Early Outcomes After Arthroscopic Hip Capsular Reconstruction Using Iliotibial Band Allograft Versus Dermal Allograft

Arthroscopic Hip Capsular Reconstruction: A Step-by-Step Guide With Rectus Overlay

The hip capsule is the primary stabilizer of the hip joint. At the time of hip arthroscopy, the capsule is disrupted to obtain intra-articular access and proper joint visualization. With the number of patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroscopy continuing to increase, it is not uncommon for surgeons to encounter patients with iatrogenic capsular deficiency from prior hip arthroscopy. In cases where substantial capsular defects beyond the scope of capsular repair are visualized, reconstruction may be required to obtain satisfactory closure and restore hip stability. We present a step-by-step workflow for efficient hip capsular reconstruction with rectus overlay while allowing for facile incorporation of other revision procedures such as labral repair and femoral osteochondroplasty.

Relationship Between Hip Capsular Thickness and Instability After Previous Hip Arthroscopic Surgery: A Matched-Cohort Analysis

Background

Thinner anterior hip capsules are associated with hip laxity, but there is little known about the impact of capsular thickness on the development of instability after primary hip arthroscopic surgery.

Purpose

To investigate the relationship between hip capsular thickness as measured on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the development of hip instability after hip arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement.

Study Design

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

We reviewed revision hip arthroscopic procedures performed between January 1, 2019, and May 1, 2021, at a single institution. Inclusion criteria were preoperative MRI/magnetic resonance arthrography, completion of the study traction protocol, and asymmetric distraction between the hips of ≥3 mm on examination under anesthesia. A comparison group of patients treated for femoroacetabular impingement with primary hip arthroscopic surgery who did not develop capsular instability were matched 1:1 to the patients with instability. Superolateral hip capsular thickness was measured on MRI before index surgery. Analysis was conducted using independent-samples t tests and multivariable linear regression.

Results

A total of 44 patients were included, with 22 patients each in the instability and no-instability groups. The mean capsular thickness was lower in the patients with hip instability than in those without (1.9 ± 0.6 vs 3.4 ± 1.1 mm, respectively; P < .001). Decreased capsular thickness was significantly associated with hips with instability versus no-instability (β = -1.468 [95% CI, -2.049 to -0.887]; P < .001).

Conclusion

Thinner preoperative hip capsules in the region of the iliofemoral ligament were seen in patients who subsequently underwent revision arthroscopic surgery for hip instability compared to patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery without subsequent revision. Patients at a higher risk for the development of postoperative hip instability had a superolateral hip capsular thickness of <2 mm.

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.

Better sex after hip arthroscopy; Sexual dysfunction in patients with femoro-acetabular impingement syndrome

BACKGROUND

Femoro-acetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) is a common cause of hip pain and functional decline. The quality of life of affected patients has been shown to be significantly diminished, with potential alterations in the ability to perform activities of daily living and recreation, including sexual function. Hip arthroscopy is the surgical technique recognized as the gold standard in FAIS. The aim of this study was to research the relationship between hip arthroscopy due to FAIS and pre- and postoperative sexual function.

HYPOTHESIS

The hypothesis of the study was that sexual dysfunction would be common during the preoperative period but would significantly improve after surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 96 patients aged 18 to 55 years, who underwent hip arthroscopy for a FAIS diagnosis between 2015 and 2021, with a minimum follow-up of one year. Exclusion criteria were a bilateral symptomatic hip condition, history of ipsilateral hip or knee surgery, history of urological or gynecological conditions, sexual dysfunction, or a history of hip osteonecrosis or osteoarthritis. The Female Sexual Function Scale (FSFI) was used to evaluate sexual dysfunction in females and the International Erectile Function Index (IIEF-5) for males.

RESULTS

The patients comprised 56.3% males and 43.82% females with a mean age of 35.3±8.3 years. Sexual dysfunction was determined preoperatively in 85.2% of the males and in 57.1% of the females. Overall improvement after surgery was statistically significant. Signs of pudendal nerve damage were seen during the postoperative period in 29 (30.2%) patients. The change in total sexual scores was significantly correlated with nerve symptoms and regression analysis showed that traction time was a significant risk factor for pudendal nerve symptoms.

