Best Practices During Hip Arthroscopy: Aggregate Recommendations of High-Volume Surgeons

The Contribution of Soft Tissue and Bony Stabilizers to the Hip Suction Seal: A Systematic Review of Biomechanical Studies

BACKGROUND

Previous biomechanical studies have identified capsular closure, labral repair or reconstruction, and osteochondroplasty as important surgical interventions to improve hip stability.

PURPOSE

To investigate the outcome metrics used to quantify hip stability and assess and measure the relative contributions of the labrum, capsule, and bone to hip stability through a quantitative analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase databases were searched using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Included studies evaluated cadaveric hip biomechanics related to capsular, labral, and bony management during hip arthroscopy. Studies were assessed for distraction force and distance, fluid measures, and contact forces used to quantify the suction seal. Exclusion criteria included open surgery, arthroplasty, reorientation osteotomy, or traumatic dislocation.

RESULTS

A total of 33 biomechanical studies comprising 322 hips that evaluated 1 or more of the following were included: distraction force or distance (24 studies), fluid measures (10 studies), and contact forces (6 studies). Compared with a capsulotomy or capsulectomy, capsular repair or reconstruction demonstrated greater resistance to distraction (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.13; 95% CI, 0.46-1.80; P = .0009). Compared with a labral tear, a labral repair or reconstruction demonstrated less resistance to distraction (SMD, -0.67; 95% CI, -1.25 to -0.09; P = .02). Compared with a labral debridement, repair or reconstruction demonstrated greater resistance to distraction (SMD, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.26; P < .00001). No quantitative analysis was feasible from studies evaluating the effect of osseous resection due to the heterogeneity in methodology and outcome metrics assessed.

CONCLUSION

Most biomechanical evidence supports capsulotomy repair or reconstruction to improve hip distractive stability at the end of hip arthroscopic surgery. While the repair of a torn labrum does not improve distractive resistance, it is superior to labral debridement in most biomechanical studies.

Postoperative hip bracing reduces kinesiophobia in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy: a randomized-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Detailed postoperative rehabilitation protocols after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) are still a matter of debate. Adjunctive hip bracing represents a promising tool to improve early patients' mobilization. To present, the effect of hip brace therapy on postoperative functional outcomes and specific patient individual psychologic factors remains controversially discussed. Consequently, we aimed to report postoperative outcomes focusing on hip function, pain and kinesiophobia between braced and unbraced patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective, randomized-controlled trial was conducted, including patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAIS. After exclusion, a final study cohort of 36 patients in the intervention group (postoperative hip brace) and 36 patients in the control group (no hip brace) were compared for kinesiophobia (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia), pain (Visual analog scale) and joint function (International Hip Outcome Tool-12) within the first six postoperative months.

RESULTS

Hip arthroscopy significantly improved all patient-reported outcomes in both groups. Intergroup analysis revealed significantly lower levels of kinesiophobia in braced patients at 6-months follow up (30.7 vs. 34.1, p = 0.04) while not negatively affecting pain and joint function. No intra- and postoperative complications occurred within both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study could demonstrate that bracing after hip arthroscopy can positively influence kinesiophobia, while the brace did not negatively impact postoperative pain and quality of life. Thus, hip bracing could be a viable assistive therapy in the postoperative rehabilitation phase after hip arthroscopy.

Comparison of Pain Scores and Functional Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Hip Labral Repair and Concomitant Capsular Repair or Plication Versus No Closure

Background

The need for capsular closure during arthroscopic hip labral repair is debated.

Purpose

To compare pain and functional outcomes in patients undergoing arthroscopic hip labral repair with concomitant repair or plication of the capsule versus no closure.

Study Design

Cohort study.

Methods

Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing arthroscopic hip labral repair with concomitant repair or plication of the capsule versus no closure at up to 2 years postoperatively and with stratification by age and sex. Patients with lateral center-edge angle <20°, a history of instability, a history of prior arthroscopic surgery in the ipsilateral hip, or a history of labral debridement only were excluded. Subanalysis was performed between patients undergoing no capsular closure who were propensity score matched 1:1 with patients undergoing repair or plication based on age, sex, and preoperative Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS). We compared patients who underwent T-capsulotomy with concomitant capsular closure matched 1:5 with patients who underwent an interportal capsulotomy with concomitant capsular repair based on age, sex, and preoperative MHHS.

Results

Patients undergoing capsular closure (n = 1069), compared with the no-closure group (n = 230), were more often female (68.6% vs 53.0%, respectively; P < .001), were younger (36.4 ± 13.3 vs 47.9 ± 14.7 years; P < .001), and had superior MHHS scores at 2 years postoperatively (85.8 ± 14.5 vs 81.8 ± 18.4, respectively; P = .020). In the matched analysis, no difference was found in outcome measures between patients in the capsular closure group (n = 215) and the no-closure group (n = 215) at any follow-up timepoint. No significant difference was seen between the 2 closure techniques at any follow-up timepoint. Patients with closure of the capsule achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the 1-year MHHS at a similar rate as those without closure (MCID, 50.3% vs 44.9%, P = .288; PASS, 56.8% vs 51.1%, P = .287, respectively). Patients with T-capsulotomy achieved the MCID and the PASS for the 1-year MHHS at a similar rate compared with those with interportal capsulotomy (MCID, 50.1% vs 44.9%, P = .531; PASS, 65.7% vs 61.2%, P = .518, respectively).

Conclusion

When sex, age, and preoperative MHHS were controlled, capsular closure and no capsular closure after arthroscopic hip labral repair were associated with similar pain and functional outcomes for patients up to 2 years postoperatively.

Editorial Commentary: Capsule Repair Is Necessary at the Conclusion of Arthroscopy to Optimize Return to Full Activity

Hip capsulotomy and capsule repair have minimal effect on joint kinematics during activities of daily living. With low demands placed on the hip, the hip capsule may provide little to no role on hip stability or microinstability. But the majority, if not all, patients undergoing hip arthroscopy are not content with only resuming basic activities of daily living. Seeking to optimize the hip joint to its maximum capacity should be the goal. Capsule repair is necessary in most to achieve that goal.

Hip Capsulolabral Complex: Anatomy, Disease, MRI Features, and Postoperative Appearance

The hip is a uniquely constrained joint with critical static stability provided by the labrum, capsule and capsular ligaments, and ligamentum teres. The labrum is a fibrocartilaginous structure along the acetabular rim that encircles most of the femoral head. Labral tears are localized based on the clock-face method, which determines the extent of the tear while providing consistent terminology for reporting. Normal labral variants can mimic labral disease and can be differentiated by assessment of thickness or width, shape, borders, location, and associated abnormalities. The Lage and Czerny classification systems are currently the most well-known arthroscopic and imaging systems, respectively. Femoroacetabular impingement is a risk factor for development of labral tears and is classified according to bone dysmorphisms of the femur ("cam") or acetabulum ("pincer") or combinations of both (mixed). The capsule consists of longitudinal fibers reinforced by ligaments (iliofemoral, pubofemoral, ischiofemoral) and circular fibers. Capsular injuries occur secondary to hip dislocation or iatrogenically after capsulotomy. Capsular repair improves hip stability at the expense of capsular overtightening and inadvertent chondral injury. The ligamentum teres is situated between the acetabular notch and the fovea of the femoral head. Initially considered to be inconsequential, recent studies have recognized its role in hip rotational stability. Existing classification systems of ligamentum teres tears account for injury mechanism, arthroscopic findings, and treatment options. Injuries to the labrum, capsule, and ligamentum teres are implicated in symptoms of hip instability. The authors discuss the labrum, capsule, and ligamentum teres, highlighting their anatomy, pathologic conditions, MRI features, and postoperative appearance. ©RSNA, 2024 Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Return to Play After Femoroacetabular Impingement

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a pathomechanical process whereby abnormal contact between proximal femur and acetabulum at end range of hip motion induces chondrolabral lesions within the hip joint. Surgery followed by a rehabilitation program or physical therapy with possible addition of an intra-articular corticosteroid injection are the two predominant treatments. The majority of authors recognize that a well-designed rehabilitation protocol is essential to achieve good outcomes with both nonoperative and surgical treatment. However, there is little evidence about what is the best rehabilitation protocol and most of the literature available is based on expert level opinion. This current review investigates the recent literature on nonoperative and postoperative rehabilitation protocol and return to play in FAI patients and describes our approach.

RECENT FINDINGS

Historically, rehabilitation protocols for treatment of FAI as well as return to play protocols were based on experts' opinion and low-level evidence studies. In order to improve standardization of protocols and to allow a better comparison in between different protocols, different authors have created standardized rehabilitation protocols with consensus building methods comparing them with other treatment options in high-level evidence trials (FASHIoN trial, etc.). Despite the excellent results reported after nonoperative and post-surgical rehabilitation, and the high RTP rate after FAI treatment, there is a significant variability in between protocols. Further high-level evidence studies are necessary in order to establish a gold standard in rehabilitation and RTP protocols.

Benefits of a Postoperative Hip Orthosis After Routine Arthroscopy of the Hip: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

No consensus currently exists among orthopaedic surgeons regarding the benefits of hip orthosis after routine hip arthroscopy.

Purpose

To compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and reoperation rates between patients who were braced versus those who were not braced after routine hip arthroscopy.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted of 193 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, by 2 orthopedic surgeons at a single institution. Patients before July 1, 2019, were immobilized in a hip orthosis after hip arthroscopy (braced group; n = 101), whereas those after July 1, 2019, were not (nonbraced group; n = 92). Baseline PROMs (visual analog scale for pain, modified Harris Hip Score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey [VR-12] Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary) were obtained for all patients and were repeated postoperatively at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. The study groups were compared to evaluate differences in PROMs over time and 2-year postoperative reoperation rates. Group comparisons were also stratified by patient sex.

Results

There were no significant differences on any PROM between the braced and nonbraced cohorts at any timepoint. There were also no significant group differences in reoperation rates, with 8 braced patients (7.9%) undergoing reoperation and 1 nonbraced patient (2.3%) undergoing reoperation (P = .208). In the sex-stratified analyses, nonbraced male patients had significantly higher VAS pain and lower VR-12 Mental Component Summary scores at 6 months postoperatively compared with braced male patients (P = .043 and .026, respectively).

