Patient-Reported Outcomes of Capsular Repair Versus Capsulotomy in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy: Minimum 5-Year Follow-up-A Matched Comparison Study

Short-term Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in Patients Participating in Formal Physical Therapy Versus a Home Exercise Program: A Prospectively Enrolled Cohort Analysis

BACKGROUND

Physical therapy is frequently utilized in the postoperative care of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). There has been limited research into the efficacy of a structured home exercise program (HEP) compared with formal physical therapy (FPT) in this patient population.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to evaluate the short-term outcomes of patients utilizing FPT versus an HEP after hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS. It was hypothesized that both groups would show similar improvements regarding outcome scores, which would improve significantly compared with their preoperative scores.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Patients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS at a single center between October 2020 and October 2021 were prospectively enrolled. Patients were allowed to self-select FPT or an HEP and were administered a survey preoperatively and at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively. The survey included the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, visual analog scale for pain, 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, and patient satisfaction with physical therapy and overall care. Statistical analysis was conducted between the 2 groups and within groups to compare preoperative and postoperative scores.

RESULTS

The patients' mean age was 32.6 ± 10.4 years, with 47.2% being female and 57.4% choosing the HEP. At 12 months postoperatively, no significant differences were reported between the FPT and HEP groups regarding the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score (P = .795), visual analog scale for pain score (P > .05), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function T-score (P = .699), 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool score (P = .582), and patient satisfaction (P > .05). Outcome scores at 12 months postoperatively were significantly improved from the preoperative scores across all measures in both groups (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences regarding patient outcomes between FPT and the HEP at 1-year follow-up after hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS when patients selected their own treatment, with both groups demonstrating significant improvements in their outcome scores from their preoperative values. These findings suggest that a structured HEP may be a viable alternative to FPT after hip arthroscopic surgery in patients who prefer a self-directed rehabilitation program.

Long-term Survivorship and Outcomes of Patients Without Dysplasia Undergoing Capsular Repair During Primary Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of literature evaluating long-term outcomes and survivorship of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with capsular repair for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

PURPOSE

To report 10-year survivorship and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after primary hip arthroscopy with capsular repair for FAIS and evaluate the effect of capsular repair in patients at the highest risk for conversion to arthroplasty.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed on all patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with capsular repair between October 2008 and February 2011. Patients with a minimum 10-year follow-up on the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and visual analog scale for pain (VAS) scores were selected. The preoperative and minimum 10-year follow-up Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) scores were also reported, if available. Patients with ipsilateral hip surgery, worker's compensation, Tönnis osteoarthritis grade >1, and hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <25°) were excluded. Survivorship, PROS, and clinical benefit-minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS)-were reported. An additional propensity-matched subanalysis was performed on patients at the highest risk for conversion to arthroplasty, comparing patients undergoing capsular repair to patients with unrepaired capsules.

RESULTS

A total of 145 (n = 130 patients) out of 180 eligible hips (n = 165 patients) had a minimum 10-year follow-up (80.6%). Also, 126 hips (86.9%) belonged to women, and 19 hips (13.1%) belonged to men. The mean patient age was 30.3 ± 12.9 years. The survivorship rate was 91% at the 10-year follow-up. The cohort experienced significant improvements (P < .001) in the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS for pain scores. Moreover, the cohort achieved high rates of the PASS for the mHHS (89.8%), high rates of the MCID for the mHHS (82.4%), and high rates of the MCID for VAS for pain (80.6%) scores. In the propensity-matched subanalysis performed on patients with the highest risk for arthroplasty, 29 hips with capsular repair were matched to 81 hips with unrepaired capsules. While both groups experienced significant improvements in all PROs (P < .05), the group without capsule repair trended toward a higher conversion to arthroplasty rate when compared with the repair group. In addition, an odds ratio was calculated for the likelihood of converting to arthroplasty after having an unrepaired capsule compared with capsular repair (2.54 [95% CI, 0.873-7.37]; P = .087).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with capsular repair experienced a high survivorship rate of 91% at a minimum 10-year follow-up. Patients who did not convert to arthroplasty saw favorable improvements in PROs and achieved high clinical benefit rates. In addition, among those patients at the highest risk for conversion to arthroplasty, a trend toward greater survivorship was observed with capsular repair.

Capsular Repair Versus No Repair After Hip Arthroscopy in Patients Without Dysplasia or Generalized Ligamentous Laxity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Many recent studies have shown that patients who undergo capsular repair after hip arthroscopy achieve superior clinical outcomes compared with those who do not. However, patients with dysplasia or generalized ligamentous laxity (GLL) were not excluded from most of these studies, which may have affected the outcomes.

Purpose

To determine whether capsular repair influences the outcomes of hip arthroscopy for patients without dysplasia or GLL.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods

Under the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of capsulotomy with versus without repair were included, but studies that included patients with dysplasia or GLL were excluded. The study outcomes were patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 6 months and 2 years postoperatively-including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS)- and were compared between the repair and no-repair groups. A narrative analysis and meta-analysis were performed to integrate and compare the results of the 2 groups. In the meta-analysis of the outcome measures, studies with significant differences in the preoperative scores between the repair and no-repair groups were excluded because previous studies have shown that these can affect the outcomes.

Results

A total of 761 studies were initially identified, of which 3 were included. Of the 322 included patients, 136 underwent capsular repair, and 186 underwent capsulotomy with no repair. The meta-analysis showed that capsular repair was associated with significantly higher postoperative PROMs: the mHHS at 2 years (P = .03), the HOS-ADL at 6 months (P = .02) and 2 years (P < .0001), and the HOS-SSS at 6 months (P = .02) and 2 years (P = .001).

Conclusion

Capsular repair after hip arthroscopy was associated with superior clinical outcomes when compared with no capsular repair in patients without dysplasia or GLL.

Capsule closure has better hip function than non-closure in hip arthroscopy for femoracetabular impingement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The impact of capsular closure vs non-closure in hip arthroscopy for femoracetabular impingement (FAI) was assessed by a meta-analysis.

Methods

With the most recent search update occurring in August 2022, relevant studies were found by searching the Pubmed and EMBASE databases. A collection of studies was made that conducted hip arthroscopy for FAI. Review Manager 5.3 was used to carry out the meta-analysis. The dichotomous and continuous factors were compared using the odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD). A fixed-effect or random-effect model was chosen, depending on the degree of heterogeneity (I2). Forest plots were used to assess the results. A significance level of P < 0.05 was applied to the statistical analysis.

Results

Ultimately, 15 studies were incorporated into the meta-analysis. The surgery time was longer for the capsular closure group (CC group) compared to the non-closure (NC group) group. (P < 0.001, SMD = 8.59, 95%CI [7.40, 9.77], I2 = 32 %). Following hip arthroscopy, the CC group's mHHS was superior to that of the NC group (P = 0.001, MD = 2.05, 95%CI [0.83, 3.27], I2 = 42 %), HOS-ADL (P < 0.001, MD = 4.29, 95%CI [3.08, 5.50], I2 = 0 %). The capsular closure group had a reduced rate of postoperative complications (P = 0.001, OR = 0.21, 95%CI [0.08, 0.54], I2 = 0 %) and conversion to THA (P = 0.01, OR = 0.42, 95%CI [0.21, 0.83], I2 = 0 %) following hip arthroscopy than the non-closure group. The revision rate, VAS, and postoperative HOS-SSS did not significantly differ between these two groups (P＞0.05).

Conclusion

The current meta-analysis found that the closed group had a lower complication rate and considerably greater mHHS and HOS-ADL following surgery compared to the non-closed capsule group. Whether this is related to the continuous progress of biomechanical and clinical research techniques deserves our attention.

Level of evidence

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

Hip Arthroscopy in Patients With Generalized Joint Hypermobility Yields Successful Outcomes: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes of hip arthroscopy in patients with generalized joint hypermobility (GJH).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. An electronic record search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase. A 2-stage title/abstract and full-text screening was performed using the following inclusion criteria: (1) observational studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials; (2) describing more than 5 patients with a mean age over 18 years and GJH; (3) undergoing arthroscopy of the hip; (4) reporting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), return to sport, or complications/reoperations; and (5) published in English.

RESULTS

Of the 517 articles identified, 10 studies meeting all selection criteria were included. Included studies report significant improvements in a range of different functional and pain-based PROMs. Most patients (25.0%-97.0%) in each study achieved a clinically important improvement postoperatively in at least 1 PROM. No complications were described in any of the 4 studies reporting this metric. One study each found an association between GJH and an increased risk of postoperative deep gluteal syndrome and iliopsoas tendinitis. The rate of revision arthroscopy ranged from 0% to 11.4%, and only 2 patients in a single study of 11 hips required conversion to total hip arthroplasty. No statistically significant differences were reported between patients with and without GJH with respect to any of the described outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with GJH may achieve good outcomes following hip arthroscopy with respect to PROMs, perioperative complications, reoperation, and return to sport. With effective labral repair and capsular closure, outcomes achieved in patients with GJH are comparable to those reported in patients without hypermobility.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of level III to IV studies.