DISCUSSION

Sexual dysfunction is a common trait of patients suffering from FAIS and the majority of patients significantly benefit from the procedure. Sexual dysfunction persists in a category of patients during the postoperative period, regardless of the type of lesion, and this phenomenon is associated with transient pudendal nerve symptoms, which are more likely to occur with longer traction times and thus represent a clear risk factor.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

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.

Hip Capsular Reconstruction With Indirect Head of the Rectus Femoris Tendon

Hip capsulotomy is performed during arthroscopic hip procedures to achieve adequate visualization of the joint and instrument access. The hip capsule, and in particular the iliofemoral ligament, is an important stabilizer of the hip joint, and patients who undergo capsulotomy without subsequent repair may experience hip pain and instability, with increased risk of requiring revision hip arthroscopy. Therefore, restoring watertight closure of the capsule is necessary to restore native biomechanics and achieve desired postoperative outcomes. Although primary repair or plication suffice in most cases, capsule reconstruction may instead be necessary when there is insufficient tissue, often due to capsular insufficiency following index surgery. The purpose of this Technical Note is to describe the authors' current technique for arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction using the indirect head of the rectus femoris tendon in the setting of capsular iatrogenic hip instability, as well as its advantages and disadvantages and technical pearls and pitfalls.

Hip microinstability diagnosis and management: a systematic review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review is to present the most common causes, diagnostic features, treatment options and outcomes of patients with hip micro-instability.

METHODS

Three online databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed) were searched from database inception March 2022, for literature addressing the diagnosis and management of patients with hip micro-instability. Given the lack of consistent reporting of patient outcomes across studies, the results are presented in a descriptive summary fashion.

RESULTS

Overall, there were a total of 9 studies including 189 patients (193 hips) included in this review of which 89% were female. All studies were level IV evidence with a mean MINORS score of 12 (range: 10-13). The most commonly used features for diagnosis of micro-instability on history were anterior pain in 146 (78%) patients and a subjective feeling of instability with gait in 143 (81%) patients, while the most common feature on physical examination was the presence of anterior apprehension with combined hip extension and external rotation in 123 (65%) patients. The most common causes of micro-instability were iatrogenic instability secondary to either capsular insufficiency or cam over-resection in 76 (62%) patients and soft tissue laxity in 38 (31%) patients.

CONCLUSION

The most common symptom of micro-instability on history was anterior hip pain and on physical exam was pain with hip extension and external rotation. There are many treatment options and when managed appropriately based on the precise cause of micro-instability, patients may demonstrate improved outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Effective Management Options for Treatment of Microinstability of the Hip: a Scoping Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the recent literature identifying and summarizing the research involving management of microinstability of the hip and highlight new and evolving techniques in its treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent updates in the understanding of capsular management hip arthroscopy will likely lead to less revision surgery and a decreased incidence of persistent post-operative pain. Repair of residual capsular defects has shown good outcomes with high patient satisfaction. Capsular plication remains the gold standard for hips with increased pain that show signs of capsular laxity/deficiency on exam or imaging. Capsular reconstruction has shown equivalent results to other revision hip arthroscopy procedures with low rates of complications. Ligamentum teres pathology, although rare, should be considered a source of pain, particularly in patients with laxity on exam. In cases where CAM over-resection has occurred, remplissage using allograft is an effective option for restoring the capsular suction seal and stability. Microinstability is increasingly being recognized as a source of post-operative hip pain. Patients with collagen disorders remain a challenging clinical entity with increased rates of complications and post-operative pain. CAM resection should be performed carefully and not disrupt the suction seal but be sufficient to not cause further impingement. Improved evidence including well-designed prospective studies with large sample sizes will determine the future management of this complex problem.