Conclusion

The study findings suggested that the use of an orthosis after routine hip arthroscopy for FAI does not improve patient-reported outcomes or negatively affect the 2-year reoperation rate. Postoperative bracing increases perioperative cost, and by foregoing routine bracing, patients may avoid the morbidity associated with wearing a brace for a prolonged period.

Elimination of a Postoperative Brace Does Not Increase Complications Following Hip Arthroscopy

Background The practice of routine postoperative bracing to limit abduction and internal rotation, along with weight-bearing restrictions after hip arthroscopy (HA), varies significantly among surgeons. It is unclear whether the use of a postoperative brace improves short-term outcomes in patients undergoing HA. The purpose of this study was to determine the differences in patient outcomes before and after eliminating routine usage of a postoperative brace. Methods A retrospective review was conducted of 176 adult patients undergoing HA by a single, high-volume surgeon. The no-brace protocol was implemented in October 2020. The patients were divided into two groups: pre-implementation (January-October 2020) and post-implementation (October 2020-April 2021). Twenty-three patients that used a brace during the post-implementation period were excluded. All patients had weight-bearing restrictions with crutches for three weeks postoperatively. The primary endpoint was any complication in the first six weeks postoperatively. Results There were no significant differences in demographics between groups, although the body mass index in the brace group was higher (28.1 vs. 26.4 kg/m², p = 0.066) and the rate of additional procedures performed was higher in the brace group (55.2% vs. 40.1%, p = 0.056). There was no significant difference in postoperative outcomes between groups when looking at 90-day emergency department visits (1.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.548), complications at two (1.7% vs. 1.7%, p = 1.000) and six weeks (0% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.341) postoperatively, all complications in the first six weeks (1.7% vs. 1.7%, p = 1.000), and continued pain at six weeks (10.3% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.238). Conclusion The brace and no-brace groups were similar demographically. Patients undergoing HA with no brace and crutches experienced no significant differences in pain or complications in comparison to those receiving a traditional bracing protocol. Routine use of a postoperative brace may not be necessary in this population.

Capsular closure versus unrepaired interportal capsulotomy after hip arthroscopy in patients with femoroacetabular impingement: results of a patient-blinded randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Hip capsular management after hip arthroscopy remains a topic of debate. Most available current literature is of poor quality and are retrospective or cohort studies. As of today, no clear consensus exists on capsular management after hip arthroscopy.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of routine capsular closure versus unrepaired capsulotomy after interportal capsulotomy measured with NRS pain and the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All eligible patients with femoroacetabular impingement who opt for hip arthroscopy (n = 116) were randomly assigned to one of both treatment groups and were operated by a single surgeon. Postoperative pain was measured with the NRS score weekly the first 12 weeks after surgery. The HAGOS questionnaire was measured at 12 and 52 weeks postoperatively.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics and operation details were comparable between treatment groups. Regarding the NRS pain no significant difference was found between groups at any point the first 12 weeks after surgery (p = 0.67). Both groups significantly improved after surgery (p < 0.001). After 3 months follow-up there were no differences between groups for the HAGOS questionnaire except for the domain sport (p = 0.02) in favour of the control group. After 12 months follow-up there were no differences between both treatment groups on all HAGOS domains (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this randomised controlled trial show highest possible evidence that there is no reason for routinely capsular closure after interportal capsulotomy at the end of hip arthroscopy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered at the CCMO Dutch Trial Register: NL55669.048.15.

Hip Arthroscopy With Fluoroscopy-Free Technique for the Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement

Hip arthroscopy is the predominant surgical procedure for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI). Usually, hip arthroscopy requires intraoperative fluoroscopic guidance for portal establishment, acetabuloplasty, suture anchor placement, and femoroplasty, which has disadvantages such as radiation exposure and prolonged operative time. This article presents a technique of hip arthroscopy without fluoroscopy throughout. By establishing portals through a semiopen hollow guide bar, "one-line trimming" for pincer deformity removal, modified distal anterolateral portal for anchor placement, "triangular abrasion" for cam deformity resection, and intraoperative dynamic examination to ensure adequate relief of impingement, we provide a safe and effective surgical procedure for hip arthroscopy to treat FAI without fluoroscopy.

Association of Cam Deformity on Anteroposterior Pelvic Radiographs and More Severe Chondral Damage in Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Abnormal proximal femoral morphology in femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) identifiable on the anteroposterior (AP) pelvic radiograph has been described as the "pistol grip" deformity. The effect of a superior cam deformity identified on this radiographic view remains unknown.

PURPOSES

To assess the relationship between AP cam deformity (AP alpha angle [AP AA] >55°) and cartilage injury; to assess the relationship between AP cam deformity and labral injury; and to determine if patient factors are correlated with cartilage and labral injury.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients undergoing osteochondroplasty and labral repair for FAIS with a single surgeon were identified retrospectively. Intraoperative size, location, and severity of cartilage and labral damage were prospectively collected. Chondrolabral and femoral/acetabular cartilage damage were graded with the Beck labral and cartilage injury criteria. Radiographic data included the AP AA, lateral center-edge angle (LCEA), and maximum femoral alpha angle (MF AA). Patients with hip dysplasia (LCEA <18°; LCEA 18°-25° with acetabular index >10°) were excluded. Outcomes were compared across cartilage and labral severity grades. We report odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals and P values from multivariable logistic regressions.

RESULTS

Of the 158 included hips (154 patients), 69% were female and the mean (± standard deviation [SD]) age was 30.3 ± 9.7 years. Increase in age, increase in body mass index (BMI), and male sex were associated with increasing severity of cartilage and labral injury. More severe cartilage damage was associated with increasing AP AA (P < .001) and MF AA (P < .001). The odds of developing a higher category of cartilage injury severity (grade ≥3) were 119% higher (OR, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.36-3.64]; P = .002) for every SD increase (16.7°) in AP AA, adjusting for age, sex, and BMI. The odds of developing a severe labral injury (grade ≥3) were 118% higher (OR, 2.18 [95% CI 1.17-4.32]; P = .018) for every SD increase (10.5°) in MF AA, adjusting for age, sex, BMI, and AP AA.

CONCLUSION

Increasing age and BMI, and male sex are associated with increasing severity of cartilage and labral injury in FAIS. The odds of developing a cartilage injury are significantly higher with independent increases in AP AA and MF AA.

Hip Arthroscopy Improves Outcomes With Moderate Conversion to Total Hip Arthroplasty Rates in Patients Aged 50 Years or Older: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the indications, outcomes, and complications of hip arthroscopy in individuals 50 years of age or older over the past 5 years.

METHODS

The electronic databases PUBMED, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched on March 3, 2022, for studies assessing the use of primary hip arthroscopy for patients aged 50 years or older from the past 5 years. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used to assess study quality. Data are presented descriptively.

RESULTS

Overall, 17 studies were included, consisting of 6,696 patients (37.5%) with a mean age of 61.4 ± 5.0 years and a median follow-up of 24 months (range: 1.4-70.1). Indications for hip arthroscopy in patients aged 50 years or older were unspecified/undefined (93.8%), mixed pathology (i.e., combined femoroacetabular impingement [FAI], labral tear, osteoarthritis, etc.) (2.7%), and FAI (2.6%). Eleven studies demonstrated significant improvement in functional outcome scores from baseline to final follow-up. Of the 6 studies that compared outcomes across multiple age groups, 3 demonstrated significantly worse functional outcomes, and 2 demonstrated significantly higher rates of conversion to THA for older patients compared to younger patients. Lastly, the overall complication rates ranged from 0 to 38.3%. The rate of conversion to THA ranged from 0 to 34.6%, occurring between 6 and 60 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Hip arthroscopy for patients aged 50 years or older yields significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes postoperatively compared to baseline, with a moderate rate of conversion to THA (range: 0 to 34.6%). Clinicians should consider patient history (e.g., imaging, comorbidities, etc.) and values when electing for hip arthroscopy in the older population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Routine Capsular Closure With Hip Arthroscopic Surgery Results in Superior Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In hip arthroscopic surgery, capsulotomy is performed to improve visualization and allow instrumentation of the joint. Traditionally, the defect has been left unrepaired; however, increasing evidence suggests that this may contribute to persistent pain and iatrogenic capsular instability. Nevertheless, the clinical benefit of performing routine capsular repair remains controversial.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of routine capsular closure on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), hypothesizing that superior PROs would be observed with routine capsular closure.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis and systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The terms "hip,""arthroscopy,""capsule,""capsular,""repair," and "closure" were used to query Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), SPORTDiscus, and PubMed. Articles with PROs stratified by capsular management were included. Multivariate mixed-effects metaregression models were implemented with study-level random-effects and fixed-effects moderators for capsular closure versus no repair and after controlling for surgical indication and preoperative PROs. The effect of repair on both the postoperative score and the change in scores was evaluated via the Harris Hip Score (HHS)/modified HHS (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living (ADL), and HOS-Sport Specific Subscale (SSS), with a supplemental analysis of additional outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 432 initial articles, 36 were eligible for analysis, with results for 5132 hip arthroscopic procedures. The capsule was repaired in 3427 arthroscopic procedures and unrepaired in 1705. Capsular repair was associated with significantly higher postoperative HHS/mHHS (2.011; SE, 0.743 [95% CI, 0.554-3.467]; P = .007), HOS-ADL (3.635; SE, 0.873 [95% CI, 1.923-5.346]; P < .001), and HOS-SSS (4.137; SE, 1.205 [95% CI, 1.775-6.499]; P < .001) scores as well as significantly superior improvement on the HHS/mHHS (2.571; SE, 0.878 [95% CI, 0.849-4.292]; P = .003), HOS-ADL (3.315; SE, 1.131 [95% CI, 1.099-5.531]; P = .003), and HOS-SSS (3.605; SE, 1.689 [95% CI, 0.295-6.915]; P = .033).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis is the largest to date evaluating the effect of capsular closure on PROs and demonstrates significantly higher mean postoperative scores and significantly superior improvement with repair, while controlling for the effects of preoperative score and surgical indication. The true magnitude of the benefit of capsular repair may be clarified by large prospective randomized studies using PRO measures specifically targeted and validated for hip arthroscopic surgery/preservation.

Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement-Associated Labral Tears: Current Status and Future Prospects

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) has emerged as a common cause of hip pain, especially in young patients. While the exact cause of FAI is unknown, it is thought to result from repetitive microtrauma to the proximal femoral epiphysis leading to abnormal biomechanics. Patients typically present with groin pain that is exacerbated by hip flexion and internal rotation. Diagnosis of FAI is made through careful consideration of patient presentation as well as physical exam and diagnostic imaging. Use of radiographs can help diagnose both cam and pincer lesions, while the use of MRI can diagnose labral tears and cartilage damage associated with FAI. Both non-operative and surgical options have their role in the treatment of FAI and its associated labral tears; however, hip arthroscopy has had successful outcomes when compared with physical therapy alone. Unfortunately, chondral lesions associated with FAI have had poorer outcomes with a higher conversion rate to arthroplasty. Capsular closure following hip arthroscopy has shown superior clinical outcomes and therefore should be performed if possible. More recently, primary labral reconstruction has emerged in the literature as a good option for irreparable labral tears. While non-operative management may have its role in treating patients with FAI, hip arthroscopy has developed a successful track record in being able to treat cam and pincer lesions, chondral damage, and labral injuries.

Favorable Outcomes of Revision Hip Arthroscopy Irrespective of Whether Index Surgery was Performed by the Same Surgeon or a Different Surgeon

The purpose of this study was to compare minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) after revision hip arthroscopy between two different patient cohorts who had undergone primary hip arthroscopy with the same surgeon (SS) and a different surgeon (DS). We hypothesized no difference in clinical outcomes between the groups despite differences in intraoperative findings based on the surgical decision making in a revision setting at a high-volume center.

Hip Labral Reconstruction: Techniques and Outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With increased understanding of the biomechanical function of the acetabular labrum, more attention has been directed towards surgical techniques that preserve or restore normal joint anatomy. While labral repair has been shown to produce superior outcomes to labral debridement, repair is not always possible in the setting of severe labral intrasubstance tearing or deficiency. These patients were previously left without suitable arthroscopic treatment options.

RECENT FINDINGS

Labral reconstruction is an emerging procedure that has been shown to offer promising outcomes for traditionally difficult-to-treat hip pathology. Short- and mid-term follow-up studies have consistently demonstrated significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes, function, and patient satisfaction postoperatively, often despite less favorable preoperative characteristics. Labral reconstruction is a viable arthroscopic treatment option that has been shown to reliably produce clinically meaningful results in patients with severe labral pathology that is not amenable to repair/refixation or augmentation.

Capsular Repair May Improve Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review of Comparative Outcome Studies

PURPOSE

To review the existing literature in order to determine the effect of hip capsule repair on outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.

METHODS

This study used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to find articles by using PubMed and Embase. Included studies were Level I through III studies that focused on patient outcomes as a function of hip capsular treatments: capsulotomy repair, partial repair, plication, and unrepaired capsulotomies. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies was used for quality assessment of clinical outcome studies. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 16 comparative outcome studies evaluating 2,996 hips were included; they evaluated the following capsular management techniques: complete repair (n = 1,112, 37.1%), partial repair (n = 32, 1.1%), plication (n = 223, 7.4%), and unrepaired capsulotomy (n = 1629, 54.4%).

RESULTS

Of the 16 studies, 13 included patient-reported outcome scores (PROs), 3 included imaging outcomes data, and 2 reported on reoperation. Of the studies, 10 directly compared patient-reported outcomes between a capsular repair group and an unrepaired group. Of the 10 studies that directly compared PROs between a group with unrepaired capsulotomy and a group with capsular repair, 8 studies demonstrated statistically significantly better PROs in the repaired group compared to the unrepaired group, and 2 studies found no difference between the groups. Reoperation rates demonstrated mixed results between groups, and no difference was found in regard to imaging outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Midterm outcome studies suggest that capsular repair is safe and effective in patients without arthritis who are undergoing hip arthroscopy, and it may result in superior PROs compared with those found after unrepaired capsulotomy. Studies consistently demonstrate similar or superior outcomes in cohorts after capsular repair compared to unrepaired capsulotomy, and no studies reported superior results in unrepaired capsulotomy patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I through Level III studies.

Capsular Healing in Interportal and Periportal Capsulotomy Methods of Hip Arthroscopy

Objective

To evaluate the midterm outcomes and the capsular healing in patients who had interportal capsulotomy versus periportal capsulotomy of hip arthroscopy.

Methods

Retrospectively reviewed 33 patients with labral tear received hip arthroscopy, with an average age of 41 (27‐67) years, including 13 cases of Cam deformity and three cases of Pincer deformity. All patients had positive sign of flexion adduction internal rotation or flexion abduction external rotation. With MRI and radiographic (CT, X plain) imageological examination. MRI showed that all patients had labral tear. Radiographic finding (CT, X plain) showed the pathological changes of acetabular and femoral neck osteophyte. One group with 23 patients were treated with periportal capsulotomy. Another group with 10 patients were treated with interportal capsulotomy. All patients did not close the capsule. Clinical outcomes were measured with the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living (HOS‐ADL) and the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), patient satisfaction measured with visual analogue scale (VAS). The healing of the capsule was evaluated by MRI. MRI showed continuous capsular indicated healing, discontinuous capsular indicated unhealing. Postoperatively 6 months, mHHS and HOS‐ADL were obtained. Randomized controlled trials were used in this study for analysis.

Results

All patients were followed up with average time of 9.3 months(3‐29 months). The postoperative symptoms were obviously relieved, the VAS decreased from (4.9 ± 0.6) to (1.2 ± 0.2) after 3 months postoperative. Follow up 6 months post‐operation, patients in the interportal group, the mHHS and HOS‐ADL scores improvement were respectively 69.4 ± 9.3 & 70 ± 8.8 pre‐operation, and 92.5 ± 5.0 & 86.6 ± 5.4 post‐operation (P < 0.05); Patients in the periportal group, the mHHS and HOS‐ADL scores improvement were respectively 69.9 ± 15.8, 68.1 ± 15.0 pre‐operation, and 90.1 ± 9.3 & 86.7 ± 7.9 post‐operation (P < 0.05).The differences were statistically significant. Six months after operation, MRI showed that 23 patients with periportal capsulotomy, the capsule have healed, without other complications. Three of the ten patients with interportal capsulotomy were healed and seven were not.

Conclusion

Interportal and periportal capsulotomy had good outcomes. The technique of periportal capsulotomy had little damage to the joint capsule. Although the capsule did not close, the capsule healed well in postoperative follow‐up. The nonunion rate of the joint capsule was high in the interportal capsulotomy without close the capsule.

Hip Capsular Management in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement or Microinstability: A Systematic Review of Biomechanical Studies

PURPOSE

To investigate the correlation between hip capsular management (repair or reconstruction) and biomechanical results in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement and microinstability.

METHODS

A search of the PubMed and Embase databases was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Included studies focused on hip biomechanics related to capsular release, repair of I- and T-capsulotomy, or capsular reconstruction. Studies were assessed for external/internal rotation of the femur, femoral head translation, rotational torque, and distraction force. Articles were excluded if they discussed treatment of the hip capsule related to surgical dislocation, mini-open surgery, arthroplasty, reorientation osteotomy, or traumatic dislocation.

RESULTS

Twenty-four biomechanical studies were included that evaluated rotation/translation (11 studies), distraction (3 studies), the capsular role in microinstability (simulated with anterior capsule pie crusting [2 studies] and cyclical loading [2 studies]), allograft reconstruction (3 studies), and anatomic properties (3 studies). Repair and reconstruction demonstrated improvements in maximum distractive force, total ROM, and torsional stability when compared to capsular release. Significant differences were observed between capsular repair and release in total ROM in the coronal plane with improved stability in the repair groups (standardized mean difference [SMD]: -1.3°, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.68 , -0.854; P < .001). There was significantly increased total motion in the coronal plane in the capsular laxity state compared to the native state (SMD: 1.4° (95% CI 0.32, 2.49; P = .012).

CONCLUSIONS

Biomechanical evidence supports closure of the capsule after hip arthroscopy to reverse the significant effects of capsulotomy. Simulated capsule laxity models created altered joint motion and translation. Capsule reconstruction appears to restore the hip to its native capsule state.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Investigating the biomechanical outcomes of capsular repair and reconstruction will help surgeons better understand the rationale and implications of these capsular management strategies.

Consensus-based classification system for intra-operative management of labral tears during hip arthroscopy-aggregate recommendations from high-volume hip preservation surgeons

The purpose of this study was to survey high-volume hip preservation surgeons regarding their perspectives on intra-operative management of labral tears to improve decision-making and produce an effective classification system. A cross-sectional survey of high-volume hip preservation surgeons was conducted in person and anonymously, using a questionnaire that is repeated for indications of labral debridement, repair and reconstruction given the torn labra are stable, unstable, viable or non-viable. Twenty-six high-volume arthroscopic hip surgeons participated in this survey. Provided the labrum was viable (torn tissue that is likely to heal) and stable, labral debridement would be performed by 76.92% of respondents for patients >40 years of age and by >84% of respondents for stable intra-substance labral tears in patients without dysplasia. If the labrum was viable but unstable, labral repair would be performed by >80% of respondents for patients ≤40 years of age and > 80% of respondents if the labral size was >3 mm and located anteriorly. Presence of calcified labra or the Os acetabuli mattered while deciding whether to repair a labrum. In non-viable (torn tissue that is unlikely to heal) and unstable labra, labral reconstruction would be performed by 84.62% of respondents if labral size was <3 mm. The majority of respondents would reconstruct calcified and non-viable, unstable labra that no longer maintained a suction seal. Surgeons performing arthroscopic hip labral treatment may utilize this comprehensive classification system, which takes into consideration patient age, labral characteristics (viability and stability) and bony morphology of the hip joint. When choosing between labral debridement, repair or reconstruction, consensus recommendations from high-volume hip preservation surgeons can enhance decision-making.

