Informed Decisions and Patient Outcomes: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Chronic Hip Pain
Phase: NA
Conditions: Clinical Decision Making, Nonarthritic Hip Disease
Sponsor: Ohio State University

Title: 
Informed Decisions and Patient Outcomes: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Chronic Hip 
Pain. 
 
NCT03519087 
 
Document dates: 
2017.11.06 
Approved by Institutional Review Board(IRB) 
2018.02.14 
IRB approved amendment to add qualitative interviews 
2018.03.30 
IRB approved amendment to add observational arm for laboratory testing and  
enrollment reasons 
2018.04.19 
IRB approved amendment to clarify that physicians will determine  
appropriateness for study if  
patients report history of lower extremity or spine injury 
2018.11.26 
IRB approved amendment to include additional details of content of  
interdisciplinary discussion 
2019.03.06 
IRB approved amendment to include patients with bilateral hip pain and add exit  
survey 
2019.04.14. 
IRB approved amendment to include retrospective chart review for intraarticular 
diagnosis 
 
 

IRB Protocol Number: 
IRB Initial Approval Date:  
 
2017H0340 
11/06/2017 
 
 
2 
Last Form Update: 04/3/2018 
Research Protocol:  
Informed Decisions and Patient Outcomes: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Chronic Hip Pain. 
I. 
Objectives  
 
Only 25% of patients with Non-Arthritic Hip Disease (NAHD) report acceptable outcomes two 
years after elective surgical treatment.1 Suboptimal outcomes may be explained in part by current 
gaps and inconsistencies in approaches to diagnosis and treatment. An in-depth examination of 
factors that influence patients’ treatment decisions and the associated outcomes is needed to 
inform a more rigorous decision-making process and to optimize NAHD patient outcomes. 
Physical examinations have been prescribed in the literature proposing evaluation components 
for young, active patients with hip disease2 and techniques for the adult hip.3 Jorgensen et al. also 
provided an evidence-based treatment algorithm for patients with NAHD that utilizes radiographic 
findings to support treatment decisions.4 No interdisciplinary evaluation approaches have yet to 
be described; decision-making should be a collaborative effort between patients and providers 
utilizing the best clinical evidence, interdisciplinary approaches, and patient values.  
 
This study aims to understand how interdisciplinary evaluations, as part of a shared decision-
making process, can harmonize efforts of multiple providers to optimize patient care by 
comprehensively addressing impairments contributing to disease or injury. Abnormal movement 
patterns are common to persons with NAHD both before and after surgical intervention.5–10 
Posture and movement training implemented by physical therapists has demonstrated 
preliminary effectiveness in reducing pain and improving function in patients with NAHD 
contemplating surgical intervention.11 Thus, physical therapists, who provide posture and 
movement training, can fill a critical gap in an interdisciplinary shared decision-making process 
involving patients with NAHD. We aim to develop and test an integrated, interdisciplinary shared 
decision-making process which includes physical therapists, physicians, and patients designed 
to identify patient impairments and facilitate treatment decisions to optimize outcomes. 
 
Our main hypothesis is that an interdisciplinary evaluation and subsequent treatment of 
patients with NAHD will improve patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction through a 
more informed, comprehensive decision-making process. The rationale that underlies the 
proposed research is that this interdisciplinary shared decision-making approach will standardize 
and better inform decision-making processes to optimize treatment selection and outcomes. To 
accomplish our objective, the main hypothesis will be tested by the following specific aims: 
 
1. Compare outcome expectations between patients, physicians, and physical therapists 
prior to treatment for NAHD. 
2. Identify the extent to which an interdisciplinary evaluation between a physical therapist 
and physician influences treatment decisions of persons presenting to a hip arthroscopy 
clinic for NAHD. 
3. Quantify the effect of PMT on patient-reported outcomes and biomechanics in persons 
with NAHD. 
4. Identify the extent to which PMT influences treatment decisions of persons with NAHD. 
 
The overall objective of this project is to yield empirical data that will inform an interdisciplinary 
shared decision-making model for the treatment of NAHD. This work will directly address the 
current gap in the clinical care and outcomes of patients with NAHD by informing the treatment 
decision-making process.  