Extended Interportal Capsulotomy for Hip Arthroscopy, a Single-Center Clinical Experience

Background and Objectives: The number of hip arthroscopy procedures is on the rise worldwide, and awareness regarding proper management of the hip capsule has increased. No capsulotomy shape is agreed upon as a standard approach, with literature supporting both isolated interportal and T-shaped capsulotomies. The aim of this retrospective cohort study is to report the clinical results of a standardized extended interportal capsulotomy (EIPC) during hip arthroscopy. Materials and Methods: Patients operated on between 2017 and 2020 with a hip arthroscopy were eligible. The inclusion criteria were ages 18-60 years, failed non-operative treatment, and at least a 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria were bilateral femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAS) cases or labral lesions, ipsilateral knee injury, history of ipsilateral hip surgery, and significant spine lesions. Data regarding demographic characteristics such as age, gender, operation date, BMI, but also Beighton score, presence of postoperative pudendal nerve damage, and revision for any reason were gathered from patients' records. All patients were evaluated preoperatively with a visual analog scale (VAS), the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), and the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). Results: Of the 97 patients operated on with a hip arthroscopy between the defined dates, only 90 patients were included. The mean age was 37.9 ± 9.8, and 58.9% of patients were male. The most frequent surgical indication was an isolated FAS lesion (73.3%), followed by FAS associated with a labral tear (12.2%), an isolated labrum tear (10.0%), synovitis (3.3%), and a loose body (1.1%). The mean follow-up for the study cohort was 39.3 months. The majority of the patients had uneventful surgeries (76.7%), while there were three cases of sciatic nerve neuropraxia and 12 cases of pudendal nerve neuropraxia. Two patients underwent revision surgery during the study period. Comparison between preoperative and postoperative clinical scores showed a significant improvement with a final mHHS mean value of 67.7 ± 18.2, an HOOS value of 74.1 ± 13.2, and a low VAS score of 1.3 ± 1.2. Conclusions: A hip arthroscopy procedure with a standardized and unrepaired, extended interportal capsulotomy is a safe procedure with satisfactory mid-term results and high overall patient satisfaction. At a minimum of 2 years and a mean of 39.2 months, patients showed improved clinical scores and a low revision rate.

Puncture Capsulotomy Technique During Hip Arthroscopy

Background

A number of techniques have been described to enter the capsule and gain access to the hip joint during hip arthroscopy1,2. Among these, the interportal and T-capsulotomies are the most commonly utilized; however, these approaches transect the iliofemoral ligament, which normally resists anterior subluxation and stabilizes extension3. Thus, these approaches may introduce capsuloligamentous instability1,4-7 and have been associated with complications such as dislocation, postoperative pain, microinstability, seroma, and heterotopic ossification5,8-12. Although prior literature has demonstrated durable mid-term results for patients undergoing capsulotomies with capsular closure6,13, avoidance of iatrogenic injury to the hip capsule altogether is preferable. Thus, the puncture capsulotomy technique we present is minimally invasive, preserves the biomechanics of the hip joint and capsule without disrupting the iliofemoral ligament, and allows for appropriate visualization of the joint through placement of multiple small portals.

Description

Following induction of anesthesia and with the patient supine on a hip traction table, the nonoperative leg is positioned at 45° abduction with support of a well-padded perineal post, and the operative hip is placed into valgus against the post14. Intra-articular fluid distention with normal saline solution is utilized to achieve approximately 9 mm of inferior migration of the femoral head and decrease risk of iatrogenic nerve injury15. Then, under fluoroscopic guidance, an anterolateral portal is created 1 cm anterior and 1 cm superior to the greater trochanter at an approximately 15° to 20° angle. Second, via arthroscopic visualization, the anterior portal is created 1 cm distal and 1 cm lateral to the intersection of a vertical line drawn at the anterior superior iliac spine and a horizontal line at the level of the anterolateral portal. Third, equidistant between the anterior and anterolateral portals, the mid-anterior portal is created distally. Finally, at one-third of the distance between the anterior superior iliac spine and the anterolateral portal, the Dienst portal is created. Thus, these 4 portals form a quadrilateral arrangement through which puncture capsulotomy can be performed5.

Alternatives

Alternative approaches to the hip capsule include interportal and T-capsulotomies, with or without capsular closure1,2,4,6,7,16. Although the most frequently utilized, these approaches transect the iliofemoral ligament and thus may introduce capsuloligamentous instability1,4-7,17.

Rationale

The puncture capsulotomy technique has the advantage of maintaining the integrity of the capsule through the placement of 4 small portals. The technique does not transect the iliofemoral ligament and thus does not introduce capsuloligamentous instability. Furthermore, although good mid-term outcomes have been reported with capsular closure6,13,18, the present technique avoids creating unnecessary injury to the capsule and complications of an unrepaired capsule or, conversely, of plication.

Expected Outcomes

Patients who underwent the puncture capsulotomy technique showed significant improvements in multiple functional outcome scores at a mean follow-up of 30.4 months, including the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) (39.6 preoperatively to 76.1 postoperatively), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living subscale (HOS-ADL) (70.0 to 89.3), HOS Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) (41.8 to 75.7), and modified Harris hip score (mHHS) (60.1 to 84.9). At 2 years postoperatively with respect to iHOT-33, 81.0% of patients achieved the minimal clinically important difference, 62.0% achieved the patient acceptable symptom state, and 58.9% achieved substantial clinical benefit. In addition, mean visual analog scale pain scores improved significantly over the follow-up period (6.3 to 2.2; p < 0.001). Finally, there were zero occurrences of infection, osteonecrosis of the femoral head, dislocation or instability, or femoral neck fracture in patients treated with puncture capsulotomy19,20.

Important Tips

Anterolateral portal placement should be performed using the intra-articular fluid distention technique with fluoroscopy to avoid risk of iatrogenic labral damage and distraction-induced neurapraxia. Subsequent portals must then be placed under direct arthroscopic visualization.On establishment of the anterolateral portal, the scope should be switched to the anterior portal to ensure that the anterolateral portal has not been placed through the labrum and to adjust its placement to better access pathology. This portal, as well as all others, may be subsequently modified by adjusting the angle of the cannula, without making a new skin incision.If a cam lesion is located more anteromedially or posterolaterally, an additional accessory portal may be made distal or proximal to the anterolateral portal, respectively, in order to enhance visualization.Intermittent traction is utilized throughout the surgery. No traction is utilized during preparing and draping, suture tensioning and tie-down, and femoroplasty, with minimal traction during acetabuloplasty; these precautions serve to prevent iatrogenic superficial peroneal nerve injury.There can be a steep learning curve for this technique. In particular, greater surgical experience is required to perform adequate femoral osteoplasty for large cam lesions with this approach21.Instrument maneuverability and visualization can be somewhat constrained with this approach.It is more difficult to perform certain procedures with this technique, including segmental and circumferential labral reconstructions, particularly with remote grafts5.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

iHOT-33 = International Hip Outcome Tool-33HOS-ADL = Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living subscaleHOS-SSS = Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific SubscaleAP = anteroposteriorMRA = magnetic resonance arthrogramMRI = magnetic resonance imagingCT = computed tomographyASIS = anterior superior iliac spinemHHS = modified Harris hip score.

Long-term Outcomes of Primary Hip Arthroscopy: Multicenter Analysis at Minimum 10-Year Follow-up With Attention to Labral and Capsular Management

BACKGROUND

Hip arthroscopy is rapidly advancing, with positive published outcomes at short- and midterm follow-up; however, available long-term data remain limited.

PURPOSE

To evaluate outcomes of primary hip arthroscopy at a minimum 10-year follow-up at 2 academic centers by describing patient-reported outcomes and determining reoperation and total hip arthroplasty (THA) rates.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Patients with primary hip arthroscopy performed between January 1988 and April 2013 at 2 academic centers were evaluated for postoperative patient-reported outcomes-including the visual analog scale, Tegner Activity Scale score, Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living and Sport Specific subscales, modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool, surgery satisfaction, and reoperations.

RESULTS

A total of 294 patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy (age, 40 ± 14 years; 66% women; body mass index, 27 ± 6) were followed for 12 ± 3 years (range, 10-24 years) postoperatively. Labral debridement and repair were performed in 41% and 59% of patients, respectively. Of all patients who underwent interportal capsulotomy, 2% were extended to a T-capsulotomy, and 11% underwent capsular repair. At final follow-up, patients reported a mean visual analog scale at rest of 2 ± 2 and with use of 3 ± 3, a 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool of 68 ± 27, a Nonarthritic Hip Score of 81 ± 18, a modified Harris Hip Score of 79 ± 17, and a Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living of 82 ± 19 and Sport Specific subscale of 74 ± 25. The mean surgical satisfaction was 8.4 ± 2.4 on a 10-point scale, with 10 representing the highest level of satisfaction. In total, 96 hips (33%) underwent reoperation-including 65 hips (22%) converting to THA. THA risk factors included older age, higher body mass index, lower lateral center-edge angle, larger alpha angle, higher preoperative Tönnis grade, as well as labral debridement and capsular nonrepair (P≤ .039). Patients undergoing combined labral and capsular repair demonstrated a THA conversion rate of 3% compared with 31% for patients undergoing combined labral debridement and capsular nonrepair (P = .006). Labral repair trended toward increased 10-year THA-free survival (84% vs 77%; P = .085), while capsular repair demonstrated significantly increased 10-year THA-free survival (97% vs 79%; P = .033).

CONCLUSION

At a minimum 10-year follow-up, patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy demonstrated high satisfaction and acceptable outcome scores. In total, 33% of patients underwent reoperation-including 22% who underwent THA. Conversion to THA was associated with patient factors including older age, higher Tönnis grade, and potentially modifiable surgical factors such as labral debridement and capsular nonrepair.