Outcomes of Staged Bilateral Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in the Context of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Nested Matched-Pair Control Study Focusing on the Effect of Time Between Procedures

BACKGROUND

Bilateral hip symptoms from femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) are a common finding in patients regardless of athletic involvement. Oftentimes, patients and surgeons choose to stage bilateral hip arthroscopic surgery.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was (1) to compare minimum 2-year outcomes between patients who underwent staged bilateral hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS to a propensity score-matched control group that underwent unilateral hip arthroscopic surgery and (2) to investigate the effect of time between bilateral procedures on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We hypothesized that, after bilateral hip arthroscopic surgery, the improvement in outcomes would be similar to that after unilateral hip arthroscopic surgery and the time duration between bilateral procedures would not affect the final outcome.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively reviewed on a consecutive series of patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery at our institution between June 2008 and November 2017. Patients who underwent bilateral hip arthroscopic surgery with minimum 2-year PROs for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), the Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), patient satisfaction, and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were included. The study group was matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and body mass index to a control group that only required unilateral hip arthroscopic surgery. Additionally, a subanalysis was performed on the study group to determine the effect of time between arthroscopic procedures. Rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the mHHS and HOS-SSS were determined. The P value was set at <.05.

RESULTS

A total of 205 patients (410 hips) were included. The mean age and body mass index of the study group were 32.3 ± 13.2 years and 25.0 ± 5.1, respectively. All 410 hips that met the inclusion criteria were matched. There were no significant differences in patient, radiographic, or procedural data. A significant and comparable improvement was reported for all PRO measures and the VAS (P < .0001) in both groups. Similarly, rates of achieving the MCID and PASS were comparable. After dividing the study group based on whether the contralateral procedure was performed <3 months or >3 months after the first procedure, it was determined that patients had a significant improvement and favorable outcomes regardless of time between bilateral procedures.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent unilateral and bilateral hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS had a significant and comparable improvement in PROs at a minimum 2-year follow-up. A time interval of <3 months or >3 months between bilateral procedures did not affect PROs.

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.

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.

Is there enough evidence to support hip capsular reconstruction? A systematic review of biomechanical studies

The aim of this study was to review and summarize the available biomechanical data on hip capsular reconstruction to guide clinical decision-making. A literature search was completed in December 2020 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify biomechanical cadaver studies on hip capsular reconstruction, hip capsulectomy or hip capsular defect. The investigated parameters included maximum distraction force, capsular state affecting range of motion (ROM), rotation and translation. Four studies met al. the inclusion–exclusion criteria. The median effective force for resisting maximum distraction for the reconstruction state, capsular defect state and the intact state was 171, 111 and 206 N, respectively. The defect capsule force was significantly lower (P = 0.00438) than the intact capsule force. The reconstruction state had a higher distraction force than that of the capsular defect, but due to heterogeneity, the overall effect size was not statistically significant. The capsular reconstruction state reduced excess motion and the degree of instability compared to the capsular defect state but restored the hip close to its native capsular state in the cadaveric model. When compared to capsulectomy/defect state, hip capsular reconstruction significantly improved the rotational stability and effective force at maximum distraction and minimized translation. However, no conclusions can be made regarding the most effective protocol due to the high heterogeneity between the four studies. Further biomechanical studies are needed to test various types of grafts under the same protocol.

Minimum 2-Year Functional Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Capsular Autograft Hip Labral Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of literature on arthroscopic capsular autograft labral reconstruction.

PURPOSE

To report midterm functional outcomes for patients undergoing acetabular labral repair with capsular autograft labral reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case series of prospectively collected data on patients who underwent arthroscopic acetabular labral repair by the senior surgeon between March 2013 and August 2018. The inclusion criteria for this study were adult patients aged 18 years or older who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for arthroscopic capsular autograft labral reconstruction. Exclusion criteria were <2 years of postoperative follow-up, elective disenrollment from study before 2-year follow-up, or repeat ipsilateral hip surgery before 2-year follow-up. Intraoperatively, patients underwent capsular autograft hip labral reconstruction if they were found to have a labrum with hypoplastic tissue (width <5 mm), complex tearing, or frank degeneration of native tissue. Clinical outcome data consisted of patient-reported outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 97 hips (94 patients) met the inclusion criteria with a mean final follow-up of 28.2 months (95% CI, 26.0-30.4). Patients had a mean age of 39.0 years (95% CI, 36.8-41.2) with a mean body mass index of 25.8 (95% CI, 24.9-26.7). When compared with baseline (40.4 [95% CI, 36.7-44.2]), the mean international Hip-Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33) scores were significantly greater at 3-month (60.9 [95% CI, 56.8-64.9]; P < .001), 6-month (68.8 [95% CI, 64.7-72.9]; P < .001), 12-month (73.2 [95% CI, 68.9-77.5]; P < .001), and final (76.6 [95% CI, 72.4-80.8]; P < .001) follow-up. At 2-year follow-up, 76.3%, 65.5%, and 60.8% of patients' iHOT-33 scores exceeded clinically meaningful outcome thresholds for minimally clinically important difference (MCID), patient-acceptable symptomatic state, and substantial clinical benefit, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of 97 hips undergoing arthroscopic labral repair with capsular autograft labral reconstruction, we found favorable outcomes that exceeded the MCID thresholds in the majority of patients at a mean 28.2 months' follow-up. Future studies should compare outcomes between this technique and other methods of autograft and allograft reconstruction to determine differences in patient-reported outcomes, donor-site morbidity, and complications.