IRB Protocol Number: 
IRB Initial Approval Date:  
 
2017H0340 
11/06/2017 
 
 
3 
Last Form Update: 04/3/2018 
 
II. 
Background and Rationale  
 
Outcomes after hip arthroscopy are suboptimal for the majority of individuals with non-
arthritic hip disease (NAHD). Hip arthroscopy is a treatment option growing in popularity with a 
5-fold increase in surgeries over the past decade.12 Hip arthroscopy has been shown to improve 
hip function in carefully selected patients with NAHD13,14; however, data from our laboratory15 and 
other investigators1,16 indicate that a majority of patients who undergo hip arthroscopy for chronic 
hip joint pain do not achieve optimal function.17 A recently published systematic review and meta-
analysis demonstrated that only 25% of patients achieve an optimal state of health an average of 
2.5 years post-operatively.1 A separate cohort of 595 patients who received hip arthroscopy 
demonstrated approximately a 40% failure rate 2 years post-operatively defined by conversion to 
total hip arthroplasty, revision, or less than a 10-point improvement on the non-arthritic hip score.5 
Collectively these data show that getting better is not the same as doing well; this discrepancy 
represents an opportunity to advance our treatment approach for individuals with NAHD. 
 
Persons with NAHD also often present with abnormal movement patterns, which persist 
after surgery and are associated with worse function. Preliminary data from our lab show 
patients two years post hip arthroscopy for NAHD with <70% self-reported hip functioning had 
reduced sagittal plane hip, knee, and ankle excursion during a step-down compared to those with 
>80% function. Furthermore, persons with NAHD have slower gait speed and cadence,8 
decreased external hip joint moments during gait,5,6 and reduced joint motion during gait7,8 and 
stairs.10 Persons with NAHD also demonstrate compensatory strategies that impact other joints: 
during sit to stand transfers, participants demonstrated reduced knee-joint contributions to their 
total support moment compared to controls and took longer to perform the task.9 
 
The decision-making process of patients who choose to undergo hip arthroscopy is 
currently unknown. The lack of information regarding suboptimal outcomes after hip arthroscopy 
and lack of evidence regarding non-operative treatment likely contributes to these decisions. Initial 
investigations demonstrate improved patient-reported hip function, overall health, and pain levels 
after non-operative treatment of NAHD.18–20 After 3 months of non-operative treatment, 44% of 
patients with NAHD reported satisfactory function and did not proceed to surgery.20 Feasibility 
data from a subsequent randomized controlled trial evaluating the effect of posture and movement 
training (PMT) indicated preliminary improvements in patient-reported hip function and hip 
kinematics.11 While these studies assessed effectiveness of PMT, they didn’t investigate how 
PMT can influence treatment decisions. We hypothesize that PMT can optimize outcomes and 
affect treatment decisions. 
 
The proposed trial will fill a critical gap in the literature by examining the process by which patients 
with NAHD select an intervention following (1) an interdisciplinary evaluation and (2) posture and 
movement training. The results of our research will allow us to explore contributing factors to the 
shared decision-making process with patients with NAHD and investigate long-term effects of 
interdisciplinary evaluation and treatment. These outcomes are expected to have an important 
positive impact on patient health by providing an evaluation and treatment protocol to 
maximize outcomes for patients with NAHD that may be extended to other similar patient 
populations. 
 
III. 
Procedures  
 
A. Sample   

IRB Protocol Number: 
IRB Initial Approval Date:  
 
2017H0340 
11/06/2017 
 
 
4 
Last Form Update: 04/3/2018 
Sample Size and Power Calculation:  
The main goal of this study is to evaluate changes in self-reported performance, biomechanics, 
and treatment decisions after interdisciplinary care. With a sample size of 96 persons randomized 
to receive an interdisciplinary evaluation, we estimate we will have 76 participants randomized to 
receive posture and movement training (Figure 1). Our primary endpoint is improvement of the 
Hip Outcome Score.21,22 With a sample size of 30 participants per group, we will have at least 
80% power to detect an effect size of 0.75 between the two groups at a significance level of 0.05 
based on a two-sample t-test. We have a 15-month recruitment period planned to ensure full 
recruitment. These data will be used to generate accurate sample size calculations for a larger 
randomized controlled trial which will consider longer follow-ups. 
 