Editorial Commentary: Hip Capsular Preservation When Treating Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome Should Remain Universal, and Some Hip Phenotypes Necessitate Maximum Surgical Stability

Hip capsular preservation remains most common in the United States despite literature to-date showing varying outcomes. Different surgeons prefer, and different patients require, periportal capsulotomies versus wider exposure with T-type capsulotomy and traction stitches. In addition to revision cases, some hip phenotypes may require more aggressive capsular management. Patients with borderline hip dysplasia, acetabular retroversion, increased femoral anteversion, and greater Beighton scores necessitate more hip stability; thus, capsular preservation and closure is essential. However, patients with "tight" hips, thicker capsules, and larger cam deformities may require less-stringent capsular care. Regardless, adequate bony decompression is paramount in patients with femoroacetabular impingment syndrome.

Capsular Management at the Time of Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome Varies With Geography and Surgeon Subspecialty Training: A Cross-Sectional, Multinational Surgeon Survey

PURPOSE

To perform a multinational survey and identify patterns in capsular management at the time of hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

An anonymous, nonvalidated survey was distributed by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine; Arthroscopy Association of North America; European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery & Arthroscopy; International Society for Hip Arthroscopy; and Turkish Society of Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, and Knee Surgery. The questions were broken down into 6 categories: demographic characteristics, capsulotomy preference, traction stitches, capsular closure, postoperative rehabilitation, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 157 surgeons. Surgeons who performed half or full T-type capsulotomies had 2.4 higher odds of using traction sutures for managing both the peripheral and central compartments during hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (P = .024). Surgeons who believed that there was sufficient literature regarding the importance of hip capsular closure had 1.9 higher odds of routinely performing complete closure of the capsule (P = .044). Additionally, surgeons who practiced in the United States had 8.1 higher odds of routinely closing the capsule relative to international surgeons (P < .001). Moreover, surgeons who received hip arthroscopy training in residency or fellowship had 2.4 higher odds of closing the capsule completely compared with surgeons who did not have exposure to hip arthroscopy during their training (P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

Geographic and surgeon-related variables correlate with capsular management preferences during hip arthroscopy. Surgeons who perform half or full T-capsulotomies more often use traction stitches for managing both the peripheral and central compartments. Surgeons performing routine capsular closure are more likely to believe that sufficient evidence is available to support the practice, with surgeons in the United States being more likely to perform routine capsular closure in comparison to their international colleagues.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As the field of hip preservation continues to evolve, capsular management will likely continue to play an important role in access, instrumentation, and postoperative outcomes.

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.

Capsular Repair, Labral Repair, and Femoroplasty are Increasingly Performed for the Arthroscopic Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

PURPOSE

To provide an updated assessment of hip arthroscopy use by using an institutional database that is specific to the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

METHODS

All patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for the treatment of FAIS were retrospectively identified between the years 2014 and 2022 via Current Procedural Terminology coding in a multi-institutional, single health system database. A longitudinal analysis was performed to identify trends in the use of arthroscopic techniques including capsular and labral treatment, osteoplasty, and traction set-up.

RESULTS

During the study, 789 arthroscopic hip procedures in 733 patients were analyzed (56 staged bilateral). Between 2016 and 2022, the number of hip arthroscopies performed each year increased by 1,490% (R2 = 0.87, P = .001). Capsular repair (R2 = 0.92, P < .001), labral repair (R2 = 0.75, P = .002), and femoroplasty (R2 = 0.70, P = .004) were performed in an increasing proportion of cases over our study period whereas labral debridement (R2 = -0.84, P < .001) became less used. Postless traction systems were employed in 84% (663/789) of hip arthroscopies overall, were used in at least 70% of hip arthroscopies each year, and did not undergo any significant changes in use (R2 = 0.02, P = .73).

CONCLUSIONS

Capsular repair, labral repair, and femoroplasty were increasingly performed for the arthroscopic treatment of FAIS whereas the use of labral debridement decreased significantly over our study period. Postless traction systems were used in the majority of cases each year.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As comparative literature continues to define the safety and efficacy of hip arthroscopy, understanding how novel techniques or procedures are incorporated in clinical practice is important.

No Differences in Clinical Outcomes Between Hip Arthroscopy With Versus Without Capsular Closure in Patients With Cam- or Mixed-Type Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To compare 2-year clinical outcomes of primary hip arthroscopy with versus without capsular closure after interportal capsulotomy in patients with cam- or mixed-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).

METHODS

Patients with cam- or mixed-type FAI undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with interportal capsulotomy were prospectively enrolled in this randomized controlled trial (RCT) and allocated into either capsular closure or no capsular closure groups. Patients were blinded to group allocation. Clinical outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at 2-year follow-up using the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and 6 subsections of the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS). Complications and reoperations were noted.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients (100 hips) were enrolled, 49 hips in the capsular closure group and 51 in the no capsular closure group, with no significant differences in age (28.5 ± 7.5 vs 30.4 ± 8.4, P = .261), body mass index (23.5 ± 3.0 vs 23.4 ± 1.9, P = .665), and sex distribution (female: 10.2% vs 13.7%, P = .760). Four patients were lost to follow-up (2.0% vs 5.9%, P = .618) and 6 had reoperations (6.1% vs 5.9%, P = 1.000), which left 45 hips per group for clinical assessment. There were no significant differences between groups in the net change of iHOT-12 (28.3 ± 19.6 vs 32.5 ± 22.7, P = .388), mHHS (7.6 ± 13.1 vs 7.5 ± 10.2, P = .954), and subsections of HAGOS (P > .05). Complication rates were also similar between groups (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The present RCT compared primary hip arthroscopy with versus without capsular closure after interportal capsulotomy in a male-dominated, non-dysplastic, non-arthritic cohort with cam- or mixed-type FAI and found no significant differences in patient-reported clinical outcomes, complication rates, or reoperation rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, randomized controlled trial.

Capsular Management During Hip Arthroscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hip arthroscopy is widely used for the management of intra-articular pathology and there has been growing interest in strategies for management of the hip capsule during surgery. The hip capsule is an essential structure that provides stability to the joint and it is necessarily violated during procedures that address intra-articular pathology. This article reviews different approaches to capsular management during hip arthroscopy including anatomical considerations for capsulotomy, techniques, clinical outcomes, and the role of routine capsular repair. This article also reviews the concept of hip microinstability and its potential impact on capsular management options as well as iatrogenic complications that can occur as a result of poor capsular management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current research highlights the key functional role of the hip capsule and the importance of preserving its anatomy during surgery. Capsulotomies that involve less tissue violation (periportal and puncture-type approaches) do not appear to require routine capsular repair to achieve good outcomes. Many studies have investigated the role of capsular repair following more extensive capsulotomy types (interportal and T-type), with most authors reporting superior outcomes with routine capsular repair. Strategies for capsular management during hip arthroscopy range from conservative capsulotomy techniques aimed to minimize capsular violation to more extensive capsulotomies with routine capsule closure, all of which have good short- to mid-term outcomes. There is a growing trend towards decreasing iatrogenic capsular tissue injury when possible and fully repairing the capsule when larger capsulotomies are utilized. Future research may reveal that patients with microinstability may require a more specific approach to capsular management.

Arthroscopic Hip Capsular Repair Improves Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Is Associated With a Decreased Risk of Revision Surgery and Conversion to Total Hip Arthroplasty

Purpose

To perform a systematic review to assess the effect of capsular repair compared with nonrepair on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) after hip arthroscopy in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.

Methods

We initially searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed databases, as well as ongoing clinical trials (https://clinicaltrials.gov), on December 15, 2022. The eligibility criteria were randomized controlled trials (Level Ⅰ) and prospective comparative studies (Level II) of patients who underwent capsular repair and nonrepair via hip arthroscopy with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. We registered this protocol a priori on PROSPERO (identification No. CRD42021239306). We assessed the risk of bias using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) appraisal tool.

Results

This review included 5 studies with a total of 639 patients (270 with capsular repair [average age, 35.4 years; 41% female patients] and 369 with nonrepair [average age, 37.3 years; 38% female patients]). In the included studies, surgical procedures consisting of labral repair and pincer or cam osteoplasty were performed via hip arthroscopy. The modified Harris Hip Score was measured in all the included studies, and the standardized mean difference in PROMs for capsular repair versus nonrepair in the included studies was 0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20 to 0.63). A sensitivity analysis of randomized controlled trials achieved consistent results (standardized mean difference in PROMs, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.60). Capsular repair was not associated with a reduction in revision surgery (risk difference, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.03; 26 of 270 patients with capsular repair vs 42 of 369 with nonrepair) but was associated with a reduction in conversion to THA (risk difference, -0.05; 95% CI -0.09 to -0.01; 12 of 270 patients with capsular repair vs 38 of 369 with nonrepair). The average Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) score in the included studies was 20.

Conclusions

Patients who undergo capsular repair in conjunction with other arthroscopic hip preservation techniques have better PROMs and a lower incidence of THA conversion.

Level of Evidence

Level II, systematic review of Level I and II investigations.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies Comparing Complete Capsular Closure Against Unrepaired Hip Capsules During Hip Arthroscopy

Background

While the biomechanical importance of the hip capsule is well described, there remains controversy over the necessity of routine capsular closure after hip arthroscopy.

