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

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.

Editorial Commentary: Trends in Hip Arthroscopy Require Rapid Dissemination From Higher-Volume and Academic Surgeons to the Greater Orthopaedic Community

Trends in hip arthroscopy show that labral repair and preservation, capsular repair and preservation, and treatment of femoroacetabular impingement during hip arthroscopy are associated with superior short-term and mid- to longer-term outcomes. Hip arthroscopy, and in particular arthroscopic femoroacetabular impingement correction, is in its infancy compared with many other orthopaedic procedures. As we assimilate knowledge, data, and evidence-based research, it is critical to evaluate surgical trends and how they affect our management of these patients and pathologies. However, it is important to recognize that there is great variability with regards to surgical volume and awareness of impending evidence-based research for relatively newer procedures such as hip arthroscopy. This can lead to delays for incorporating newer evidence-based techniques. The gap is closing, but the time required to close this disparity in management trends between higher-volume/academic surgeons and the orthopaedic community as a whole could be shorter. Whether this delay for adapting evidence-based trends is consistent across the spectrum of orthopaedic surgery or specific to smaller subspecialty areas such as hip arthroscopy is unclear. Regardless, it is essential that those who are performing the larger volume of cases and research must raise our voices, turn up our loudspeakers, and publish, present, and use social media platforms to spread the word of the latest evidence-based trends quickly! It is equally critical for the greater orthopaedic community to listen for the benefit of patients. If all parties collaborate, we can get up to speed in a timelier manner and achieve the best-possible outcomes together.

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.

Femoral Anteversion Is Associated With a Thinner Anterior Capsule in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

PURPOSE

To measure femoral torsion on computed tomography images in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and explore whether femoral torsion was significantly correlated with anterior capsular thickness.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of surgical patients were retrospectively reviewed. Only patients aged 16 to 55 years who underwent primary hip surgery were included in this study. Patients with a history of revision hip surgery, previous knee surgery, hip dysplasia, hip synovitis, and/or incomplete radiographs and medical records were excluded from the study. Femoral torsion was measured via computed tomography imaging using transcondylar slices of the knee. Anterior capsular thickness was measured using oblique-sagittal sequences on a 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging system. The association between anterior capsular thickness and related variables, including femoral torsion, was assessed via multiple linear regression. The patients were then divided into 2 groups to further confirm the effect of femoral torsion on capsular thickness: Patients in the study group had hips with moderate (20°-25°) or severe (>25°) antetorsion, whereas patients in the control group had hips with normal torsion (5°-20°) or retrotorsion (<5°). Anterior capsular thickness was also compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients (89 female patients [57.1%] and 67 male patients [42.9%]) were finally included in the study. The mean age and body mass index of the included patients were 35.8 ± 11.2 years and 22.7 ± 3.5, respectively. The mean femoral torsion for the entire study population was 15.9° ± 8.9°. Multivariable regression analysis showed that femoral torsion (P < .001) and sex (P = .002) were significantly correlated with anterior capsular thickness. Propensity-score matching yielded 50 hips in the study group and 50 hips in the control group on femoral torsion subanalysis. The results showed that anterior capsular thickness was significantly smaller in the study group than in the control group (3.8 ± 0.5 mm vs 4.7 ± 0.7 mm, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Femoral torsion is significantly inversely correlated with anterior capsular thickness.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Hypermobile Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome Can Be Effectively Treated Utilizing Hip Arthroscopy With Periportal Capsulotomy Closure: A Matched Cohort Analysis Compared to Patients Without Joint Hypermobility