Eligibility, Recruitment, and Retention:  
Eligible participants will be recruited from 
patients 
who 
present 
to 
the 
Hip 
Preservation Clinic at OSUWMC for an 
appointment 
with 
an 
orthopaedic 
physician. 
All new 
patients 
will 
be 
approached by research personnel for the 
informed consent process. Patients who 
elect to participate will then complete 
baseline 
surveys 
followed 
by 
their 
scheduled 
appointment 
with 
the 
orthopaedic physician. The physician will 
confirm or deny NAHD diagnosis26 and 
inclusion/exclusion criteria (Table 1) from 
his or her evaluation. Participants who 
have a confirmed diagnosis of NAHD and 
meet all inclusion and exclusion criteria will 
proceed with the study; participants who do 
not meet inclusion/exclusion criteria will be 
withdrawn from the study; baseline surveys will be maintained (with permission from the 
participant) for additional analyses to investigate expected treatment of patients presenting to the 
Hip Preservation Clinic. 
 
Demographic data will be collected on potential participants who refuse participation. Reason for 
refusal will also be collected. This data is important to collect to understand what patients are not 
interested in an interdisciplinary evaluation and/or treatment. Identifying to what patients and in 
what situations this protocol is applicable can inform application of this protocol to clinical practice. 
After reviewing the consent document for the trial, those who deny participation will be asked if 
their demographic information (age, gender, insurance) along with their reason of refusal can be 
recorded. A verbal script will be provided for this interaction. Information will only be recorded for 
those who verbally agree to have their demographics and refusal reason recorded. No identifiable 
information will be maintained on these participants. 
 
B. Research Design 
To accomplish the aims of this project, a randomized controlled trial will be conducted with two 
randomizations (Figure 1). 
Table 1. Inclusion / Exclusion Criteria 
Inclusion Criteria 
• Over 18 years old 
• NAHD diagnosis 
Exclusion Criteria 
• Osteoporosis or rheumatoid arthritis 
• Systemic health condition 
• Legal representative required for treatment decisions 
• Spine, hip, knee, or ankle surgery or major injury** 
• Pregnancy23 
• Total hip arthroplasty candidate (Tönnis grade > 2)24 
• Periacetabular osteotomy candidate (LCEA<20*, 
ACEA<18*, acetabular index >10)25 
** participants with current spine or lower extremity 
injury will be excluded from all aspects of the study; 
participants with history of spine or lower extremity 
injury will be evaluated by the physician to determine 
their appropriateness for evaluation (and treatment) 
by a physical therapist 

IRB Protocol Number: 
IRB Initial Approval Date:  
 
2017H0340 
11/06/2017 
 
 
5 
Last Form Update: 04/3/2018 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Aim 3 
Consent (N=640) 
Pt records planned treatment decision  
(Figure 3) 
MD records 
recommendation  
Withdrawn (N=544) 
85% do not meet 
inclusion/exclusion 
Randomization (N=96) 
PT evaluation 
(N=48) 
No PT evaluation 
(N=48) 
PT records 
recommendation
Interdisciplinary 
discussion
Interdisciplinary 
recommendation 
recorded 
MD & PT discuss 
interdisciplinary 
recommendation 
with participant 
Pt records planned treatment decision
Randomization (N=56) 
No PMT (N=28) 
PMT (N=28) 
Baseline Testing (N=76) 
Biomechanics & Patient-reported outcomes 
No-PMT 
(3wk wait period) 
PMT 2x/wk 
x3wks 
4-week follow-up testing (N=60) 
Biomechanics & Patient-reported outcomes 
 
Pt records planned treatment decision 
(No further treatment, surgery, injection, PMT) 
Figure 1. Participant Recruitment and Retention 
Pt= participant; MD = physician; PT= physical therapist 
20% attrition
MD evaluation 
800 New Patients to Hip Preservation Clinic 
20% decline 
participation 
(N=160)  
Aim 1 
Aim 2 
20% attrition 
Pt refuses 
randomization 
but agrees to 
testing (N=20) 
3wk observation 
period 
Withdrawn 
(N=20) 
Pt refuses to 
continue with 
testing 

IRB Protocol Number: 
IRB Initial Approval Date:  
 
2017H0340 
11/06/2017 
 
 
6 
Last Form Update: 04/3/2018 
All potential participants are presenting to the Hip Preservation Clinic for an evaluation from an 
orthopaedic physician; after the informed consent process, patients who elect to enroll will 
proceed with that evaluation. The physician’s evaluation will be standardized to include the 
components listed in Table 2; however, additional standard-care tests may be added at the 
physician’s professional discretion. After inclusion and exclusion criteria are confirmed by the 
physician, participants will be randomized to receive an additional same-day evaluation by a 
physical therapist.  
 