Purpose

To perform a meta-analysis of clinical studies to compare pooled outcomes of complete hip capsular closure cohorts against unrepaired hip capsule cohorts.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL/EBSCO, and Scopus were queried in February 2022 for studies that directly compared clinical outcomes for hip arthroscopy patients treated with either complete capsular closure or an unrepaired capsule. Outcomes assessed were incidence of revision hip arthroscopy, incidence of subsequent conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), and improvement from baseline in modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS) activities of daily living (ADL), HOS sports specific (SS) subscale, Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) ADL, and HAGOS SS subscale. A pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) was used to compare changes in mHHS. A pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to compare changes in the ADL and SS outcomes. A pooled risk ratio (RR) was used to compare the probability of revision hip arthroscopy and conversion to THA based on capsular management. For pooled outcomes where heterogeneity was regarded as potentially unimportant, a fixed-effects model was implemented. For pooled outcomes with considerable heterogeneity, a random-effects model was implemented.

Results

Of the 1896 records identified in our search, 11 studies (1897 patients) were included. A significantly higher improvement in mHHS (WMD, -3.72; 95% CI, -4.95 to -2.50; P < .00001) and ADL outcomes (SMD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.54 to -0.07; P = .01) were seen after complete capsular closure. There was a significantly lower probability of subsequent revision hip arthroscopy (RR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.45; P = .008) and conversion to THA (RR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.06 to 3.79; P = .03) after complete capsular repair. There was no difference in SS outcomes (SMD, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.13; P = .81) between the 2 groups.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrated that routine complete capsular closure after hip arthroscopy led to superior clinical outcomes relative to unrepaired hip capsules.

Superior outcomes after arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement and labral tears with closed versus open capsule

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was the clinical evaluation of the capsular management with arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement and labral tears by comparing the functional outcomes of closed versus open capsule.

METHODS

Patients with a median age of 38 years (18-55), clinical and radiological features of FAI and/or labral tear, and non-arthritic non-dysplastic hips were selected for arthroscopic treatment. Capsulotomy was performed primarily as an interportal section, then a distal extension preserving the zona orbicularis was added. The study compared two matched groups: patients with open capsule versus patients with closed capsule. Clinical outcomes were assessed by Non-Arthritic Hip Score, hip outcome scores of daily living activities and sports-specific scales. Scores were collected preoperatively and 6 months, 2 years and 5 years postoperatively. Rate of revision arthroscopy and conversion to total hip arthroplasty were used for comparing groups. Minimal clinically important differences were calculated for both groups.

RESULTS

The study included 42 patients in the OC group and 44 patients in the CC group. Significant improvement of postoperative PROMs was recorded in both groups compared to preoperative scores. CC group significantly improved more than the OC group based on NAHS, HOS-ADL and HOS-SSS over all check points except for NAHS and HOS-ADL at 6 months, which were statistically non-significant. A non-significant difference was observed in the percentage of patients who met the MCID for all reported outcome scores at 5 years in both groups. The rate of reoperation was similar in both groups, but with different indications.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic treatment of FAI and labral repair with complete closure of the hip capsule led to significantly improved functional outcomes after 5 years follow-up compared with open capsule. Closed capsule can provide greater improvement in the sports-specific outcomes at early follow-up. Controlled capsulotomy limited by zona orbicularis did not produce instability at any postoperative stage. Similar proportions of patients achieved minimal clinically important difference, and similar rates of reoperation were reported in both groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

The revision hip arthroscopy complex: capsular deficiency, labral deficiency, femoral over-resection and adhesions can result in good survivorship with revision hip arthroscopy

To evaluate the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship of combined arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction/augmentation, capsular reconstruction, femoral neck remplissage and lysis of adhesions. Patients ≥18 years old who underwent this combination of procedures during revision hip arthroscopy and were eligible for minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. PRO scores including Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living scale, HOS-Sports scale, modified Harris Hip Score, Short Form 12, and Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, patient satisfaction and failure rates were analyzed. Seven patients (5 females and 2 males) with average age of 45.0 ± 5.2 (range: 40-54 years) met inclusion criteria. Patients had a median of 1 (range: 1-3) prior hip surgery at an outside institution. All patients had previously undergone femoral osteoplasty, and 85% (6/7) of patients had a labral repair performed. Four patients had no capsule closure performed in their prior procedures. Six patients were available for minimum 2-year follow-up. Two patients converted to total hip arthroplasty: one patient with four prior hip arthroscopies and the other had advanced osteoarthritis with outerbridge grade 3/4 defects requiring microfracture. Mean patient satisfaction was 7 (range: 2-9). At mean follow-up of 3 years, most patients who underwent the combination of labral reconstruction, capsular reconstruction, femoral neck remplissage and lysis of adhesions during revision hip arthroscopy demonstrated improved PROs. This salvage procedure has the potential to restore hip function in patients who have failed an initial hip arthroscopy procedure. In patients with these pathologies present and concomitant joint space narrowing, a total hip arthroplasty may be a more appropriate salvage option.

Capsular Repair is Associated with Lower Revision Rates Yet Similar Clinical Outcomes and Arthroplasty Conversion 5-Years after Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of studies reporting on minimum 5-year outcomes of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy (HA) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) to determine whether capsular management influences patient-reported outcomes (PROs), rates of clinically significant outcome, and rates of revision surgery or conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched around the terms hip arthroscopy, FAIS, five-year follow-up, and capsule management. Articles available in English, presenting original data, and reporting minimum 5-year follow-up after HA using either PROs or conversion to THA and/or revision surgery were included. Quality assessment was completed using MINORS assessment. Articles were stratified into unrepaired and repaired capsule cohorts (excluding periportal capsulotomy techniques).

RESULTS

Eight articles were included. MINORS assessment ranged from 11-22, with excellent (k=0.842) inter-rater reliability. Populations without capsular repair were identified in four studies including a total of 387 patients, at an age of 33.1-38.0 years and follow-up range of 60.0-77 months. Populations with capsular repair were identified in five studies including a total of 835 patients, at an age range of 33.6-43.1 years and follow-up range of 60.0-78.0 months. All studies included PROs and all reported significant improvement (p<0.05) at the 5-year timepoint, with modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) being the most frequent (n=6). No differences were noted between groups regarding any of the measured PROs. Average rates of achieving MCID and PASS for mHHS were similar between patients without capsular repair (MCID 71.1%, PASS 73.7%, n=1) and with capsular repair (MCID 66.0%-90.6%, PASS 55.3%-87.4%, n=4). Conversion to THA occurred in 12.8-18.5% and 0.0-29.0% for patients with an unrepaired and repaired capsule, respectively. Revision HA occurred in 15.4-25.5% and 3.1-15.4% in unrepaired and repaired capsular patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAI had significant improvement in PRO scores at minimum 5-year follow-up, and scores did not differ between patients that underwent capsular repair and those that did not. Similar rates of markers of clinical benefit and THA conversion were achieved by both groups; however, lower rates of revision hip arthroscopy were demonstrated in the capsular repair cohort.

Knotless Implant for Arthroscopic Hip Capsule Closure

The hip joint capsule plays a significant role in maintaining hip stability, including translation and rotation. Hip capsular closure or plication has been shown to increase stability of the joint following capsulotomy in hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and/or associated labral tears. This technique article describes a knotless method of closing the hip capsule.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Improve at 2-Year Minimum Follow-Up After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To provide an updated review of recent literature on postoperative outcomes following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS), focusing on larger-population studies with a minimum 2-year follow-up published within the last 5 years.

METHODS

A literature search of the PubMed, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Articles were screened for clinical studies published from 2017 to 2022 with greater than 100 patients and minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria included failure to report postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs), no preoperative radiographic measurements, and surgery for pathology other than FAIS. Data collection included study characteristics, patient demographics, radiographic findings, intraoperative findings, procedures performed, postoperative PROs, and subsequent surgeries.

RESULTS

Nine studies met inclusion criteria. Mean or median patient ages ranged from 32.3 to 41 years, with 4 studies reporting on greater than 50% female patients. Mean preoperative lateral center edge angles and alpha angles ranged from 30.2° to 37° and from 56.2° to 71°, respectively. Labral repairs (range 69.7%-100%) were performed more commonly than debridements (range 0%-26.3%). All studies demonstrated improved PROs at most recent follow-up. Seven studies reported mean or median modified Harris Hip Scores, with preoperative and postoperative values that ranged from 53.1 to 80 and from 67.4 to 100, respectively. Revision hip arthroscopies and conversions to hip arthroplasty ranged from 0.8% to 11.6% and from 0% to 34%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

All included studies found improvements in PROs after hip arthroscopy for FAIS at a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Conversion to total hip arthroplasty is most common in older patients at minimum 10-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Hip Capsular Repair Results in Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes and Survivorship: A Systematic Review of the Literature

PURPOSE

To determine whether routine capsular closure following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in patients without dysplasia results in improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and increased survivorship rates.

METHODS

A literature search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed using the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for clinical studies reporting PROs following arthroscopic hip labral repair for FAI. A quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies grading system. Inclusion criteria consisted of comparative clinical studies investigating routine capsular closure with nonclosure in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for the treatment of FAI and labral tears. Exclusion criteria included non-English language, minimum follow-up of less than 2 years after surgery, technique articles, case reports, noncomparative case series of fewer than 10 patients, failure to report surgical technique, absence of postoperative PROs, or partial repair. Data collection included study characteristics, demographics, indications, radiographic metrics, perioperative findings, surgical technique, baseline and most recent PROs, and subsequent surgeries.