Does Capsular Closure Affect Clinical Outcomes in Hip Arthroscopy? A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Background:

There is increasing concern of iatrogenic hip instability after capsulotomy during surgery. Greater emphasis is now being placed on capsular closure during surgery. There are no prospective studies that address whether capsular closure has any effect on outcomes.

Purpose/Hypothesis:

The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient outcomes after interportal capsulotomy repair compared with no repair. We hypothesized that restoration of normal capsular anatomy with interportal repair will achieve clinical outcomes similar to those for no repair.

Study Design:

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods:

Adult patients with femoral acetabular impingement indicated for hip arthroscopy were randomized into either the capsular repair (CR) or the no repair (NR) groups. All patients underwent standard hip arthroscopy with labral repair with or without CAM/pincer lesion resection. Clinical outcomes were measured via the Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) subscale, Hip Outcome Score–Sport Specific (HOS-SS) subscale, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), visual analog scale for pain, International Hip Outcome Tool, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12).

Results:

A total of 54 patients (56 hips) were included (26 men and 30 women) with a mean age of 33 years. The HOS-ADL score significantly improved at 2 years in both the NR group (from 68.1 ± 20.5 to 88.6 ± 20.0; P < .001) and the CR group (from 59.2 ± 18.8 to 91.7 ± 12.3; P < .001). The HOS-SS score also significantly improved in both the NR group (from 41.1 ± 25.8 to 84.1 ± 21.9; P < .001) and the CR group (from 32.7 ± 23.7 to 77.7 ± 23.0; P < .001). Improvement was noted for all secondary outcome measures; however, there was no significant difference between the groups at any time point. Between 1 and 2 years, the NR group showed significant worsening on the HOS-ADL (–1.21 ± 5.09 vs 4.28 ± 7.91; P = .044), mHHS (1.08 ± 10.04 vs 10.12 ± 11.76; P = .042), and VR-12 Physical (–2.15 ± 5.52 vs 4.49 ± 7.30; P = .014) subsets compared with the CR group.

Conclusion:

There was significant improvement in the VR-12 Physical subscale at 2 years postoperatively in the capsular CR group compared with the NR group. Capsular closure appears to have no detrimental effect on functional outcome scores after hip arthroscopy. We recommend restoration of native anatomy if possible when performing hip arthroscopy.

Capsular management in the arthroscopic treatment of the femoro-acetabular impingement in athletes: our experience

Background and aim of the work:

In the last decade, thanks to the improvement of the surgical techniques, arthroscopic treatment of hip diseases has significantly spread and evolved and currently it represents the gold standard for the treatment of femoral-acetabular impingement. In the recent years, the function of the joint capsule (and therefore the results of an arthroscopic capsulotomy) has been better understood, opening a heated debate. The Literature is still torn about a proper capsular management and the need for a capsular suture, but latest studies are more oriented to its execution at the end of the surgical procedure. According to these recent studies, the joint capsule performs an essential function on primary stability, so a conservative capsulotomy and its final closure are therefore reccomended to restore the native anatomy and physiology. Although capsular management remains a controversial topic, in recent years we have developed a new conservative capsulotomy technique associated with a final capsular suture. The aim of the present retrospective study is to assess the influence of different capsulotomy techniques and a possible capsular suture role on the patient’s functional outcome in a cohort of patients with femoral-acetabular impingement arthroscopically treated.

Hypothesis:

Our hypothesis is that a conservative “longitudinal” capsulotomy with a proper capsular suture positively influences the patient’s functional outcome in athletes.

Methods:

36 patients (competitive athletes) treated with hip arthroscopy for femoral-acetabular impingement have been retrospectively enrolled at the Orthopaedic Clinic of Academic Hospital of Udine during a period of two years (2016-2018); collected data have been analyzed and compared with a retrospective model. Patients have been divided into three equivalent groups, 12 without a suitable capsular management (T-Capsulotomy technique), 12 performing a Longitudinal Capsulotomy but without a final suture and 12 treated with a conservative Longitudinal Capsulotomy and a capsular suture. Patient’s post-operative functional outcome has been analysed using the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Hip Outcome Score-Activity of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and the Hip Outcome Score-Sport Scale (HOS-SS). Return to sport.

Results:

In our series there was no statistically significant difference in functional scores, however longitudinal capsulotomy seems to be associated with a higher percentage of return to sports activity (91,6% vs 75%).

Conclusions:

The new longitudinal shape capsulotomy technique and a capsular suture with a single side-to-side stitch at the end of the procedure in athletes can positively influence the patient’s functional outcome. (www.actabiomedica.it)

Portal enlargement in hip arthroscopy preserving the iliofemoral ligament: a novel access technique protecting soft tissue restraints

Capsulotomy in different modalities has been used to provide adequate exposure to access both the central and peripheral compartment in hip arthroscopy. Even though the hip joint has inherent bony stability, soft tissue restraints may be important in patients with ligaments hyperlaxity or in some cases with diminished bony stability. Biomechanical studies and clinical outcomes have shown the relevant role of the capsule in hip stability, mainly the role of the iliofemoral ligament. Although is not very common, iatrogenic post-arthroscopy subluxation and dislocation have been reported and many surgeons are concerned about the role aggressive capsulotomy or capsulectomy in this situation, thus capsule repair has become very popular. We present a novel technique to access the hip without cutting the iliofemoral ligament. With this technique we can obtain adequate arthroscopic access to the hip joint in order to treat adequately the central compartment pathologies reducing the risk of iatrogenic post-operative hip instability.

A Biomechanical Comparison of 2 Hip Capsular Reconstruction Techniques: Iliotibial Band Autograft Versus Achilles Tendon Allograft

BACKGROUND

Several techniques for hip capsular reconstruction have been described to address gross instability or microinstability due to capsular deficiency. However, objective biomechanical data to support their use are lacking.

PURPOSE

To compare the kinematic effect of 2 capsular reconstruction techniques (iliotibial band [ITB] graft and Achilles tendon graft). Kinematic effect encompassed rotational range of motion (ROM) as well as joint translation in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

8 paired, fresh-frozen hemi-pelvises (16 hips) were tested on a custom-designed joint motion simulator in the intact state and after capsulectomy. Pairs were randomly allocated to either ITB or Achilles reconstruction and retested. Testing was performed at 0°, 45°, and 90° of flexion. Internal-external rotation (IR-ER) torques and abduction-adduction torques of 3 N·m were applied to the femur via a load cell at each position, and rotational ROM and joint translation in the coronal, sagittal, and axial planes were recorded.

RESULTS

At 45° and 90°, there was a significant effect of the condition of the hip on the total IR-ER (P = .004, effect size [ES] = 0.305; and P < .001, ES = 0.497; respectively). At 45°, mean ± SD total rotation was significantly greater for the capsulectomy (59.7°± 15.9°) state compared with intact (53.3°± 13.2°; P = .007). At 90°, reconstruction significantly decreased total rotation to 49.0°± 18.9° compared with a mean total rotation of 52.8°± 18.7° after capsulectomy (P = .02). No difference was seen in the total abduction-adduction of the hip between conditions. Comparisons of the 2 different reconstruction techniques showed no significant differences in total IR-ER or abduction-adduction ROM or joint translation in the coronal, sagittal, or axial planes. For translation, at both 0° and 45° there was a statistically significant effect of the condition on the medial-lateral translation (P = .033; ES = 0.204). Reconstruction, independent of technique, was successful in significantly decreasing (P = .030; P = .014) the mean medial-lateral translation at 0° and 45° of hip flexion from 5.2 ± 3.8 mm and 5.6 ± 4.0 mm to 2.8 ± 1.9 mm and 3.9 ± 3.2 mm, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The integrity of the native hip capsule played a significant role in rotational stability, where capsulectomy significantly increased rotational ROM. Both ITB and Achilles reconstruction techniques restored normal rotational ROM of the hip at 90° of flexion as well as coronal plane stability at 0° and 45° of hip flexion. No differences were seen between ITB and Achilles reconstruction techniques.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Both capsular reconstruction techniques provide comparable joint kinematics, restoring rotation and translation to normal values with the exception of rotational ROM at 45°, which remained significantly greater than the intact state. The most significant results were the rotational stability at 90° of hip flexion and coronal plane stability at 0° and 45° of hip flexion, which were significantly improved compared with the capsulectomy state.

How has arthroscopic management of the iliopsoas evolved, and why? A survey of high-volume arthroscopic hip surgeons

The rapid growth of hip preservation has left surgeons following trends based on limited, or even anecdotal, evidence in certain circumstances. A consensus as well as high-level research on how best to manage the iliopsoas is lacking. Arthroscopic treatment of the iliopsoas may be an example of how treatment patterns and trends can shift with limited evidence-based medicine. A cross-sectional survey of 16 high-volume hip preservation surgeons was conducted to gather perspectives and opinions on how and why the arthroscopic management of the iliopsoas has evolved. All participants completed the survey in person and anonymously. Of the surveyed surgeons, the mean career hip preservation volume was 1031.25 cases (250 to >3000) with an average annual volume of 162.08 cases (75–400). Of the surveyed surgeons’ caseload, 16.1% involved an iliopsoas tenotomy or fractional lengthening mostly commonly (75%) for recalcitrant internal snapping. Labral repair/reconstruction is performed concomitantly 87.5% of the time. Seventy-five percent of surgeons indicated a decrease in frequency of iliopsoas tenotomy over the course of their practice most commonly (56.3%) because of hip flexion weakness; however, 0% of the surgeons could cite literature evidence to support their practices. Perceived poor outcomes in individual practices was the most common (56.3%) source of this complication. Surgeons were less inclined to perform tenotomy on patients with borderline dysplasia (75%) or ligamentous laxity (56.3%).

Capsular closure after hip arthroscopy: our experience

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK

In the last decade, arthroscopic treatment of hip diseases has significantly spread and evolved and currently it represents the gold standard for the treatment of femoral- acetabular impingement. In the recent years, the function of the joint capsule (and therefore the results of an arthroscopic capsulotomy) has been hugely developed, opening a heated debate. The Literature is still torn about the need for a capsular suture, but more recent studies are more oriented in its execution at the end of the surgical procedure. According to these recent studies, the joint capsule performs an essential function of primary stability, and its closure is therefore necessary to restore the native anatomy and physiology. Nevertheless, capsular management remains a controversial topic. This is a retrospective study with the aim of assessing the influence of capsular suture on the patient's functional outcome in a cohort of patients with femoral-acetabular impingement arthroscopically treated.