Physician-determined clinical diagnosis will be recorded from the electronic health record.  
 
A board-certified physical therapist will conduct a same-day evaluation of the participant in the 
Hip Preservation Clinic lasting approximately 10 minutes. The physical therapist will have access 
to the participant’s subjective information provided during his or her evaluation with the physician. 
The evaluation will be standardized to include the components listed in Table 3; however, 
additional standard-care tests may be added at the physical therapist’s professional discretion. 
 
The physical therapist and physician will develop a plan of care based on both of their 
recommendations for participants who were randomized to receive the interdisciplinary 
evaluation. Both clinicians will then discuss the interdisciplinary recommendation with the patient. 
 
All participants will record their planned treatment decision, confidence in that decision, and 
outcome expectations before and after their appointment.  
 
All participants will then be randomized to receive or not receive posture and movement training 
(PMT). Participants who refuse to be randomized will be asked if they’d like to participate in the 
laboratory testing, but proceed with their intervention of choice during the 3-week observation 
period. Participants who deny testing will be withdrawn from the study. Participants in the PMT 
group will receive PMT twice weekly for three weeks.  Participants in the no-PMT group will 
undergo a 3-week wait period. This time period is aligned with current clinical processes for 
surgical or injection intervention and does not disrupt clinical equipoise. All participants will 
complete testing before and after the 3-week intervention period. Furthermore, all participants will 
complete 3- and 6-month post-intervention follow-ups. Testing procedures are detailed in the next 
section. 
 
Table 2. Orthopaedic Physician Evaluation Components 
Subjective 
Mobility 
Movement 
Radiology 
• Pain history 
• Treatment history 
• Past medical and 
family history 
• Hip range of motion 
• Pain provocation 
tests for hip  
• Walking gait 
• XR alpha angles 
• XR center edge 
angles 
XR = x-ray (radiograph) 
Table 3. Physical Therapy Evaluation Components 
Posture 
 
Movement 
 
• Standing alignment 
• Seated alignment 
• 
• Walking gait 
• Sit-to-stand 
• Single leg squat 
• Single leg balance 
• 

IRB Protocol Number: 
IRB Initial Approval Date:  
 
2017H0340 
11/06/2017 
 
 
7 
Last Form Update: 04/3/2018 
 
 
C. Outcome Measures 
 
Research personnel obtaining informed consent, randomizing participants, and administering 
surveys will be located in the clinic during the trial. Personnel will conduct field notes (stored in 
REDCap) regarding study physician and physical therapist actions including, but not limited to, 
times when entering and leaving the evaluation room, time discussing with each other, and 
questions for research staff.  
 
 
Evaluation Day 
Baseline 
4-week  
3-month 
6-month 
-Demographics 
-Diagnosis  
-History of 
treatment (past 
PT programs, 
injection & 
medication 
history, past 
provider types) 
-Decision Conflict 
& Regret Scales 
-Planned 
treatment 
-Patient-reported 
function (HOS & 
iHOT-33) 
-Exit survey 
 
-Provider 
recommendations 
recorded in EHR 
and REDCap 
-Patient-reported 
function (HOS, 
iHOT-33 & 
PROMIS) 
-Movement 
biomechanics 
-Anthropometrics 
-Hip strength 
 
-Patient-reported 
function (HOS & 
iHOT-33) 
-Movement 
biomechanics 
-Anthropometrics 
-Hip strength 
-Decision Conflict 
& Regret Scales 
-Planned 
treatment 
 
-Patient-reported 
function (HOS, 
iHOT-33, & 
PROMIS) 
-Movement 
biomechanics 
-Anthropometrics 
-Hip strength 
-Decision Conflict 
& Regret Scales 
-Planned or 
completed 
treatment 
 
-Patient-reported 
function (HOS, 
iHOT-33, & 
PROMIS) 
-Movement 
biomechanics 
-Anthropometrics 
-Hip strength 
-Decision Conflict 
& Regret Scales 
-Planned or 
completed 
treatment 
 
PT = physical therapy; HOS = Hip Outcome Score; iHOT-33 = 33 item International Hip Outcome Tool; 
EHR = electronic health record; PROMIS = PROMIS Physical Function Scale 

IRB Protocol Number: 
IRB Initial Approval Date:  
 
2017H0340 
11/06/2017 
 
 
8 
Last Form Update: 04/3/2018 
All participants will record their planned treatment decision before their evaluation with the 
physician, after completing all evaluation(s), and after the 3-week intervention period. These 
data will be stored and managed in Research Electronic Database Capture (REDCapTM).27 
 
All participants will complete the Decision Conflict and anticipated Regret scales before their 
evaluation with the physician, after their evaluation(s), and after the 3-week intervention 
period.28,29 These data will be stored and managed in Research Electronic Database Capture 
(REDCapTM).27 
 
All participants will be e-mailed an exit survey using REDCap to collect feedback from participants 
regarding the mechanics of the study and their thoughts on the evaluation(s). 
 