RESULTS

A total of 531 articles were reviewed, of which 3 were included with 249 hips that underwent capsular repair and 157 hips that underwent capsulotomy with no repair. There were 2 Level III studies and 1 Level II study, with an average The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies score of 16.7. All studies cited FAI and labral tear as an indication for surgery. All studies demonstrated improved PROs from baseline to most recent follow-up. Postoperatively, the repair group reported modified Harris Hip Score values ranging from 80.8 to 87, whereas the nonrepair group reported scores ranging from 76 to 81.7. In addition, the repair group reported postoperative Hip Outcome Score - Sports-Specific Subscale values ranging from 68.1 to 9, whereas the nonrepair group reported scores ranging from 65.3 to 76.1. The studies also reported minimal clinically important difference for modified Harris Hip Score, with the repair group reporting percentages ranging from 71 to 100 and the nonrepair group reporting percentages ranging from 52 to 95.6. All 3 studies also observed a lower rate of hip survivorship in the nonrepair group, ranging from 94.6 to 100 in the repair group and 90.8 to 100 in the nonrepair group. There were no significant differences in the rate of revision arthroscopy between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients without dysplasia who undergo capsular repair have greater improvements in PROs and greater survivorship rates at early- and mid-term follow-up than patients who do not undergo capsular repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, systematic review of level II and III studies.

Puncture Capsulotomy Technique for Hip Arthroscopy: Midterm Functional Outcomes

Background

The most common surgical approaches in hip arthroscopy are interportal and T-capsulotomy. However, these methods may introduce capsular instability. Puncture capsulotomy preserves capsuloligamentous integrity by avoiding iatrogenic transection of the iliofemoral capsular ligament.

Purpose

To present minimum 2-year functional outcomes for patients who underwent arthroscopic treatment for acetabular labral tears and concomitant femoroacetabular impingement using the puncture capsulotomy technique.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

The authors conducted a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on patients who underwent arthroscopic acetabular labral tear treatment between December 2013 and May 2019. Included were patients aged ≥18 years who underwent hip arthroscopy by a single surgeon and completed a minimum of 2 years of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) surveys. Intraoperatively, patients underwent hip arthroscopy via puncture capsulotomy to treat labral tears and any concomitant femoroacetabular impingement. Clinical outcome data consisted of PROMs.

Results

A total of 163 hips were included; the mean patient follow-up was 30.4 months (range, 24-60 months; 95% CI, 28.5-32.3 months). Patients had a mean age of 37.9 years (range, 36.1-39.6 years), with a mean body mass index of 25.9 (range, 25.2-26.5). There were significant improvements in mean [95% CI] baseline to final follow-up scores for the 33-Item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) (39.6 [36.8-42.4] vs 76.1 [72.7-79.6]), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (70.0 [67.0-73.0] vs 89.3 [87.3-91.3]), modified Harris Hip Score (60.1 [57.9-62.4] vs 84.9 [82.5-87.2]), and Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (41.8 [37.9-45.6] vs 75.7 [71.7-79.7]) (P < .001 for all). Additionally, the mean [95% CI] visual analog scale pain scores were noted to significantly improve throughout the duration of the postoperative period (from 6.3 [5.9-6.7] to 2.2 [1.8-2.6]; P < .001). There were no incidences of infection, avascular necrosis of the femoral head, dislocation/instability, or femoral neck fracture. At the 2-year follow-up, 81.0%, 62.0%, and 58.9% of hips achieved previously published clinically meaningful iHOT-33 thresholds for minimally clinically important difference, Patient Acceptable Symptom Score, and substantial clinical benefit, respectively.

Conclusion

Puncture capsulotomy demonstrated significantly improved functional and clinically meaningful outcomes at a minimum 2-year follow-up, along with a minimal complication rate.

Driving performance and turning reaction time following hip arthroscopy for FAIS: does capsular repair matter?

PURPOSE

(1) To compare the pre- and postoperative driving performance in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS); (2) to examine the differences in driving performance between patients with versus without capsular repair.

METHODS

Patients who underwent arthroscopic hip surgery for FAIS were included. Driving performance of participating patients was collected using a driving simulator preoperatively and at 2 weeks, 4-6 weeks and 8-12 weeks postoperatively. Data collected included demographics, surgery laterality, intraoperative procedures, left and right turn reaction time, total turn reaction time, gas off time (GOF), and break reaction time (BRT). Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

21 subjects (9 males, 12 females) with a mean age of 30 ± 9 years were included and 57.1% of the subjects had right-sided surgery. There was no difference between the mean preoperative and the 2-week postoperative left (0.72 seconds and 0.75 seconds, respectively) right (0.77 seconds and 0.75 seconds, respectively), and total (0.74 seconds and 0.75 seconds, respectively) turn reaction times as well as GOF (0.62 seconds and 0.60 seconds, respectively) and BRT (0.92 seconds and 0.93 seconds, respectively), indicating that the patients' driving performance returned to the preoperative level as early as 2 weeks following hip arthroscopy for FAIS. There was no significant difference amongst any of the driving variables between patients who underwent capsular repair (50%) and those who did not. There was no significant difference amongst any of the driving variable s between patients who underwent left versus right hip arthroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients' driving performance returns to the preoperative level as early as 2 weeks after hip arthroscopy for FAIS. Surgery laterality nor capsular repair make any significant difference in the time for driving abilities to return to baseline. The impact of intraoperative procedures performed, and the analgesic medications used postoperatively on the driving ability of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy warrants further investigation in larger patient populations.

Female Patients and Decreased Hip Capsular Thickness on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Associated With Increased Axial Distraction Distance on Examination Under Anesthesia: An In Vivo Study

PURPOSE

To investigate the relation of hip capsular thickness as measured on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and intraoperative hip joint axial distraction distance on an examination under anesthesia.

METHODS

A retrospective review of primary arthroscopic hip procedures performed between November 2018 and June 2021 was conducted. The inclusion criteria included a diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and preoperative radiographic imaging and MRI. Fluoroscopic images were obtained at 0 lb and 100 lb of axial traction force. Total distraction distance was calculated by comparing the initial joint space with the total joint space at 100 lb. Hip capsular thickness was measured on MRI. Analysis was conducted using multiple linear regression, independent-samples t tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were included. Bivariable regression showed an association between an increased distraction distance and female sex (β = 4.303, R = 0.561, P < .001), as well as decreased anterior axial (β = -1.291, R = 0.365, P < .001) and superior coronal (β = -1.433, R = 0.501, P < .001) capsular thickness. Multivariable regression (R = 0.645) showed an association between an increased distraction distance and female sex (β = 3.175, P < .001), as well as decreased superior coronal capsular thickness (β = -0.764, P = .022). Independent-samples t tests showed that female patients had significantly decreased superior coronal capsular thickness (2.92 ± 1.14 mm vs 3.99 ± 1.15 mm, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Female sex and decreased hip capsular thickness in the superior aspect of the coronal plane on magnetic resonance scans were found to be predictors of increased hip joint axial distraction distance on examination under anesthesia prior to hip arthroscopy, with anterior axial capsular thickness being a moderate predictor. Poor predictors of distraction distance were posterior axial and inferior coronal capsular thickness, age, body mass index, and lateral center-edge angle. Female patients were also found to have thinner hip capsules in the superior region, which may explain the association between female patients and increased distraction. These findings further characterize the relation between capsular thickness and hip laxity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Return to Driving After Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background:

Hip arthroscopy is an increasingly common procedure; however, recommendations for safely returning to driving after hip arthroscopy vary among surgeons.

Purpose:

To systematically review and analyze the current available evidence on the optimal time to safely return to driving after hip arthroscopy.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Two authors independently conducted a literature search throughout August 2021 using the PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, and Cochrane databases. A total of 1425 articles were reviewed, and 5 articles were included. All included articles used brake reaction time (BRT) as an observer-reported outcome measure. A meta-analysis was performed to compare pre- and postoperative BRT values. Study sample sizes and mean BRT values were collected per each included study. First, data were analyzed for the right and left hips combined; then, a subgroup analysis stratified by laterality was performed. The BRT values were divided according to time periods of measurement: preoperatively and 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks postoperatively.

Results:

The included studies evaluated safety to return to driving after hip arthroscopy in 160 patients. Of these, 142 patients were treated for femoroacetabular impingement, while 18 patients underwent hip arthroscopy for other diagnoses. The mean weighted age was 33.7 ± 9.0 years, 47.5% of the patients were female, and the right hip was affected in 71.2%. The preoperative range of BRT was 566 to 1960 ms, and postoperative BRT range was 567 to 1840 ms at 1 to 2 weeks and 523 to 1860 ms at 3 to 12 weeks. Meta-analysis found the studies to be moderately heterogenic ( P = .06). There were no statistically significant differences in BRT between the preoperative period and at 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks postoperatively.

Conclusion:

Return to driving is likely safe as early as 2 to 4 weeks after right-sided hip arthroscopy, and 2 weeks after a left-sided procedure, as driving performance returns to the preoperative level.

Registration:

CRD42021274460 (PROSPERO identifier).

Patients With Generalized Joint Hypermobility Have Thinner Superior Hip Capsules and Greater Hip Internal Rotation on Physical Examination

Purpose

To compare preoperative hip range of motion (ROM), hip capsular thickness on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and bony morphology on radiographs and computed tomography (CT) between patients with and without joint hypermobility as measured by the Beighton Test score (BTS), with subanalysis based on sex and age.