HYPOTHESIS

Our hypothesis is that an adequate capsular suture positively influences the patient's functional outcome.

METHODS AND RESULTS

50 patients treated with hip arthroscopy for femoral-acetabular impingement have been retrospectively enrolled at the Orthopaedic Clinic of Academic Hospital of Udine during a period of two-years (2017-2018); collected data have been analysed and compared with a retrospective model. Patients have been divided into two equivalent groups, 25 treated with capsular suture, 25 without performing the suture. Patient's post-operative functional outcome has been analysed using the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS) and the Hip Outcome Score-Sport Scale (HOS-SS). The functional outcome in patients where capsular sutures were performed was better than in non-sutured patients, in all three analysed scales.

CONCLUSIONS

Capsular suture with a single side-to-side stitch at the end of the procedure can positively influence the patient's functional outcome.

There Is Limited and Inconsistent Reporting of Postoperative Rehabilitation for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Scoping Review of 169 Studies

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the reporting of rehabilitation guidelines in studies of postoperative outcomes of patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome and/or labral tear.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

LITERATURE SEARCH

A computer-assisted literature search was conducted of the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Embase databases on June 17, 2018. Using key words related to FAI syndrome/labral tear and both open and arthroscopic surgical outcomes, we identified 169 studies that included 16 675 patients. Separate authors calculated and verified the prevalence of reported outcomes.

STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

We included intervention and observational studies that were prospective or retrospective in design. Studies must have included patients with a primary diagnosis of FAI syndrome and/or labral tear.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We calculated the mean ± SD prevalence for continuous variables, where possible.

RESULTS

Hip arthroscopy was the primary surgical procedure (76% of studies). The mean ± SD age of participants was 34.8 ± 9.2 years and the mean ± SD follow-up time was 27 ± 15.3 months. Of the 169 included studies, 74 (44%) discussed phases of rehabilitation, 49 (29%) reported details on goals between phases, 1 in 3 described details on rehabilitation progression, and fewer than 1 in 10 reported sufficient detail to replicate the rehabilitation protocol. Weight-bearing and range-of-motion restrictions were poorly reported and variable in duration.

CONCLUSION

Surgical outcome studies do not provide sufficient detail or consistency for practicing clinicians to replicate a postoperative rehabilitation protocol for patients with FAI syndrome/labral tear. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(5):252-258. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.9189.

Biomechanical Response to Distraction of Hip Capsular Reconstruction With Human Acellular Dermal Patch Graft

PURPOSE

To quantify the biomechanical properties of the hip capsule with human dermal allograft reconstruction to determine whether a dermal patch restored capsular resistance to distraction.

METHODS

Nine cadaveric hip specimens were dissected until capsule and bony structures remained and were then mounted in a testing fixture in neutral flexion and abduction. Four states of the hip capsule were sequentially tested under axial distraction of 5 mm measured with video analysis and with resultant force measurement: (1) intact hip capsule, (2) interportal capsulotomy, (3) capsulectomy to the zona orbicularis, and (4) capsular reconstruction with human dermal allograft using acetabular anchors and capsule-to-patch sutures.

RESULTS

Capsulectomy was different from intact (P = .036), capsulotomy differed from capsulectomy (P = .012), and the repair was statistically significantly different from capsulectomy (P = .042); intact and reconstructed cases were not statistically significantly different. The force required for 5 mm of distraction decreased after interportal capsulotomy by an average of 9% compared with the intact state and further decreased after capsulectomy by 30% compared with the intact state. After capsular reconstruction using dermal allograft, force requirements increased by an average of 36% from the capsulectomy state, only 5% below the intact state.

CONCLUSIONS

Human dermal allograft tissue graft provides restoration of distractive strength for use during hip capsule reconstruction with acetabular anchor fixation and distal soft-tissue fixation after capsulectomy in a cadaveric model.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Capsular repair or reconstruction with a dermal patch offers time-zero restoration of function; intact and reconstructed cases showed no difference, and reconstruction restored a capsulectomy to a biomechanical equivalent of the intact case when distraction was applied.

Femoroacetabular impingement treatment using the arthroscopic extracapsular outside-in approach: Does capsular suture affect functional outcome?

BACKGROUND

Over the last decades, the arthroscopic treatment of hip pathology has highly grown thanks to the evolution of surgical techniques and instrumentation development. An alternative approach consisting in making a first outside-in longitudinal capsulotomy was described by Laude at the end of the 2000s and is experiencing significant development in France. The clinical results of this technique have rarely been reported and in particular the influence of the repair of the capsule is unknown. Therefore we performed a retrospective case control study aiming to asses: (1) the clinical outcomes and complication rates of the outside-in extracapsular approach for the treatment of FemoroAcetabular Impingement (FAI) and (2) the effect of capsular closure on the functional outcome.

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesize that the outside-in extracapsular approach is a safe and efficient technique and the capsular closure at the end of the procedure positively affects the functional outcome.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on prospectively collected data of a consecutive series of hip arthroscopies performed for surgical treatment of FAI using the outside-in extracapsular approach. Any complications during follow-up were identified and recorded. Linear regression models were used to estimate the influence of capsular closure on the functional outcome. Functional outcome was assessed using modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and Non-arthritic Hip Score (NAHS).

RESULTS

Sixty-four hips in 57 patients operated by a single surgeon between October 2013 and December 2016 were analyzed at the time of final follow-up of 34.17 months (range 24 to 53). As the surgical technique evolved over time, a side-to-side capsular closure was performed at the end of the procedure for 25 hips and the capsule was left open for the remaining 39 patients. Functional outcome measurements showed an improvement from the preoperative to the last follow-up: 63.5±11.0 to 88.1±11.2 for mHHS, 63.1±13.8 to 86.4±13.4 for NAHS. Capsular closure leads to a significantly improved clinical outcome: gain in mHHS: 25.8±2.3 vs. 20.6±1.9 (p≤0.044), gain in NAHS: 26.1±2.5 vs. 19.6±2.1, (p=0.023). No major complications occurred. One case of postoperative tensor fascia latae atrophy was documented in the group "capsule left open".

CONCLUSION

Hip arthroscopy in the management of FAI with an extraarticular starting point (outside-in) is a safe technique with functional results and postoperative morbidity comparable to previously reported techniques. Side-to-side capsular closure at the end of the procedure might positively affect the final functional outcome.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

III, case control retrospective study.

Routine Interportal Capsular Repair Does Not Lead to Superior Clinical Outcome Following Arthroscopic Femoroacetabular Impingement Correction With Labral Repair

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of routine capsular repair on clinical outcome in a consecutive series of patients undergoing arthroscopic correction of symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement.

METHODS

Between 2009 and 2015, patients were assigned to 1 of 2 groups based on whether a capsular repair was performed as part of their index hip arthroscopic procedure. Exclusion criteria included previous underlying hip conditions, Tönnis >1, age >45 years, and labrum not repaired. Patients were assessed preoperatively and 2-years postoperatively using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the modified Harris hip score (mHHS), UCLA activity scale, short form-36, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score, and measures of range of hip movements. The incidence of any subsequent revision surgery within 2 years was recorded. Sex and age groups were specifically analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 966 consecutive cases were included (96.4% follow-up rate): 508 in group A (no repair) and 458 in group B (repair). Average age for all cases was 28.1 ± 7.0 years (14.6-44.9). There were significant improvements in all PROMs following surgery for both groups (P < .001). Statistical significance between groups at 2 years was observed for Short Form-36 (P = .001) and WOMAC (P = .041), greater in group A. Both groups similarly met the minimal clinically important difference (mHHS P = .414 and .605; UCLA, P = .549 and .614; Short Form-36, P = .455 and .079; WOMAC, P = .425 and .750 for distribution and anchor-based methods, respectively). In total, 38 (7.8%) cases group A and 24 (5.4%) cases group B required repeat hip arthroscopy (HA) (P = .148); No (0%) cases in group A and 2 (0.45%) cases in group B required total hip replacement (P = .226). There was significantly lower rate of repeat HA among 25- to 34-year age group (8.6% vs 3.9%, P = .047) where capsular repair was performed. No significant difference in the rate of repeat HA between groups for male (P = .203) or female (P = .603) subjects. Adhesions were more common in the repair group (79.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 57.8-92.9 vs 55.3%, CI 38.3-71.4; P = .055), with further capsular repair/plication required more frequently in the unrepaired group (50%, CI 33.4-66.6 vs 25%, CI 10.8-44.3); however, differences between groups were not significant (P = .051). Internal rotation was larger in group A compared with group B at 2 years (36.2 vs 28.1, P = .000). Female patients with capsular repair had reduced PROM scores at 2 years compared with female patients without repair (WOMAC, P = .004, and mHHS, P = .037).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic correction of femoroacetabular impingement with labral repair results in significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes at 2-years postsurgery, irrespective of whether the capsule is repaired. Routine capsular repair in a consecutive series of patients did not lead to superior outcomes compared with a nonrepaired group; similar proportions of cases in both groups were able to achieve minimal clinically important difference. In female patients, routinely repairing the capsule may lead to statistically inferior clinical outcome at 2-years postsurgery, although this may not be clinically significant. Routine capsular repair, however, may be beneficial in the younger, active patient, where a significant reduction in repeat arthroscopy was observed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Survey results from an international hip course: comparison between experts and non-experts on hip arthroscopy clinical practice and post-operative rehabilitation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical practices between expert and non-expert arthroscopy hip surgeons.

METHODS

Registered orthopedic surgeons completed anonymous surveys during a hip arthroscopy meeting. The survey included 60 questions on physician's level of expertise, surgical anesthesia, procedures performed, hospital stay, pain control, rehabilitation and socioeconomic parameters, and the results are presented. Comparisons were made between hip arthroscopy experts (> 500 cases performed) and non-experts (≤ 500 cases performed) on aspects of patient care.