All participants will complete a survey collecting demographic information, treatment history, and 
patient-reported functioning after their evaluation(s). Treatment history and patient-reported 
functioning will be recorded for all participants after the 3-week intervention period and at the 3- 
Which treatment(s) would you select at this point? 
   Injection 
   Surgery 
   Physical therapy (including posture/movement training) 
   Other: ________________ 
   None  
 
How confident are you that an injection would improve your symptoms? 
 
|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------| 
    Not confident      Somewhat       Moderately            Very 
          at all              confident          confident           confident 
 
How confident are you that surgery would improve your symptoms? 
 
|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------| 
    Not confident      Somewhat       Moderately            Very 
          at all              confident          confident           confident 
 
How confident are you that physical therapy would improve your symptoms? 
 
|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------| 
    Not confident      Somewhat       Moderately            Very 
          at all              confident          confident           confident 
 
How confident are you that no treatment would improve your symptoms? 
 
|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------| 
    Not confident      Somewhat       Moderately            Very 
          at all              confident          confident           confident 
 
How confident are you that __________ would improve your symptoms? 
 
|--------------------|--------------------|--------------------| 
    Not confident      Somewhat       Moderately            Very 
          at all              confident          confident           confident 
 
 
Figure 2. Treatment Decision Recording Form 

IRB Protocol Number: 
IRB Initial Approval Date:  
 
2017H0340 
11/06/2017 
 
 
9 
Last Form Update: 04/3/2018 
and 6-month follow-ups. The patient-reported functioning questions will include the Hip Outcome 
Score Activities of Daily Living (HOS),21,22 the 33-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-
33),30 and the PROMIS Physical Function scale. These data will be stored and managed in 
Research Electronic Database Capture (REDCapTM).27 
 
All participants will complete biomechanical and clinical testing in the Motion Analysis and 
Performance Laboratory at the Jameson Crane Sports Medicine Institute before and after the 3-
week intervention period and at the 3- and 6-month follow-ups. 
 
The 3-dimensional (3D) biomechanical testing uses surface mounted retroreflective markers and 
an 12-camera motion analysis system (Motion Analysis, Santa Rosa, CA) (240 Hz) to collect trunk 
and lower extremity joint motion (kinematics) during three (3) tasks: walking gait, sit-to-stand, and 
a forward tap-down. Kinetic data will be captured simultaneously and synced using 4 force 
platforms (Bertec, Worthington, OH) embedded in the floor to capture ground reaction forces 
(1200 Hz) from each limb during bilateral tasks.31,32 Markers will be secured with double-sided 
tape to the anatomical landmarks and broad surfaces of the lower extremities, pelvis, trunk, neck, 
arms, and hands in order to define segment position and track their motion relative to the proximal 
segment. Standing calibrations will be performed to create subject-specific models to determine 
segment pose and ankle and knee joint centers. Hip joint center trials will be used to calculate hip 
joint centers.33 
 
3D Motion Analysis Testing: 
1. Walking gait: at the participant’s self-selected speed (±5% within and between sessions) 
2. Sit-to-stand: from a standard chair height34 
3. Forward tap-down: 5-repetition step-down task from a 8-inch step35 
 
Study personnel will provide verbal instruction and demonstration of each task and participants 
will perform 2-5 repetitions to familiarize themselves with the tasks. Five trials of walking gait and 
sit-to-stand will be collected and post-processed. Two trials on each leg will be collected and post-
processed for the unilateral forward stepdown. Joint kinematics and external joint moments at the 
trunk, pelvis, hip, knee, and ankle will be derived using Euler angle calculations and inverse 
dynamics.36 
 