Methods

Consecutive patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for a diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome with or without dysplasia were retrospectively reviewed. Patient BTS, hip ROM, demographics, surgical data, morphologic measures on radiographs and CT, and MRI findings including hip capsule thickness at various locations were compiled. Multiple statistical tests were performed, including multivariable linear or logistic regression models, while controlling for BTS, age, and sex.

Results

In total, 99 patients were included with a mean age of 29 ± 9.9 years; 62 (62.6%), were female. Forty patients (40.4%) had a BTS ≥4. Female patients (P < .001) and younger patients (26.7 vs 30.9 years, P = .030) were more likely to have a BTS ≥4. Male patients had significantly thicker superior capsules (3.4 mm vs. 2.8 mm, P = .034). BTS was not associated with capsular thickness when controlling for sex. On CT, femoral version (18.9° vs 11.4°, P < .001), and McKibben index (37.8° vs. 28.2°, P < .001) were significantly greater in those with a BTS ≥4. Patients with a BTS ≥4 had more hip internal rotation at 90° of flexion (15.0° vs 10.0°, P < .001), when prone (30.0° vs 20.0°, P = .004), and in extension (10.0° vs. 5.0°, P < .001).

Conclusions

All female patients, regardless of Beighton score, and all patients with a BTS ≥4 indicated for primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome with or without dysplasia were more likely to have thinner superior hip capsules on MRI and greater hip internal rotation on exam. Bony morphologic differences exist between sexes and between patients with and without hypermobility, likely contributing to differences in ROM.

Level of Evidence

III, retrospective cohort study.

The minimal clinically important difference for the nonarthritic hip score at 2-years following hip arthroscopy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine and establish the MCID for the NAHS at 2 years in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

METHODS

Patients that underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS between 2010 and 2016 were analyzed for eligibility. Data were collected from a single surgeon's hip arthroscopy database. MCID was calculated for the NAHS utilizing a distribution-based method.

RESULTS

The study included 298 patients (184 females) with an average age of 40.4 ± 13.0 years and average body mass index (BMI) of 25.7 ± 4.2 kg/m². At baseline, the cohort's average NAHS score was 48.7 ± 13.6 and demonstrated an improvement of 36.5 ± 17.0 for NAHS at follow-up. This resulted in MCID values of + 8.5 for NAHS.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to report the MCID (+ 8.5) for NAHS following primary hip arthroscopy, and as such, is a valuable contribution to future hip arthroscopy research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Arthroscopic Hip Capsular Reconstruction Using Iliotibial Band Allograft as a Salvage Option for Unrepairable Capsular Defects Demonstrates Good Survivorship and Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes

PURPOSE

To describe patient outcomes 3 to 5 years after arthroscopic hip capsule reconstruction.

METHODS

Between January 2007 and December 2016, patients aged 18 to 50 years who underwent arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction using an Iliotibial band allograft by the senior author and had minimum of 3-year follow-up were identified. Patients were excluded if they had previous open hip surgery, advanced osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade >2), significant acetabular dysplasia (lateral center edge angle <20°), avascular necrosis, or Legg-Calve-Perthes disease. Outcome scores including the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living scale, modified Harris Hip Score, HOS-Sports scale, SF-12, and Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were compared in addition to failure rate, revision rate, and patient satisfaction rate with the outcome (range, 1-10). All patients were assessed by the senior author pre- and postoperatively.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of the cohort was 32 ± 10 years, with 6 male and 33 female patients. The average number of previous hip arthroscopy surgeries was 2 ± 1. Six patients (15%) converted to total hip arthroplasty at an average of 2.1 years (range 7 months to 6 years) following capsular reconstruction. Four patients required revision hip arthroscopy after the arthroscopic capsular reconstruction. All arthroscopic revisions occurred in female patients with the primary intraoperative finding of capsulolabral adhesions at the time of revision. At mean follow-up of 4.3 years (range 3-6.8 years), the 29 patients who did not require subsequent surgery had significant improvements from preoperatively to postoperatively in HOS-Activities of Daily Living and HOS-Sport with 90% reaching minimal clinically important difference. All other scores showed significant improvement. Survival for patients not requiring total hip arthroplasty was 86% at 3 years, with a mean survival of 5.7 years (95% confidence interval 4.97-6.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction with iliotibial band allograft is a successful treatment option for patients with symptomatic capsular defects, demonstrating improved patient-reported outcomes maintained at mean follow-up time of 4 years. This technique offers restoration of the anatomic structure and function of the capsular ligaments to improve pain and instability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case series.

Capsule Closure of Periportal Capsulotomy for Hip Arthroscopy

Multiple approaches for management of the hip capsule during hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome have been reported. Capsular closure is advocated in the setting of larger capsulotomies, including interportal and T-capsulotomies, to reduce the risk of iatrogenic instability or microinstability of the hip. The periportal capsulotomy technique has been described for conservative management of the capsule that would not necessitate closure. However, hip arthroscopy for patients with ligamentous laxity or joint hypermobility may warrant capsule closure or plication even with use of conservative capsulotomy techniques. We introduce a technique for closure of periportal capsulotomy as a means to repair or plicate the hip capsule in the at-risk hypermobile patient.

Arthroscopic Treatment of Mild/Borderline Hip Dysplasia with Concomitant Femoroacetabular Impingement-Literature Review

Purpose of Review

This literature review aims to survey the current knowledge about the management FAI in the setting of borderline hip dysplasia.

Recent Findings

With better understanding, hip arthroscopy has recently been advocated for treating mild or borderline hip dysplasia (BDH) with concomitant femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) despite early studies that condemned its use. Recent outcome data have demonstrated that hip arthroscopy is a viable option in BDH, with and without FAI, and has been gaining wider acceptance. Hip arthroscopy can address the concomitant soft tissue and bony intra-articular pathologies and obviate the necessity for other surgeries. Moreover, hip arthroscopy may be used as an adjuvant treatment to other procedures such as a periacetabular osteotomy (PAO).

Summary

Hip arthroscopy for BDH is an evolving procedure with promising short- and mid-term outcomes. The combination of BDH and FAI is becoming recognized as a problem in its own right, requiring dedicated treatment.

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.

Editorial Commentary: Axial Stress Examination Under Anesthesia Provides a Highly Reliable Test for Measurement of Hip Distraction

Symptomatic hip microinstability is now recognized as one of the most common surgical indications for revision hip arthroscopy. Hip microinstability can be difficult to diagnose, particularly because of the multifactorial etiology and limited physical examination maneuvers that provide objective testing of gross hip stability. One measure of hip stability is axial stability evaluated under traction intraoperatively. Recent research has suggested that average axial stability of the hip is decreased after primary hip arthroscopy-although not in all cases. Recognizing that there are many additional factors that may contribute to hip microinstability, as well as the fact that axial stability is only one assessment of overall stability of the hip, is important in the evaluation of microinstability in the setting of prior hip arthroscopy.

Pre- and intraoperative decision-making challenges in hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement

There has been a marked increase in the number of hip arthroscopies performed over the past 16 years, primarily in the management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Insights into the pathoanatomy of FAI, and high-level evidence supporting the clinical effectiveness of arthroscopy in the management of FAI, have fuelled this trend. Arthroscopic management of labral tears with repair may have superior results compared with debridement, and there is now emerging evidence to support reconstructive options where repair is not possible. In situations where an interportal capsulotomy is performed to facilitate access, data now support closure of the capsule in selective cases where there is an increased risk of postoperative instability. Preoperative planning is an integral component of bony corrective surgery in FAI, and this has evolved to include computer-planned resection. However, the benefit of this remains controversial. Hip instability is now widely accepted, and diagnostic criteria and treatment are becoming increasingly refined. Instability can also be present with FAI or develop as a result of FAI treatment. In this annotation, we outline major current controversies relating to decision-making in hip arthroscopy for FAI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):532-540.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy for Graft Retear and Residual Cam Lesion in a Previously Labral Reconstructed Hip

Persistent pain after hip arthroscopy may be due to residual impingement, hip dysplasia, osteoarthritis progression, labral injury, or insufficient capsular closure. A patient's history, physical examination findings, and imaging studies should be used to determine whether revision hip arthroscopy is indicated. If surgical management is chosen, careful preoperative planning is essential. During revision hip arthroscopy, the presence and location of adhesions should be considered during interportal capsulotomy and T-capsulotomy creation and while applying traction sutures. The presence of a residual cam or pincer lesion and the adequacy of the labrum or labral graft should be assessed and properly addressed. If capsular redundancy is recognized, capsular plication may be performed. The purpose of this Technical Note is to describe an approach to revision hip arthroscopy for labral repair and residual cam lesion resection.

The Biomechanical Consequences of Arthroscopic Hip Capsulotomy and Repair in Positions at Risk for Dislocation

Background:

The effect of interportal (IP) capsulotomy, short T-capsulotomy, and long T-capsulotomy, and their repairs, on resistance to anterior and posterior “at risk for dislocation” positions has not been quantified.

Hypotheses:

Our primary hypothesis was that an IP capsulotomy would have a minimal effect on hip resistive torque compared with both short and long T-capsulotomies in the at-risk dislocation positions. Our secondary hypothesis was that capsule repair would significantly increase hip resistive torque for all capsulotomies.