RESULTS

Forty-eight (74%) surgeons responded. Forty-four questionnaires were filled out completely. There were no significant differences in recommendations between 15 (34%) hip arthroscopy experts and 29 (66%) non-experts on hip capsular management and cartilage repair techniques, use of antithrombotic prophylaxis and opioid analgesics, time of rehabilitation initiation and patient compliance factors, use of hip brace and CPM, and patient evaluation to return to sports following surgery. Surgical expertise was significantly associated with the performance of hip labral reconstruction (p = 0.016), subspine decompression (p = 0.039) and recommendation of a longer period of restricted weight bearing following the performance of microfractures (p = 0.011). There were no significant differences in clinical practice between surgeons who performed hip arthroscopy exclusively versus those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

Hip arthroscopy is a relatively new field, and clinical practice may vary among physicians based on the surgical expertise. In this study, hip arthroscopy experts agree with non-experts on most aspects of patient care. Surgical expertise was associated with performance of advanced techniques and recommendation of longer period of restricted weight bearing following performance of microfractures. This study highlights different care patterns that need to be investigated to determine which treatment results in improved patient care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.

How capsular management strategies impact outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

Purpose

To objectively evaluate the effect different management strategies have on the following post-surgical outcomes.

Methods

The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were reviewed for articles published between January 1st, 2000 to September 18, 2019 that reported on studies comparing techniques for handling the capsule during hip arthroscopy. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, our final analysis included 10 studies. In total, these articles included 1556 hips. The following capsular management strategies were implemented: complete repair (n = 444; 28.53%), partial repair (n = 32; 2.06%), plication (n = 223; 14.33%) and release/no-repair (n = 857; 55.08%). A meta-analysis was performed on outcomes presented in three or more studies using sufficient pooled statistical analysis data.

Results

Our meta-analysis demonstrated an improvement in the HOS-SS with capsular repair without being statistically significant (95%CI [-6.71, 8.21], p = 0.06). However, a significant improvement in the mHHS was detected with capsular repair (95%CI [-1.37, 9.39], p = 0.03). Of the Four studies evaluating HOS-ADL, two reported improved outcomes with capsular repair (p < 0.05 for both) while the other two reported no significant difference. While mixed results were demonstrated for reoperation rates, no difference was found across capsular management strategies regarding radiological outcomes, NAHS (all p-values >0.05) pain (p > 0.05), flexion (p > 0.05), and patient satisfaction (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Capsular repair has the potential to improve patient reported outcomes after hip arthroscopy. While there was no consensus in literature, studies consistently reported similar or superior outcomes in the capsular repair cohorts compared to capsular release. Further randomized controlled studies need to be conducted for better evaluation of outcomes.

Practice patterns for the treatment of acute proximal hamstring ruptures

Objective: Proximal ischial hamstring avulsion injuries are relatively uncommon. As such, the management of these injuries is often highly variable. Consensus agreement is lacking for the indications for repair, along with the operative technique, and post-operative rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to survey surgeons who treat proximal hamstring avulsion injuries to identify current trends in the management of this injury.Methods: After IRB approval, a 46-question cross-sectional survey was distributed using a secure electronic survey portal. The survey sought to determine surgeon experience, diagnostic preferences, treatment patterns, surgical indications/technique, perceived patient outcomes, surgical complications, as well as post-operative management and rehab protocols. Surveys were completed electronically and anonymously, with invitations distributed to members of the American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) and Arthroscopy Association of Canada (AAC).Results: A total of 108 surgeons who manage proximal hamstring injuries completed the survey. Most respondents (77%) treat one to five of these injuries per year. MRI was the preferred imaging modality to confirm diagnosis. Despite 98% of respondents indicating that there was a role for surgical management of proximal hamstring avulsions, operative treatment was reportedly undertaken in only 50% of cases seen by each respondent. The top three reported surgical indications were: number of tendons involved (most important factor = 42%, second most = 26%, third most = 13%), amount of tendon retraction (28%, 41%, 16%), and patient activity level (16%, 18%, 24%).Conclusion: Based on the practice patterns of the surgeons who completed the survey, there is continued disparity in the management of proximal hamstring avulsions. A lack of agreement exists with regards to surgical indications, operative technique, and post-operative protocols. Most striking is the rate of non-operative treatment and perceived rate of poor outcomes within this cohort. Future research should focus on objective evaluation of non-operative management, and additional variables involved in surgical treatment and post-operative rehabilitation.

There is poor accuracy in documenting the location of labral and chondral lesions observed during hip arthroscopy

Purpose

To determine and compare the accuracy and interobserver reliability of the different methods for localizing acetabular labral, acetabular chondral, and femoral head chondral lesions with hip arthroscopy .

Methods

Three cadaver hips were placed in the supine position. Three labral, three femoral chondral, and six acetabular chondral lesions were made in each cadaver using electrocautery. Six surgeons classified the lesions according to different classification systems (clock-face, geographic, Method-G) using hip arthroscopy and standardized portals. Identification of each lesion was performed after conclusion of the study through open dissection and surgical hip dislocation to be used as the “gold-standard.” Accuracy was calculated as the number of correct answers divided by total number of responses for a given system. The interobserver reliability was calculated using the kappa coefficient. The different classification methods were compared. All P values were reported with significance set at P < 0.05.

Results

The clock-face method had an accuracy of 74% (95% CI, 60%–85%) and interobserver reliability of 0.19 (95% CI, 0.11–0.26) while the geographic method had an accuracy of 50% (95% CI, 36%–64%) and interobserver reliability of 0.21 (95% CI, 0.05–0.31) for acetabular labral lesion identification (P > 0.05). The acetabular chondral lesion identification accuracy was 56% (95% CI, 46%–65%) for Method G, 66% (95% CI, 56%–75%) for Method G-simp, and 63% (95% CI, 53%–72%) for the geographic system (P > 0.05) with an interobserver reliability of 0.31 (95% CI, 0.27–0.35), 0.34 (95% CI, 0.28–0.40), and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.34–0.45), respectively (P > 0.05). Femoral chondral lesion identification accuracy was 74% (95% CI, 60%–85%) for Method G, 43% (95% CI, 29%–57%) for the geographic method, and 59% (95% CI, 45%–72%) for the geographic-simp system with interobserver reliability of 0.37 (95% CI, 0.27–0.47), 0.34 (95% CI, 0.28–0.40), and 0.40 (95% CI, 0.29–0.51), respectively (P > 0.05). Method G was significantly more accurate than the geographic system (P = 0.001).

Conclusions

There was poor to fair accuracy and interobserver reliability of the reporting systems for localization of labral, acetabular chondral, and femoral chondral lesions encountered during hip arthroscopy. The study suggests there is a need for a new method that is easy to use, reliable, reproducible and accurate.

Hip labral reconstruction: consensus study on indications, graft type and technique among high-volume surgeons

To survey high-volume hip arthroscopists regarding their current indications for labral reconstruction, graft preference and technique. In May 2018, a cross-sectional based survey was conducted on high-volume hip arthroscopists. A high-volume surgeon was defined as an orthopaedist who had case experience ranging from 50 to 5000 hip arthroscopies performed annually. The survey included their current indications for labral reconstruction, graft preference and technique. Twelve high-volume surgeons successfully completed the questionnaire. The mean arthroscopic procedures performed by the surgeons annually was 188.7 (range 60–350). Four surgeons (33.3%) performed <5 labral reconstruction cases per year, three (25.0%) 5–10 cases per year, two (16.7%) 11–15 cases per year and three (25.0%) over 20 cases per year. Of the 12 surgeons, 11 (91.6%) would reconstruct in certain primary settings and 100% would reconstruct in revision settings. In the primary setting, the main indications for reconstruction were poor quality labral tissue, calcified labrum and hypoplastic labrum. None of the surgeons recommended labral reconstruction for reparable labral tears in primary cases. In primary cases of irreparable labra, 58.3% of the surgeons favoured reconstruction over debridement. In revisions, 100% of the surgeon favoured reconstruction over debridement; 91.7% chose an allograft option versus an autograft alternative. Amongst high-volume arthroscopists, labral reconstruction was considered a valuable technique to restore labral function. Labral reconstruction was more often advocated in revision than in primary settings. Allograft was the preferred choice for reconstruction. Excision of the labral tissue prior to reconstruction was favoured over augmentation. Fewer surgeons performed circumferential reconstruction than segmental reconstruction.

Surgical Decision Making for Acetabular Labral Tears: An International Perspective

Background:

Studies comparing acetabular labral repair with debridement have generally demonstrated better clinical outcomes with repair. However, it is not clear whether hip arthroscopic surgeons agree on the indications for labral repair and debridement, bringing the generalizability of these (and future) studies into question.

Purpose:

To investigate surgical decision making for acetabular labral tears, with a specific focus on indications for repair or debridement, by performing an international survey of hip arthroscopic surgeons.

Study Design:

Cross-sectional study.

Methods:

A total of 35 hip arthroscopic surgeons from around the world were invited to participate in this survey study. Surgeons selected the factors that they consider when deciding to repair or debride acetabular labral tears. For each variable selected, computerized adaptive logic prompted additional questions to better define how that variable affects decision making. Six deidentified intraoperative videos of a variety of labral tears were included to determine the level of agreement between the experts on which labral tears are repairable.

Results:

The survey response rate was 86%. A majority (77%) of hip arthroscopic surgeons selected the intraoperative appearance of the labrum as the most important factor affecting their decision making. Specific factors affecting surgical decision making included pattern of the labral tear (73% of surgeons), ossification of the labrum (70%), magnetic resonance imaging findings (70%), patient age (63%), activity level (57%), radiographic findings (53%), calcification of the labrum (50%), and thickness of the labrum (47%). Three intraoperative videos had ≥90% agreement for labral repair, while the other 3 had ≤76% agreement.

Conclusion:

The intraoperative appearance of the labrum is the most important factor affecting surgical decision making. However, different surgeons viewing the same tear arthroscopically may select different treatments. The indications to repair a torn acetabular labrum are highly variable among hip arthroscopic surgeons.

Preoperative Fascia Iliaca Block Does Not Improve Analgesia after Arthroscopic Hip Surgery, but Causes Quadriceps Muscles Weakness

What We Already Know about This Topic

What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Background

Ambulatory hip arthroscopy is associated with postoperative pain routinely requiring opioid analgesia. The potential role of peripheral nerve blocks for pain control after hip arthroscopy is controversial. This trial investigated whether a preoperative fascia iliaca block improves postoperative analgesia.