Clinical testing includes recording body mass index with height and weight measurements, and 
hip strength. Hip strength will be recorded by a licensed clinician or qualified study personnel 
using dynamometry. Participants will perform hip strength testing in a variety of positions to 
capture hip extension, flexion, abduction, and rotation strength. Participants will perform at least 
2 maximal voluntary isometric contractions on each leg.  
Data Storage: All data will stored securely in locked cabinets and on secure data servers. Use 
of these data is restricted to the specific aims of the study and approved study personnel.  
Qualitative Interviews: Qualitative interviews of 4 participants in each group (standard vs. 
interdisciplinary) for the evaluation will be conducted after completion of the evaluation. 
Qualitative interviews of 2 participants in each group (PMT vs no-PMT) for the treatment will be 
conducted at baseline and 4-week follow-up testing. Qualitative interviews of the 2 study 
surgeons will occur before subject recruitment and after closing of subject recruitment. 
Qualitative interviews of the study physical therapists participating in the interdisciplinary 
evaluation will occur before their participation in subject recruitment and after closing of subject 
recruitment. Qualitative interviews of two study physical therapists participating in the treatment 

IRB Protocol Number: 
IRB Initial Approval Date:  
 
2017H0340 
11/06/2017 
 
 
10 
Last Form Update: 04/3/2018 
protocol will occur before subject recruitment and after closing of subject recruitment. All 
qualitative interviews will be audio recorded for data analysis. Recordings will be labeled based 
on who completed the interview (participant, surgeon, physical therapist), what intervention the 
questions regarded (evaluation vs. treatment), and when the interview was conducted (before 
vs. after intervention).  
D. Data Analysis  
 
Aim 1: Intraclass correlation coefficients will be calculated to assess percent agreement between 
participants and providers for confidence in the selected treatment improving patient outcomes 
(P<0.05). 
 
Aim 2: Chi-square analyses will be used to assess for differences in treatment decisions between 
the group who receives the interdisciplinary evaluation and the group that does not (P<0.05). 
 
Aim 3: Two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) will be used to assess for group (no-PMT versus  
PMT) by time interactions in both 1) moments about the hip during walking, sit-to-stand, and a 
forward tap-down and 2) patient-reported hip function (iHOT-33, HOS, PROMIS)(P<0.05). Gait 
speed, sex, body mass index, duration of symptoms, or age may be used as covariates.  
 
Aim 4: Chi-square analyses will be used to assess for differences in treatment decisions between 
groups (no-PMT, PMT-improved, PMT-not improved) after the 3-week intervention time period 
(P<0.05). 
 
Data transformation will be used if data do not meet parametric assumptions. Standard data 
quality and data monitoring procedures will be used to minimize the data missing problem for the 
study. Potential missing data problems will also be addressed thorough sensitivity analysis. While 
mixed model analysis using all data can address missing data problems assuming data are 
missing at random, we will also conduct analyses using the complete data set to further confirm 
the hypothesis test/estimation is robust with similar conclusions. 
 
De-identified data will be shared with collaborators at Washington University in St. Louis for data 
analysis, results reporting, and manuscript preparation. Data will be shared via institution-based 
emails. External collaborators will not receive identifiable data, will not have access to identifiers 
(or the code key used to link identifiers with coded data set), and will not attempt to re-identify 
participants.  
 
E. Bibliography 
 
1.  
Levy DM, Kuhns BD, Chahal J, Philippon MJ, Kelly BT, Nho SJ. Hip arthroscopy 
outcomes with respect to patient acceptable symptomatic state and minimal clinically 
important difference. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(9):1877-1886. 
doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2016.05.014. 
2.  
Sierra R, Trousdale RT, Ganz R, Leunig M. Hip Disease in the Young , Active Patient : 
Evaluation and nonarthroplasty Surgical Options. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 16(12):689-
703. 
3.  
Martin H, Kelly B, Leunig M, et al. The Pattern and Technique in the Clinical Evaluation of 
the adult hip: the common physical examination tests of hip specialists. Arthroscopy. 