Study Design

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

We mounted 10 cadaveric hips on a biaxial test frame in an anterior dislocation high-risk position (20° of hip extension and external rotation) and posterior dislocation high-risk position (90° of hip flexion and internal rotation). An axial force of 100 N was applied to the intact hip while the femur was internally or externally rotated at 15° per second to a torque of 5 N·m. The rotatory position at 5 N·m was recorded and set as a target for each subsequent condition. Hips were then sequentially tested with IP, short T-, and long T-capsulotomies and with corresponding repairs randomized within each condition. Peak resistive torques were compared using generalized estimating equation modeling and post hoc Bonferroni-adjusted tests.

Results:

For the anterior position, the IP and long T-capsulotomies demonstrated significantly lower resistive torques compared with intact. For the posterior position, both the short and long T-capsulotomies resulted in significantly lower resistive torques compared with intact. Repairs for all 3 capsulotomy types were not significantly different from the intact condition at anterior and posterior positions.

Conclusion:

An IP incision resulted in a decrease in capsular resistive torque in the anterior but not the posterior at-risk dislocation position, in which direction only T-capsulotomies led to a significant decrease. All capsulotomy repair conditions resulted in hip resistive torques that were similar to the intact hip in both dislocation positions.

Clinical Relevance

Our results suggest that it is biomechanically advantageous to repair IP, short T-, and long T-capsulotomies, particularly for at-risk anterior dislocation positions.

Hip Capsular Deficiency-A Cause of Post-Surgical Instability in the Revision Setting Following Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To characterize current concepts in capsular repair and hip instability, and examine findings from biomechanical and clinical studies on hip capsular management strategies as they pertain to hip stability, patient outcomes, and hip arthroscopy failure. Further, we discuss the clinical evaluation and treatment of capsular deficiency.

RECENT FINDINGS

There remains debate regarding the optimal capsular management strategies in hip arthroscopy, particularly concerning the necessity of routine capsular repair. A variety of capsulotomy techniques exist and may be used to access the hip joint. Additionally, a wide variety of techniques are employed to repair the hip capsule. Biomechanical evidence supports capsular closure restores hip joint stability to that of the intact, native state. Several clinical studies in both primary and revision hip arthroscopy settings have demonstrated improved pain and functional outcomes in patients who underwent capsular repair or capsular reconstruction. Studies have shown capsular repair may be especially important in patients with ligamentous laxity and hip dysplasia, and in competitive athletes. Post-surgical hip instability secondary to capsular insufficiency is increasingly recognized as a cause of hip arthroscopy failure. Capsular closure restores native biomechanical stability to the hip joint, and several clinical studies report improved pain and functional outcomes following capsular repair or capsular reconstruction in both the primary and revision hip arthroscopy settings. There remains much to learn regarding capsular hip instability as it relates to optimal capsular management surgical technique, intra-operative capsular management decision-making, clinical diagnosis, and related advanced imaging findings.

Total Hip Arthroplasty After Hip Arthroscopy Has Increased Complications and Revision Risk

BACKGROUND

There has been an increase in hip arthroscopy (HA) over the last decade. After HA, some patients may ultimately require a total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, there is a scarcity of research investigating the outcomes in patients undergoing THA with a history of ipsilateral HA.

METHODS

The PearlDiver research program (www.pearldiverinc.com) was queried to capture all patients undergoing THA between 2015 and 2020. Propensity matching was performed to match patients undergoing THA with and without a history of ipsilateral THA. Rates of 30-day medical complications, 1-year surgical complications, and THA revision were compared using multivariate logistic regression. Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted to estimate survival probabilities of each of the groups with patients undergoing THA .

RESULTS

After propensity matching, cohorts of 1940 patients undergoing THA without prior HA and 1940 patients undergoing a THA with prior HA were isolated for analysis. The mean time from HA to THA was 1127 days (standard deviation 858). Patients with a history of ipsilateral HA had an increased risk for dislocation (odds ratio [OR] 1.56, P = .03) and overall decreased implant survival within 4 years of undergoing THA (OR 1.53; P = .05). Furthermore, our data demonstrate the timing of previous HA to be associated with the risk of complications, as illustrated by the increased risk for dislocation (OR 1.75, P = .03), aseptic loosening (OR 2.18, P = .03), and revision surgery at 2 (OR 1.92, P = .02) and 4 years (OR 2.05, P = .01) in patients undergoing THA within 1 year of HA compared twitho patients undergoing THA more than 1 year after HA or with no previous history of HA.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing THA after HA are at an increased risk for surgical complications, as well as the need for revision surgery.

Capsular Repair During Hip Arthroscopy Demonstrates Restoration of Axial Distraction Resistance in an in Vivo Intraoperative Testing Model

BACKGROUND

Cadaveric models demonstrate that failure of hip capsular repair is dependent on the robustness of the repair construct. In vivo data on capsular repair construct efficacy are limited. We investigated the effect of a figure-of-8 capsular repair on hip distraction resistance relative to native and post-capsulotomy states. We hypothesized that an unrepaired capsulotomy would demonstrate increased axial distraction compared with the native state and that capsular repair would restore distraction resistance to native levels.

METHODS

Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy by a single surgeon were prospectively enrolled between March 2020 and June 2020. Prior to any instrumentation, fluoroscopic images of the operative hip were obtained at 12.5-lbs (5.7-kg) traction intervals, up to 100 lbs (45.4 kg). Anterolateral, modified anterior, and distal anterolateral portals were established. Following interportal capsulotomy, labral repair, and osteochondroplasty, fluoroscopic images were reobtained at each traction interval. Capsular repair was performed with use of a figure-of-8 suture configuration. Traction was reapplied and fluoroscopic images were again obtained. Joint distraction distance was measured at each traction interval for all 3 capsular states. Anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were utilized to scale fluoroscopic images to obtain joint space measurements in millimeters.

RESULTS

A total of 31 hips in 31 patients were included. Capsulotomy resulted in significant increases in distraction distance from 25 (11.3 kg) to 100 lbs of traction compared with both native and capsular repair states (all comparisons, p ≤ 0.017). Capsular repair yielded a significantly greater distraction distance compared with the native state at 37.5 lbs (17.0 kg; 5.49 versus 4.98 mm, respectively; p = 0.012) and 50 lbs (22.7 kg; 6.08 versus 5.35 mm; p < 0.001). The mean difference in distraction distance between native and capsular repair states from 25 to 100 lbs of traction was 0.01 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

This in vivo model demonstrates that an unrepaired interportal capsulotomy significantly increases axial distraction distance compared with the native, intact hip capsule. Performing a complete capsular closure reconstitutes resistance to axial distraction intraoperatively. Future research should evaluate the in vivo effects and associated clinical outcomes of other published capsular repair techniques and assess the durability of capsular repairs over time.

Intraoperative Findings and Clinical Outcomes Associated With Arthroscopic Management of Subspine Impingement: A Propensity-Matched, Controlled Study

PURPOSE

(1) To investigate intra-articular damage in the hip joint associated with subspine impingement (SSI); (2) to evaluate clinical outcomes of arthroscopic treatment of hips with SSI; and (3) to compare the findings and outcomes to a control group without SSI.

METHODS

Eligible patients had arthroscopic treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) concurrent with SSI between January 2015 and December 2017. Inclusion criteria consisted of preoperative and minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes and preoperative measurements for Tönnis, lateral center edge angle, and alpha angle. Included patients were propensity-matched in a 1:3 ratio to patients who had FAI without SSI. Patient-reported outcomes were compared between groups. Minimal clinically important difference was calculated for modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS).

RESULTS

Fifty SSI cases were matched to 150 patients who had FAI without SSI. A greater proportion of the SSI cohort required labral reconstruction (P = .010). The size and locations for labral tears and chondral defects were comparable between groups (P > .05). Both groups demonstrated similar minimum 2-year outcomes for mHHS (P = .103), Nonarthritic Hip Score (P = .200), HOS-SSS (P = .119), visual analog scale (P = .231), international Hip Outcome Tool-12 (P =.300), Short Form-12 Mental (P = .426), Short Form-12 Physical (P = .328), Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, Mental (P = .419), and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, Physical (P = .316). The percentage of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference for mHHS and HOS-SSS was similar (P > .05). Survivorship was 96.0% and 98.7% for the SSI and control cohorts at 2 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic treatment of hips with SSI with subspine decompression and concomitant treatment of labral tears and FAI yielded significant improvement in patients' outcomes, which compared favorably with the control group. SSI may correlate with more complex labral tears, not amenable to repair, and complete tears of the ligamentum teres. Other findings, such as location and size of intra-articular damage, were similar between the cohorts.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, case-control study.

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.

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.