Methods

In a prospective, double-blinded trial, 80 patients scheduled for hip arthroscopy were randomized to receive a preoperative fascia iliaca block with 40 ml ropivacaine 0.2% or saline. Patients also received an intraarticular injection of 10-ml ropivacaine 0.2% at procedure end. Primary study endpoint was highest pain score reported in the recovery room; other study endpoints were pain scores and opioid use 24 h after surgery. Additionally, quadriceps strength was measured to identify leg weakness.

Results

The analysis included 78 patients. Highest pain scores in the recovery room were similar in the block group (6 ± 2) versus placebo group (7 ± 2), difference: −0.2 (95% CI, −1.1 to 0.7), as was opioid use (intravenous morphine equivalent dose: 15 ± 7mg [block] vs. 16 ± 9 mg [placebo]). Once discharged home, patients experienced similar pain and opioid use (13 ± 7 mg [block] vs. 12 ± 8 mg [placebo]) in the 24 h after surgery. The fascia iliaca block resulted in noticeable quadriceps weakness. There were four postoperative falls in the block group versus one fall in the placebo group.

Conclusions

Preoperative fascia iliaca blockade in addition to intraarticular local anesthetic injection did not improve pain control after hip arthroscopy but did result in quadriceps weakness, which may contribute to an increased fall risk. Routine use of this block cannot be recommended in this patient population.

Are Self-Reported Medication Allergies Associated With Worse Hip Outcome Scores Prior to Hip Arthroscopy?

PURPOSE

To determine if there are significant differences in preoperative patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores in patients with and without self-reported medication allergies undergoing hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

Consecutive subjects undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome by a single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed. PROs were collected within 6 weeks of the date of surgery. PROs included International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), Hip Outcome Score (HOS), and Short-Form (SF-12) scores. Allergies to medications were self-reported preoperatively within 6 weeks of the date of surgery. Patient demographics were recorded. Bivariate correlations and multivariate regression models were calculated to identify associations with baseline hip outcome scores.

RESULTS

Two hundred twelve subjects were analyzed (56% female, mean age 35.1 ± 13.2 years). Seventy-two subjects (34%) self-reported allergies (range 1-10; 41 subjects had 1 allergy; 14 subjects had 2; 8 subjects had 3; 2 subjects had 4; 7 subjects had 5 or more). The most commonly reported allergies included penicillin (18), sulfa (13), and codeine (11). Female gender was significantly correlated with number of allergies (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.188; P < .001). SF-12 Mental Component Score (MCS) was significantly correlated with HOS-ADL (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.389; P < .001), HOS-SSS (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.251; P < .001), and iHOT-12 (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.385; P < .001). There was no significant correlation between number of allergies and all hip PROs. In all multivariate models, the SF-12 MCS had the strongest association with HOS-ADL, HOS-SSS, and iHOT-12 (P < .001 for all). Allergies were not significantly associated with any hip PROs.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAI syndrome, self-reported medication allergies are not significantly associated with preoperative patient-reported hip outcome scores.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative case series.

There Is a Significant Discrepancy Between "Big Data" Database and Original Research Publications on Hip Arthroscopy Outcomes: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare (1) major complication, (2) revision, and (3) conversion to arthroplasty rates following hip arthroscopy between database studies and original research peer-reviewed publications.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, SCOPUS, SportDiscus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies that investigated major complication (dislocation, femoral neck fracture, avascular necrosis, fluid extravasation, septic arthritis, death), revision, and hip arthroplasty conversion rates following hip arthroscopy. Major complication, revision, and conversion to hip arthroplasty rates were compared between original research (single- or multicenter therapeutic studies) and database (insurance database using ICD-9/10 and/or current procedural terminology coding terminology) publishing studies.

RESULTS

Two hundred seven studies (201 original research publications [15,780 subjects; 54% female] and 6 database studies [20,825 subjects; 60% female]) were analyzed (mean age, 38.2 ± 11.6 years old; mean follow-up, 2.7 ± 2.9 years). The database studies had a significantly higher age (40.6 + 2.8 vs 35.4 ± 11.6), body mass index (27.4 ± 5.6 vs 24.9 ± 3.1), percentage of females (60.1% vs 53.8%), and longer follow-up (3.1 ± 1.6 vs 2.7 ± 3.0) compared with original research (P < .0001 for all). Ninety-seven (0.6%) major complications occurred in the individual studies, and 95 (0.8%) major complications occurred in the database studies (P = .029; relative risk [RR], 1.3). There was a significantly higher rate of femoral neck fracture (0.24% vs 0.03%; P < .0001; RR, 8.0), and hip dislocation (0.17% vs 0.06%; P = .023; RR, 2.2) in the database studies. Reoperations occurred at a significantly higher rate in the database studies (11.1% vs 7.3%; P < .001; RR, 1.5). There was a significantly higher rate of conversion to arthroplasty in the database studies (8.0% vs 3.7%; P < .001; RR, 2.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Database studies report significantly increased major complication, revision, and conversion to hip arthroplasty rates compared with original research investigations of hip arthroscopy outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies.

Multicentre study on capsular closure versus non-capsular closure during hip arthroscopy in Danish patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Hip arthroscopy has become a standard procedure in the treatment of hip joint pain not related to osteoarthritis or dysplasia in the young and active patient. There has been increasing focus on the contribution of the hip capsule to function and on stability following hip arthroscopy. It has been suggested that capsular closure after hip arthroscopy may prevent microinstability and macroinstability of the hip joint and reduce revision rate. However, it remains unknown whether capsular closure should be performed as a standard procedure when performing hip arthroscopies, especially in patients without additional risk factors for instability such as hypermobility or dysplasia of the hip. We hypothesised that capsular closure will lead to a superior outcome in hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) compared with non-capsular closure.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this randomised controlled, multicentre trial, 200 patients scheduled for hip arthroscopy for FAIS will be cluster randomised into one of two groups (group I: hip arthroscopy without capsular closure, group II: hip arthroscopy combined with capsular closure). Inclusion criteria are: age between 18 years and 50 years and FAIS according to the Warwick agreement. Exclusion criteria are: previous hip surgery in either hip, previous conditions of Legg-Calvé-Perthes or slipped capital femoral epiphysis, malignant disease, recent hip or pelvic fractures, arthritis, Ehlers-Danlos or Marfan disease, recent (within 6 weeks) application of intra-articular corticosteroids, language problems of any kind, and radiological signs of osteoarthritis, acetabular dysplasia or acetabular retroversion. Surgery will be performed in Denmark at four centres by four surgeons, all performing an interportal capsulotomy and closure with at least two absorbable sutures. Patients in both groups, who are blinded for the intervention, will receive the same standardised rehabilitation programme. As primary outcome scores, HAGOS (sport) will be used with HAGOS (symptoms, pain, function in daily living, participation in physical activities and hip and/or groin-related quality of life), Hip Sports Activity Scale, short validated version of the International Hip Outcome Tool, EQ-5D, Visual Analogue Scale for pain, complications and reoperation rate as secondary outcome tools. Using HAGOS (sport) as primary outcome parameter the power analysis required a minimum of 84 individuals per group. Together with a clinical examination performed by the patient's surgeon 1 year after surgery, patient reported outcome measures will be completed preoperatively, as well as at 3 months, 1 year, 2 years and 5 years postoperatively. In addition, adverse effects will be recorded.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is approved by the Central Denmark Region Committee on Biomedical research ethics. The results of this study will be presented at national and international congresses and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03158454; Pre-results.

Similar views on rehabilitation following hip arthroscopy among physiotherapists and surgeons in Scandinavia: a specialized care survey

PURPOSE

The rising number of hip arthroscopies (HA) is leading to increasing numbers of patients requiring post-surgical rehabilitation; however, evidence regarding post-operative rehabilitation is currently limited. The purpose of the study was to describe and compare current rehabilitation strategies and views among surgeons and physiotherapists in Scandinavia.

METHODS

Scandinavian surgeons and physiotherapists experienced with HA and post-surgical rehabilitation were asked to complete an online survey. Ninety clinicians (28 surgeons, 62 physiotherapists) responded.

RESULTS

Both professions mostly rated physiotherapy as very or extremely important in the rehabilitation process. The majority advocated criteria-based or combined criteria- and time-based progression. Expected rehabilitation timelines were reported with large intra-professional variation but general inter-professional agreement. However, compared with physiotherapists surgeons expected fewer weeks on crutches and faster return to competitive sport. Surgeons more often reported use of evidence-based self-reported outcomes while physiotherapists more often evaluated readiness for return to play.

CONCLUSIONS

Among surgeons and physiotherapists, physiotherapy is considered very important following HA. Generally, very similar views were held between professions. Surgeons expected reduced time on crutches and to return to competitive sports than physiotherapists. Surgeons also used evidence-based self-reported outcomes to a higher degree than physiotherapists. Being the first study to provide an overview on currently applied rehabilitation strategies following HA, results of this study may guide much needed, future research on the rehabilitation process following HA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Should the Capsule Be Repaired or Plicated After Hip Arthroscopy for Labral Tears Associated With Femoroacetabular Impingement or Instability? A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To critically evaluate the existing literature on hip capsule biomechanics, clinical evidence of instability, and outcomes of capsular management to answer the following question: Should the capsule be repaired or plicated after hip arthroscopy for labral tears associated with femoroacetabular impingement or instability?

METHODS

We used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines to find articles using PubMed and Embase. Included studies were Level I through V studies and focused on hip capsule biomechanics, postarthroscopic instability, and clinical outcomes. Articles were excluded if they discussed treatment of the hip capsule during arthroplasty, dislocations without a history of arthroscopy, and pre-existing conditions. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) was used for quality assessment of clinical outcome studies.