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 Anchor-Based Hip Capsular Reconstruction Without Graft Augmentation

The hip capsule is one of the most important static stabilizers of the hip joint. Routine capsulotomy without closure during hip arthroscopy increases instability of the hip joint, leading to pain and dysfunction. Capsular repair is now part of routine practice for most hip arthroscopists with restoration of normal hip biomechanics. In patients requiring revision surgery due to ongoing pain and instability as a result of deficient capsule, capsular reconstruction often is necessary to restore hip stability. Although there are many techniques available both with and without the use of allograft tissue, the purpose of this report is to describe a novel technique for capsular reconstruction without the use of graft augmentation using suture anchors at the acetabular rim.

Arthroscopic Hip Capsule Reconstruction for Anterior Hip Capsule Insufficiency in the Revision Setting

Iatrogenic hip instability is increasingly recognized as a cause of persistent pain and disability after hip arthroscopy. Many authors currently advocate capsular repair to reduce postoperative instability. However, anatomic deficiencies in the anterosuperior capsule can prevent a functional capsular repair, particularly in the revision setting. Capsular reconstruction has been shown to restore biomechanical stabilization in cadaveric models and improve short-term patient outcomes in patients with primary hip arthroscopy failure. Arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction is technically challenging, largely owing to complex suture management and difficulties with graft placement and sizing. This article describes the capsular reconstruction technique, detailing the technical aspects of anterosuperior capsular defect identification; capsular preparation; suture management; and dermal allograft sizing, preparation, and positioning.

Why Does Hip Arthroscopy Fail? Indications and PEARLS for Revision Success

The surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement has been shown to have successful early and mid-term clinical outcomes. Despite these favorable clinical outcomes that have been published in the literature, there is a subgroup of patients that present with continued or recurrent symptoms after surgical treatment. Not only has there been an increase in the number of hip arthroscopy procedures, but also there has been a corresponding increase in the number of revision hip arthroscopy and hip preservation surgeries. Previous studies have reported residual deformity to be the most common reason for revision hip arthroscopy. However, chondral, labral, and capsular considerations also are important when addressing patients not only in the primary but also, the revision setting. In this review, we outline the evaluation and treatment of the patient that presents with continued hip and groin pain after undergoing a hip.

Arthroscopic Treatment of Hip Dislocation After Previous Hip Arthroscopy: Capsular Reconstruction With Labral Augmentation

The hip capsule and acetabular labrum are critical structures that function to protect and stabilize the hip joint. As the use of hip arthroscopy increases, there is increasing interest in the integrity of the hip capsule and labrum in optimizing postoperative function and outcomes. In this report, we describe the surgical technique for capsular reconstruction with dermal allograft and labral augmentation with tibialis anterior allograft for the treatment of gross instability after hip arthroscopy. This technique may be applied in situations with large capsular defects and deficient labral tissue.

Hip Instability in the Athlete: Anatomy, Etiology, and Management

In this review, the recent literature evaluating the anatomic considerations, etiology, and management options for athletes with hip instability are investigated. Studies on the osseous, chondrolabral capsuloligamentous, and dynamic muscular contributions to hip stability are highlighted. Microinstability, iatrogenic instability, and femoroacetabular impingement-induced instability are discussed with a focus on demographic and outcomes research in athletes. Surgical techniques including both open and arthroscopic approaches are additionally evaluated.