IRB Protocol Number: 
IRB Initial Approval Date:  
 
2017H0340 
11/06/2017 
 
 
11 
Last Form Update: 04/3/2018 
26(2):161-172. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2009.07.015. 
4.  
Jørgensen RW, Dippmann C, Dahl L, Stürup J. Treatment Algorithm for Patients with 
Non-arthritic Hip Pain , Suspect for an Intraarticular Pathology. Open Orthop J. 10:404-
411. doi:10.2174/1874325001610010404. 
5.  
Hunt MA, Gunether JR, Gilbart MK. Kinematic and kinetic differences during walking in 
patients with and without symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement. Clin Biomech. 
2013;28(5):519-523. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2013.05.002. 
6.  
Brisson N, Lamontagne M, Kennedy MJ, Beaulé PE. The effects of cam 
femoroacetabular impingement corrective surgery on lower-extremity gait biomechanics. 
Gait Posture. 2013;37(2):258-263. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.07.016. 
7.  
Diamond LE, Wrigley T V., Bennell KL, Hinman RS, O’Donnell J, Hodges PW. Hip joint 
biomechanics during gait in people with and without symptomatic femoroacetabular 
impingement. Gait Posture. 2016;43:198-203. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.09.023. 
8.  
Kennedy MJ, Lamontagne M, Beaulé PE. Femoroacetabular impingement alters hip and 
pelvic biomechanics during gait. Walking biomechanics of FAI. Gait Posture. 
2009;30(1):41-44. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2009.02.008. 
9.  
Samaan MA, Schwaiger BJ, Gallo MC, et al. Abnormal joint moment distributions and 
functional performance during sit-to-stand in femoroacetabular impingement patients. 
Pm&R. 9(6):563-570. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2016.10.002. 
10.  
Rylander J, Shu B, Favre J, Safran M, Andriacchi T. Functional testing provides unique 
insights into the pathomechanics of femoroacetabular impingement and an objective 
basis for evaluating treatment outcome. J Orthop Res. 2013;31(9):1461-1468. 
doi:10.1002/jor.22375. 
11.  
Harris-Hayes M, Czuppon S, Van Dillen LR, et al. Movement Pattern Training To Improve 
Function in People With Chronic Hip Joint Pain: A Feasibility Randomized Clinical Trial. J 
Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2016;46(6):1-48. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6279. 
12.  
Maradit Kremers H, Schilz SR, Van Houten HK, et al. Trends in Utilization and Outcomes 
of Hip Arthroscopy in the United States Between 2005 and 2013. J Arthroplasty. 2016:1-
6. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2016.09.004. 
13.  
Polesello GC, Lima FR, Guimaraes RP, Ricioli W, Queiroz MC. Arthroscopic treatment of 
femoroacetabular impingement: Minimum five-year follow-up. HIP Int. 2014;24(4):381-
386. doi:10.5301/hipint.5000135. 
14.  
Philippon MJ, Briggs KK, Yen Y-M, et al. Outcomes following hip arthroscopy for 
femoroacetabular impingement with associated chondrolabral dysfunction MINIMUM 
TWO-YEAR FOLLOW-UP. J Bone Jt Surg [Br]. 2009;91:16-23. doi:10.1302/0301-
620X.91B1. 
15.  
Joseph R, Pan X, Cenkus K, Brown L, Ellis T, Di Stasi S. Sex differences in self-reported 
hip function up to 2 years after arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement. 
Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):54-59. doi:10.1177/0363546515610535. 

IRB Protocol Number: 
IRB Initial Approval Date:  
 
