEA were included. The MEPI and ROM were evaluated at baseline and at two-year follow-up. Distribution-based MDC was calculated with confidence intervals (CIs) reflecting 80% (MDC 80), 90% (MDC 90), and 95% (MDC 95) certainty, and MCID with changes from baseline to follow-up. Anchor-based MCID (anchored to somewhat satisfied) and SCB (very satisfied) were calculated using a five-level Likert satisfaction scale. Multivariate logistic regression of factors affecting MCID achievement was performed. Results. The MDC increased substantially based on selected CIs (MDC 80, MDC 90, and MDC 95), ranging from 5.0 to 7.6 points for the MEPI, and from 8.2° to 12.5° for ROM. The MCID of the MEPI were 8.3 points under distribution-based and 12.2 points under anchor-based methods; distribution- and anchor-based MCID of ROM were 14.1° and 25.0°. The SCB of the MEPI and ROM were 17.3 points and 43.4°, respectively. The proportion of the patients who attained anchor-based MCID for the MEPI and ROM were 74.0% and 94.7%, respectively; furthermore, 64.2% and 86.8% attained SCB. Non-dominant arm (p = 0.022), higher preoperative MEPI rating (p < 0.001), and postoperative visual analogue scale pain score (p < 0.001) were independent predictors of not achieving MCID for the MEPI, while atraumatic causes (p = 0.040) and higher preoperative ROM (p = 0.005) were independent risk factors for ROM. Conclusion. In patients undergoing OEA, the MCID for the increased MEPI is 12.2 points and 25° increased ROM. The SCB is 17.3 points and 43.3°, respectively. Future studies using the MEPI and ROM to assess OEA outcomes should report not only statistical significance but also clinical importance. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):366–372

Aims. This study uses prospective registry data to compare early patient outcomes following arthroscopic repair or debridement of the acetabular labrum. Methods. Data on adult patients who underwent arthroscopic labral debridement or repair between 1 January 2012 and 31 July 2019 were extracted from the UK Non-Arthroplasty Hip Registry. Patients who underwent microfracture, osteophyte excision, or a concurrent extra-articular procedure were excluded. The EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) and International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12) questionnaires were collected preoperatively and at six and 12 months post-operatively. Due to concerns over differential questionnaire non-response between the two groups, a combination of random sampling, propensity score matching, and pooled multivariable linear regression models were employed to compare iHOT-12 improvement. Results. A total of 2,025 labral debridements (55%) and 1,659 labral repairs (45%) were identified. Both groups saw significant (p < 0.001) EQ-5D and iHOT-12 gain compared to preoperative scores at 12 months (iHOT-12 improvement: labral repair = +28.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 26.4 to 30.9), labral debridement = +24.7 (95% CI 22.5 to 27.0)), however there was no significant difference between procedures after multivariable modelling. Overall, 66% of cases achieved the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and 48% achieved substantial clinical benefit at 12 months. Conclusion. Both labral procedures were successful in significantly improving early functional outcome following hip arthroscopy, regardless of age or sex. Labral repair was associated with superior outcomes in univariable analysis, however there was no significant superiority demonstrated in the multivariable model. Level of evidence: III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(4):291–301

Aims

The primary objective of this registry-based study was to compare patient-reported outcomes of cementless and cemented medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) during the first postoperative year. The secondary objective was to assess one- and three-year implant survival of both fixation techniques.