Arthroscopic treatment for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) in adolescents—5-year follow-up

To report the minimum 5-year outcome after hip arthroscopy with labral repair in adolescents. From 2011 to 2014, 29 consecutive patients with a mean age 16.3 years (range 12.7–19.8 years) underwent hip arthroscopy treatment for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) including modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain and Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) were used preoperatively and at follow-up (FU). Percentage of patients achieving minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for mHHS and HAGOS were determined. Mean FU was 6.7 years (range 5–9.6 years), and a 100% FU was accomplished. Significant improvements were seen for all PROMs at FU in patients not having a periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) with VAS pain score improving from mean 62 to 9, mHHS from 58 to 94 and HAGOS improved in all subgroups. For mHHS, SCB changes were achieved by 76% and MCID by 76% of the patients. Percentage of patients achieving MCID for HAGOS subgroups were 81% for pain, 67% for symptoms, 76% for physical function in daily living, 76% for physical function in sport and recreation, 81% for participation in physical activities and 81% for hip-related quality of life. Two patients had revision hip arthroscopy. PAO was later performed in three patients. The risk of further surgery with center edge (CE) bony edge (CEB) <30° was 42% and 0% with CEB ≥30°. Adolescents having hip arthroscopy with labral repair and resection of cam and pincer morphology achieve significant improvements at mean 6.7 years of FU. CEB < 30° increases the risk of further surgery.

Effect of Capsular Closure After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome on Achieving Clinically Meaningful Outcomes: A Meta-analysis of Prospective and Comparative Studies

Background:

Recent literature has demonstrated conflicting evidence as to whether capsular closure after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) results in superior outcomes compared with capsulotomy without repair. Additionally, these studies have not explored the effect of capsular management on clinically significant outcome improvement.

Purpose:

To perform a meta-analysis of prospective and comparative studies to determine whether capsular management influences the rate of clinically significant outcome improvement after hip arthroscopy for FAIS.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

PubMed, OVID/Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were queried in September 2020 for studies with evidence levels 1 to 3 that directly compared capsular management cohorts and reported rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Studies of level 4 evidence, those not describing or directly comparing capsular management techniques as well as those not reporting the MCID were excluded. Methodological quality was assessed using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies tool. Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects models were constructed to quantitatively evaluate the association between capsular management and achievement of the MCID by generating effect estimates in the form of relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs.

Results:

A total of 6 studies with 1611 patients were included. The overall pooled rate of MCID achievement for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and HOS Sports Subscale (HOS-SS) were 84.4%, 80.3%, and 82.5%, respectively, at a mean follow-up of 40.8 months (range, 24-87.6 months). Capsular closure was associated with a significantly higher rate of MCID achievement for the mHHS (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.10; P = .001) and trended toward statistical significance for the HOS-ADL (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.0-1.24; P = .055) and the HOS-SS (RR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.99-1.21; P = .094).

Conclusion:

Although capsular closure appeared to result in higher rates of clinically significant outcome improvement in hip function, there was no definitively increased likelihood of achieving clinically significant improvement in relevant hip outcome scores with capsular closure.

Editorial Commentary: Hip Arthroscopy Evolution and Causes of Failure

Hip arthroscopy use has grown as a result of expanding indications; improved imaging including higher resolution magnetic resonance imaging with stronger magnetic fields and the advent of 3-dimensional computed tomography revealing the nuances of hip joint morphology; increased specialized training; improvements in instruments and implants; a record of successful outcomes; and increased understanding of microinstability, focal acetabular undercoverage or occult dysplasia, indications for labral reconstruction and capsular plication, and, most of all, femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, the leading diagnosis for which hip arthroscopy is performed, in the orthopaedic community as well as the general medical and athletic communities. We now know that labral repair results in better outcomes than labral debridement, and evidence suggests that capsule closure leads to better long-term success. Osteoarthritis and its correlate, advanced age, result in inferior survivorship after hip arthroscopy, which is unsurprising; hip preservation surgery is not designed to treat irreparable cartilage damage. Association of female sex with hip arthroscopy failure requires additional investigation. More females undergo hip arthroscopy than males, and females initially present with greater disability. Females tend to have smaller alpha angles, greater femoral and acetabular anteversion, and lower center edge angles than males, consistent with increased prevalence of hip dysplasia. Thus surgeons indicating females for hip arthroscopy should be aware of atypical locations of cam lesions, borderline dysplasia, or ligamentous laxity, all of which must be appropriately respected at the time of surgery. With all of the improvements we have made in techniques, patient diagnosis and surgical indications, and our overall understanding of complex anatomy and a technically challenging surgery, we can speculate that our long-term survivorship will only improve. I await with interest the long-term outcomes we will see 10 years from today, with the addition of insight from patient-reported outcome measures to answer these questions with greater certainty.

Complete Capsular Closure Provides Higher Rates of Clinically Significant Outcome Improvement and Higher Survivorship Versus Partial Closure After Hip Arthroscopy at Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To (1) compare the rates of reaching threshold hip-specific outcome scores for achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) in patients who underwent partial versus complete T-capsulotomy repair and (2) identify the failure rates in each group 5 years after undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

METHODS

Data from consecutive patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS performed by a single fellowship-trained surgeon from January 2011 to March 2013 were collected and analyzed. Baseline data, hip-specific outcomes, and clinical failure rates were recorded at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively. Patients with partial T-capsulotomy repair were matched 1:3 by age, body mass index, and sex to patients with complete T-capsulotomy repair. Threshold scores for achieving the MCID and PASS were calculated and compared between the 2 groups. Additionally, rates of revision and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

A total of 379 patients were available for analysis (39 partial and 340 complete repairs), with 100 patients included in the matching process (25 in the partial-repair group and 75 in the complete-repair group). Comparison of radiographic parameters, including the Tönnis grade, alpha angle, and lateral center-edge angle, between the 2 groups showed no statistically significant difference (P > .05 for all). Comparison of postoperative score averages between the partial- and complete-closure groups showed a significant difference in the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living Subscale (85.4 ± 17.7 vs 94.6 ± 7.8, P < .001), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (76.6 ± 26.2 vs 89.3 ± 16.8, P = .034), modified Harris Hip Score (83.2 ± 19.7 vs 90.5 ± 11.2, P = .035), and visual analog scale pain score (24.5 ± 30.8 vs 13.4 ± 15.8, P = .035). A total of 65 complete-repair patients (95.6%) achieved the MCID for at least 1 outcome measure versus 18 patients with partial repair (78.3%) (P = .04). A total of 69 complete-repair patients (92%) achieved the PASS for at least 1 outcome measure versus 18 partial-repair patients (72%) (P = .017). Of the 39 partial-repair patients, 35.9% (n = 14) underwent revision or conversion to THA, as compared with 2.9% (n = 10) in the overall cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

At a minimum 5-year follow-up, patients with complete capsular closure after hip arthroscopy for FAIS show superior long-term outcomes and achieve higher rates of meaningful clinical success when compared with patients with partial capsular closure. Furthermore, patients with partial capsular repair undergo revision or conversion to THA at high rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Evaluation of outcome reporting trends for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome- a systematic review

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the trends in the literature regarding surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and to present which patient-reported outcome-measures (PROMs) and surgical approaches are included.

METHODS

This systematic review was conducted with the PRISMA guidelines. The literature search was performed on PubMed and Embase, covering studies from 1999 to 2020. Inclusion criteria were clinical studies with surgical treatment for FAIS, the use of PROMs as evaluation tool and studies in English. Exclusion criteria were studies with patients < 18 years, cohorts with < 8 patients, studies with primarily purpose to evaluate other diagnoses than FAIS and studies with radiographs as only outcomes without using PROMs. Data extracted were author, year, surgical intervention, type of study, level of evidence, demographics of included patients, and PROMs.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 2,559 studies, of which 196 were included. There was an increase of 2,043% in the number of studies from the first to the last five years (2004-2008)-(2016-2020). There were 135 (69%) retrospective, 55 (28%) prospective and 6 (3%) Randomized Controlled Trials. Level of evidence ranged from I-IV where Level III was most common (44%). More than half of the studies (58%) originated from USA. Arthroscopic surgery was the most common surgical treatment (85%). Mean follow-up was 27.0 months (± 17 SD), (range 1.5-120 months). Between 1-10 PROMs were included, and the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) was most commonly used (61%).

CONCLUSION

There has been a continuous increase in the number of published studies regarding FAIS with the majority evaluating arthroscopic surgery. The mHHS remains being the most commonly used PROM.

Capsular Management Techniques and Hip Arthroscopy

There has been an increased emphasis on capsular management during hip arthroscopy in the literature in recent years. The capsule plays a significant role in the hip joint stability and studies have demonstrated that capsular closure can restore the biomechanics of the hip back to the native state. Capsular management also affects functional outcomes with capsular repair resulting in better clinical outcomes in some studies. Management of the capsule has evolved in recent years with more surgeons performing routine capsular closure. Management techniques and degree of capsular closure, however, can be quite variable between surgeons. This review will discuss hip capsular anatomy, the importance of the capsule in hip biomechanics, management of the capsule during arthroscopy, and functional outcomes as it relates to the various capsular closure techniques versus leaving the capsulotomy unrepaired.

Surgical Treatment of Labral Tears: Debridement, Repair, and Reconstruction

Advances in hip preservation surgery have to lead to increased utilization of hip arthroscopy. With this, there has also been a growth in the understanding of various hip conditions, therefore, leading to an increase in hip conditions amenable to arthroscopic intervention. The acetabular hip labrum has been at the forefront of arthroscopic advances in the hip. The labrum is important for hip stability, provision of the suction seal, and joint proprioception. Given the labrum's central role in hip biomechanics, there is increasing emphasis on labral preservation in the form of debridement and repair. In revision settings, advanced techniques such as labral augmentation and reconstruction may play a role in the management of labral pathology. Appropriate management of the hip labrum at the time of surgery can be an important mediator of the outcome. As such, an understanding of the evolving evidence base and surgical indications and techniques are integral to the treatment and management of labral pathology.