A Novel Radiographic Finding of Intracapsular Heterotopic Ossification: A Report of Two Cases

Symptomatic heterotopic ossification (HO) is a complication of hip arthroscopy that occurs in less than 1% of cases. To our knowledge, there are no reported cases of symptomatic intracapsular HO. We present 2 patients with a radiographic finding associated with intracapsular HO. Both patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy and required capsular reconstruction due to void of the iliofemoral ligament following excision of HO. We believe this radiographic finding may be useful to hip preservationists as it may be associated with capsular deficiency necessitating capsular reconstruction upon revision hip arthroscopy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

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

Approach to a Failed Hip Arthroscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hip arthroscopy has seen increasing utilization over the last decade. This is largely related to increased recognition and improved techniques for treating femoroacetabilar impingement (FAI). Though hip arthroscopy generally yields favorable outcomes, there are a subset of patients who have residual or recurrent symptoms that require reoperation. The current review discusses an algorithmic approach to evaluating patients following a failed hip arthroscopy including a framework for clinical and radiographic assessment, available treatment options, and associated outcomes in revision surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Residual FAI has been demonstrated to be the most common indication for revision arthroscopy. Other indications include residual or recurrent labral pathology, gross instability, microinstability, or adhesions. Appropriate history and imaging are important to determine the cause for residual symptoms. Novel techniques including labral and capsular reconstruction, and modified remplissage procedures have been developed to deal with complex revision cases. Though studies have shown improved outcomes after revision surgery, they have been shown to result in inferior outcomes compared to a matched cohort following primary hip arthroscopy. Management of a failed hip arthroscopy remains a complex problem. Focused history, cross-sectional imaging, and revision hip arthroscopy with novel techniques can improve outcomes, albeit to a lesser extent than patients undergoing successful primary hip arthroscopy. The information provided here can help guide treatment and set appropriate patient expectations for revision surgery.

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Arthroscopic Femoral Osteochondroplasty With Capsular Plication for Osteochondroma of the Femoral Neck

Osteochondromas of the femoral neck are a rare but challenging problem because of their distal location, which is difficult to access arthroscopically. Traditional methods of osteochondroma resection used invasive open approaches to manage these lesions. More recently, advances in hip arthroscopy have allowed expanded treatment of extra-articular hip conditions with a minimally invasive approach. Reports have described the use of hip arthroscopy for osteochondroma removal; however, surgical techniques for the procedure have yet to be described. We describe a technique for arthroscopic resection of a femoral neck osteochondroma using an extended capsulotomy and osteochondroplasty with subsequent capsular plication. This technique uses contemporary hip arthroscopic techniques and constitutes a safe and effective approach to addressing this rare intra-articular pathology of the hip.

Management of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: current insights

Since the description of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) by Ganz in 2003, our understanding of the pathophysiology, management options, and outcomes has evolved and literature continues to be generated on this condition at a rapid rate. FAI has been identified as a primary source of hip pain as well as a generator of secondary osteoarthritis. Improvements in the radiographic detection of cam and pincer morphologies as well as a better understanding of the structural impact of these morphologies have led to improved preoperative planning. Advancements in hip arthroscopy techniques have also led to a higher rate of arthroscopic management of this condition over the initially described open surgical dislocation technique. While arthroscopic management of this condition has become the most common form of surgical management for FAI, inadequate bony resection has been shown to be a frequent source of revision surgery. Therefore, roles for open surgical dislocation and combined mini-open approaches remain, particularly in cases where concern for the inability to fully access the morphology arthroscopically exists.

Editorial Commentary: Which Allograft Is Superior for Hip Capsular Reconstruction? Let's Choose the Right Patient Before We Choose the Right Graft

The hip is an inherently stable joint. Acetabular depth and version, femoral torsion, and congruency of articulation form the pillars of hip stability, with the labrum and capsule serving as secondary stabilizers. The increasing prevalence of capsular deficiency in the setting of revision hip arthroscopy has led to the development of capsular reconstruction techniques. The first step in hip capsular reconstruction, however, is selecting the right patient for the procedure.