2017H0340 
11/06/2017 
 
 
12 
Last Form Update: 04/3/2018 
16.  
Gupta A, Redmond JM, Stake CE, Dunne KF, Domb BG. Does Primary Hip Arthroscopy 
Result in Improved Clinical Outcomes?: 2-Year Clinical Follow-up on a Mixed Group of 
738 Consecutive Primary Hip Arthroscopies Performed at a High-Volume Referral 
Center. Am J Sports Med. 2016;44(1):74-82. doi:10.1177/0363546514562563. 
17.  
Kemp JL, Makdissi M, Schache  a G, Pritchard MG, Pollard TC, Crossley KM. Hip 
chondropathy at arthroscopy: prevalence and relationship to labral pathology, 
femoroacetabular impingement and patient-reported outcomes. Br J Sport Med. 
2014;48(14):1102-1107. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2013-093312. 
18.  
Wright AA, Hegedus EJ, Taylor JB, Dischiavi SL, Stubbs AJ. Non-operative management 
of femoroacetabular impingement: A prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial pilot 
study. J Sci Med Sport. 2016;19(9):716-721. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2015.11.008. 
19.  
Smeatham A, Powell R, Moore S, Chauhan R, Wilson M. Does treatment by a specialist 
physiotherapist change pain and function in young adults with symptoms from 
femoroacetabular impingement? A pilot project for a randomised controlled trial. 
Physiotherapy (United Kingdom). 2016. 
20.  
Hunt D, Prather H, Hayes MH, Clohisy JC. Clinical outcomes analysis of conservative 
and surgical treatment of patients with clinical indications of prearthritic, intra-articular hip 
disorders. Pm R. 2012;4(7):479-487. doi:10.1016/j.pmrj.2012.03.012.Clinical. 
21.  
Martin RL, Philippon MJ. Evidence of validity for the Hip Outcome Score in hip 
arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(8):822-826. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2007.02.004. 
22.  
Martin RL, Philippon MJ. Evidence of reliability and responsiveness for the Hip Outcome 
Score. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(6):676-682. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2007.12.011. 
23.  
Gill S V., Ogamba M, Lewis CL. Effects of additional anterior body mass on gait. BMC 
Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):109. doi:10.1186/s12884-016-0893-0. 
24.  
Chandrasekaran S, Darwish N, Gui C, Lodhia P, Suarez-Ahedo C, Domb B. Outcomes of 
hip arthroscopy in patients with Tönnis grade-2 osteoarthritis at a mean 2-year follow-up: 
evaluation using a matched-pair analysis with Tönnis grade-0 and grade-1 cohorts. J 
Bone Jt Surg Am. 98(12):973-982. doi:10.2106/JBJS.15.00644. 
25.  
Pascual-Garrido C, Harris MD, Clohisy JC. Innovations in Joint Preservation Procedures 
for the Dysplastic Hip “The Periacetabular Osteotomy.” J Arthroplasty. 2017. 
doi:10.1016/j.arth.2017.02.015. 
26.  
Griffin D, Dickenson E, O’Donnell J, et al. The Warwick Agreement on femoroacetabular 
impingement syndrome (FAI syndrome): an international consensus statement. Br J 
Sport Med. 2016;50(19):1169-1176. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2016-096743. 
27.  
Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic 
data capture (REDCap)-A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for 
providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377-
381. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. 
28.  
O’Connor  a M. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making. 
1994;15(1):25-30. doi:10.1177/0272989X9501500105. 

IRB Protocol Number: 
IRB Initial Approval Date:  
 
2017H0340 
11/06/2017 
 
 
13 
Last Form Update: 04/3/2018 
29.  
Brehaut JC, Connor AMO, Wood TJ, et al. Validation of a Decision Regret Scale. Med 
Decis Mak. 2003;23(4):281-292. doi:10.1177/0272989X03256005. 
30.  
Mohtadi NGH, Griffin DR, Pedersen ME, et al. The development and validation of a self-
administered quality-of-life outcome measure for young, active patients with symptomatic 
hip disease: The International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33). Arthrosc - J Arthrosc Relat 
Surg. 2012;28(5):595-610. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2012.03.013. 
31.  
Hewett TE, Myer GD, Ford KR, et al. Biomechanical measures of neuromuscular control 
and valgus loading of the knee predict anterior cruciate ligament injury risk in female 
athletes: A prospective study. Am J Sport Med. 2005;33(4):492-501. 
doi:10.1177/0363546504269591. 
32.  
Ford KR, Myer GD, Hewett TE. Reliability of Landing 3D Motion Analysis: Implications for 
Longitudinal Analyses. Med Scie Sport Exerc. 39(11):2021-2028. 
doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e318149332d. 
33.  
Bouffard V, Begon M, Champagne A, et al. Hip joint center localisation : A biomechanical 
application to hip arthroplasty population. World J Orthop. 2012;3(8):131-136. 
doi:10.5312/wjo.v3.i8.131. 
34.  
Eitzen I, Fernandes L, Nordsletten L, Snyder-Mackler L, Risberg MA. Weight-bearing 
asymmetries during Sit-To-Stand in patients with mild-to-moderate hip osteoarthritis. Gait 
Posture. 2014;39(2):683-688. doi:10.1016/j.gaitpost.2013.09.010. 
35.  
Lewis CL, Foch E, Luko MM, Loverro KL, Khuu A. Differences in lower extremity and 
trunk kinematics between single leg squat and step down tasks. PLoS One. 2015;10(5):1-
15. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0126258. 
36.  
Myer GD, Wordeman SC, Sugimoto D, et al. Consistency of clinical biomechanical 
measures between three different institutions: implications for multi-center biomechanical 
and epidemiological research. Int J Sport Phys Ther. 2014;9(3):289-301.