RESULTS

A total of 34 articles were included: 15 biomechanical studies, 9 instability case reports, and 10 outcome studies. There is consensus from biomechanical studies that the capsule is an important stabilizer of the hip and repairing it provides better stability than when unrepaired. Case reports of instability have raised concerns about capsular management during the index procedure to decrease the complications associated with this problem. Furthermore, outcome studies suggest that there may be an advantage of capsular closure versus capsulotomy during hip arthroscopy for nonarthritic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Short-term outcome studies suggest that capsular closure is safe and effective in nonarthritic patients undergoing hip arthroscopic procedures and may yield superior outcomes compared with unrepaired capsulotomy. Moreover, biomechanical evidence strongly supports the role of capsular repair in maintaining stability of the hip. In patients with stiffness or inflammatory hip disorders, a release may be appropriate. In patients who have signs and symptoms of instability, there is existing evidence that capsular plication may be associated with significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes. Although the multiple procedures performed in combination with capsular treatment present confounding variables, current evidence appears to support routine capsular closure in most cases and to support capsular plication in cases of instability or borderline dysplasia.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level II through IV studies.

Effects of a hip brace on biomechanics and pain in people with femoroacetabular impingement

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluates whether hip bracing in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) (a) immediately reduces range of hip internal rotation, flexion, adduction, and pain during functional tasks; and (b) improves patient-reported outcomes when worn daily over 4 weeks.

DESIGN

Within-participant design followed by a case series.

METHODS

Twenty-five adults with symptomatic FAI underwent 3D kinematic assessment with and without a hip brace during single-leg squat, double-leg squat, stair ascent, and stair descent. A subset of this population (n=17) continued to wear the brace daily for 4-weeks. A linear mixed statistical model was used to assess pain and kinematic differences between the braced and unbraced conditions at baseline testing. Patient-reported outcomes (NRS pain, iHot-33 and HAGOS questionnaires) at 4-weeks were compared to baseline using paired t-tests.

RESULTS

Bracing resulted in significant but small reductions in peak hip flexion ranging between 5.3° (95% CI 0.8°-9.7°) and 5.6° (95% CI 1.1°-10.0°), internal rotation ranging between 2.5° (95% CI 0.6°-4.4°) and 6.4° (95% CI 4.5°-8.2°), and adduction ranging between 2.2° (95% CI 0.5°-3.8°) and 3.3° (95% CI 1.6°-5.0°) during all tasks, except flexion during single-leg squat, compared with the unbraced condition; pain was not significantly improved with the brace. Bracing over four weeks did not significantly change patient-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Bracing subtly limited impinging hip movements during functional tasks, but did not immediately reduce pain or improve patient-reported clinical outcomes after 4 weeks in a young adult cohort with long-standing FAI.

Trends in Utilization and Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy in the United States Between 2005 and 2013

BACKGROUND

The utilization of hip arthroscopy continues to increase in the United States. The purpose of this study was to examine trends in hip arthroscopy procedures and outcomes.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using Optum Labs Data Warehouse administrative claims data. The cohort comprised 10,042 privately insured enrollees aged 18-64 years who underwent a hip arthroscopy procedure between 2005 and 2013. Utilization trends were examined using age-specific, sex-specific, and calendar-year-specific hip arthroscopy rates. Outcomes were examined using the survival analysis methods and included subsequent hip arthroscopy and total hip arthroplasty (THA).

RESULTS

Hip arthroscopy rates increased significantly over time from 3.6 per 100,000 in 2005 to 16.7 per 100,000 in 2013. The overall 2-year cumulative incidence of subsequent hip arthroscopy and THA was 11% and 10%, respectively. In the subset of patients in whom laterality of the subsequent procedure could be determined, about half of the subsequent hip arthroscopy procedures (46%) and almost all of the THA procedures (94%) were on the same side. Decreasing age was significantly associated with the risk of subsequent arthroscopy (P < .01), whereas increasing age was significantly associated with the subsequent risk of THA (P < .01). The 5-year cumulative incidence of THA reached as high as 35% among individuals aged 55-64 years.

CONCLUSION

The utilization of hip arthroscopy procedures increased dramatically over the last decade in the 18-64-year-old privately insured population, with the largest increase in younger age-groups. Future studies are warranted to understand the determinants of the large increase in utilization of hip arthroscopy and outcomes.

Preemptive Analgesia in Hip Arthroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Preemptive Periacetabular or Intra-articular Bupivacaine in Addition to Postoperative Intra-articular Bupivacaine

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the efficacy of intra-articular and periacetabular blocks for postoperative pain control after hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

Forty-two consecutive patients scheduled for hip arthroscopy were randomized into 2 postoperative pain control groups. One group received preemptive intra-articular 20 mL of bupivacaine 0.5% injection, and the second group received preemptive periacetabular 20 mL of bupivacaine 0.5% injection. Before closure all patients received an additional dose of 20 mL of bupivacaine 0.5% intra-articularly. Data were compared with respect to postoperative pain with visual analog scale (VAS) and analgesic consumption, documented in a pain diary for 2 weeks after surgery.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients were treated with intra-articular injection, and 21 patients with peri-acetabular injection. There were no significant differences with regards to patient demographics or surgical procedures. VAS scores recorded during the first 30 minutes postoperatively and 18 hours after surgery were significantly lower in the periacetabular group compared with in the intra-articular group (0.667 ± 1.49 vs 2.11 ± 2.29; P < .045 and 2.62 ± 2.2 vs 4.79 ± 2.6; P < .009). There were no differences between the groups with regard to analgesic consumption.

CONCLUSIONS

Periacetabular injection of bupivacaine 0.5% was superior to intra-articular injection in pain reduction after hip arthroscopy at 30 minutes and 18 hours postoperatively. However, total analgesic consumption over the first 2 postoperative weeks and VAS pain measurements were not significantly affected.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, randomized controlled trial.

Arthroscopic hip preservation surgery practice patterns: an international survey

To design and conduct a survey analyzing pre-, intra- and post- hip arthroscopy practice patterns among hip arthroscopists worldwide. A 21-question, IRB-exempt, HIPAA-compliant, cross-sectional survey was conducted via email using SurveyMonkey to examine pre-operative evaluation, intra-operative techniques and post-operative management. The survey was administered internationally to 151 hip arthroscopists identified from publicly available sources. Seventy-five respondents completed the survey (151 ± 116 hip arthroscopy procedures per year; 8.6 ± 7.1 years hip arthroscopy experience). Standing AP pelvis, false profile and Dunn 45 were the most common radiographs utilized. CT scans were utilized by 54% of surgeons at least some of the time. Only 56% of participants recommended an arthrogram with MRI. Nearly all surgeons either never (40%) or infrequently (58%) performed arthroscopy in Tönnis grade-2 or grade-3 osteoarthritis. Surgeons rarely performed hip arthroscopy on patients with dysplasia (51% never; 44% infrequently). Only 25% of participants perform a routine 'T' capsulotomy and 41% close the capsule if the patient is at risk for post-operative instability. Post-operatively, 52% never use a brace, 39% never use a continuous passive motion, 11% never recommended heterotopic ossification prophylaxis and 30% never recommended formal thromboembolic disease prophylaxis. Among a large number of high-volume experienced hip arthroscopists worldwide, pre-, intra- and post- hip arthroscopy practice patterns have been established and reported. Within this cohort of respondents, several areas of patient evaluation and management remain discordant and controversial without universal agreement. Future research should move beyond expert opinion level V evidence towards high-quality appropriately designed and conducted investigations.

Editorial Commentary: Hip Capsule: To Repair or Not?

Arthroscopic hip capsular repair is an area of intense interest. Basic science studies suggest that adverse changes in capsular stability/restraint may occur with capsulotomy and capsulectomy, that repair may ameliorate these changes, and, most recently, that the repaired capsule usually heals. Clinical studies suggest that in some conditions, most notably mild dysplasia, capsular repair or plication may improve short-term outcomes, but in general, the role of capsular closure is less clear. At present, perhaps a selective approach is merited, with capsular closure performed in patients with dysplasia, focal or generalized hyperlaxity, and/or increased femoral anteversion. The comparative outcomes from smaller, more vertically oriented capsulotomies with less violation of the iliofemoral ligament deserve investigation.

Arthroscopy Techniques: The Premier Arthroscopic Video Library

Arthroscopy has always been focused on its roots-providing practical, clinically relevant information for the practicing arthroscopist. In the digital age, there is a need for publication platforms dedicated to multimedia presentations, hence the birth of Arthroscopy Techniques, Arthroscopy's online video companion. With over 700 videos, our library is filled with an exceptional collection of arthroscopic educational material, with topics ranging from the basics of arthroscopy to the most complex surgical procedures. One series, published this month, explores elbow arthroscopy with specific attention to describing various elbow portals, patient positioning, and tricks of elbow arthroscopy known only to the masters. If you have yet to view Arthroscopy Techniques, experience the future of arthroscopy today at www.ArthroscopyTechniques.org!

A Comparison of Supine and Lateral Decubitus Positions for Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review of Outcomes and Complications

PURPOSE

This systematic review examines outcomes and risk profiles of the hip arthroscopy in the supine versus lateral decubitus positions to elucidate any superiority of one approach over the other.

METHODS

Three databases (Embase, PubMed, and Medline) were searched for studies that addressed hip arthroscopy performed in either position, and were subsequently screened by two reviewers with data abstracted in duplicate.

RESULTS

Similar outcomes were observed. Supine studies showed a greater mean postoperative improvement for modified Harris hip score (33.74), visual analog scale (-3.99), nonarthritic hip score (29.61), Harris hip score (35.73), and hip outcome score (31.4). Lateral decubitus studies showed greater improvement using the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis (14.76) score. Supine studies reported more neuropraxic injuries (2.06% v 0.47%), labral penetration (0.65% v 0%), and heterotopic ossification (0.21% v 0%). Lateral decubitus studies reported more fluid extravasation (0.21% v 0.05%) and missed loose bodies (0.08% v 0.01%). Similar rates of revision (1.8% lateral, 1.4% supine) and conversion to open procedures (2.6% in lateral, 2.0% in supine) were also identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of quality of evidence, direct comparisons are currently limited; however, the supine position is associated with more neuropraxic injuries, labral penetration, and heterotopic ossification, whereas lateral decubitus has increased risk of fluid extravasation and missed loose bodies. At this time, no evidence exists to establish superiority of one position.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level II, III, and IV studies.