PURPOSE

To assess the 2-year outcomes of arthroscopic treatment with periportal capsulotomy closure for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) in patients with generalized ligamentous laxity (GLL).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed from a prospectively collected database of FAIS patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. FAIS patients with GLL were identified as having Beighton score ≥4. FAIS patients with GLL were treated with arthroscopic labral repair, osteochondroplasty, via periportal capsulotomy with subsequent capsular closure. These patients were matched by age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) with a cohort of FAIS patients without GLL who underwent the same procedure via periportal capsulotomy without capsular closure. Preoperatively, and 2 years postoperatively, patients completed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) scores, including the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), 12-item Short-Form survey (SF-12) and the visual analog scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Forty patients (5 male, 35 female) with FAIS and GLL were included (age: 29.7 ± 9.0; BMI: 23.3 ± 4.1). FAIS patients with GLL demonstrated similar significant PRO score improvements compared to a matched cohort of FAIS patients without GLL at 2 years after surgery (VAS Pain: (-)2.5 ± 3.0, (-)2.7 ± 2.7; SF-12 PCS: 17.7 ± 14.2, 16.7 ± 15.0; HOOS-Symptoms: 26.3 ± 24.0, 20.6 ± 18.1; HOOS-Pain: 29.8 ± 20.4, 24.4 ± 9.0; HOOS-ADL: 24.9 ± 18.4, 22.0 ± 19.9; HOOS-Sports: 43.6 ± 26.1, 33.1 ± 29.8; and HOOS-QOL: 44.2 ± 27.6, 41.7 ± 27.1, respectively). Both cohorts achieved minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for each HOOS subscore at equivalent high rates (70-88%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with GLL in the setting of FAIS can be effectively treated with arthroscopy via periportal capsulotomy and capsular closure. These patients demonstrate significant improvements in PRO scores at 2 years, similar to normal laxity FAIS patients undergoing arthroscopic treatment via periportal capsulotomy without capsular closure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

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.

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.

Minimum 10-year Survivorship and Clinical Outcomes Following Primary Hip Arthroscopy with Acetabular Microfracture

PURPOSE

To report minimum 10-year follow-up survivorship, defined as non-conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), and patient-reported outcome scores (PROS) after primary hip arthroscopy with acetabular microfracture in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and acetabular chondral lesions, respectively.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed on all patients who underwent a primary hip arthroscopy and received an acetabular microfracture between June 2009 and January 2011. Patients with a minimum 10-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were included. If available, the minimum 10-year follow-up for the Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale was reported. The demographics, intraoperative findings, surgical procedures, PROS, rate of achieving the minimal clinical important difference (MCID), and secondary surgeries were analyzed and reported.

RESULTS

Twenty-two hips (20 patients) were included in the study, and the mean follow-up time was 124.5 ± 2.2 months. There were 17 hips (77.3%) from males and 5 hips (22.7%) from females. The average patient age at the time of surgery was 42.3 years ± 9.6. All patients on average experienced statistically significant improvement (P < .05) between preoperative and minimum 10-year follow-up scores for all PROs. In total, 77.3% of the patients did not require conversion to THA. Additionally, 83.3% of the patients achieved the MCID for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS for pain.

CONCLUSION

At a minimum 10-year follow-up, survivorship of 77.3% was reported for patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with acetabular microfracture for the treatment of FAIS and focal/full-thickness acetabular cartilage lesions. Further, in the patients that did not require THA conversion, significant improvement in all PROS was demonstrated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case-series study.

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.

Minimum 5-Year Outcomes After Primary Segmental Labral Reconstruction for Irreparable Labral Tears in the Hip With Hamstring Grafts: With a Subanalysis Comparing Autograft Versus Allograft

BACKGROUND

Comparable short-term outcomes have been obtained using hamstring allografts versus autografts after primary segmental labral reconstruction (SLR). Midterm results have not yet been determined.

PURPOSE

(1) To evaluate minimum 5-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores in patients who underwent primary SLR with hamstring grafts in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and irreparable labral tears and (2) to compare the outcomes of hamstring autografts versus allografts in a subanalysis using propensity-matched groups.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy between September 2010 and November 2015. Patients were included if they underwent SLR using hamstring autografts or allografts and had preoperative and minimum 5-year PROs. The exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions, dysplasia, or Tönnis grade >1. Patients with autograft SLR were propensity matched 1 to 1 based on age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) to patients who underwent SLR using hamstring allografts. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 48 patients (N = hips 48) were eligible to be included in this study, and 41 patients (n = 41 hips [85.4%]) had a minimum 5-year follow-up reporting significant improvements in all PROs. Within the entire cohort, 9.8% required a secondary arthroscopy, with a mean time of 19 ± 1.8 months, and survivorship was 82.9%. Of the 41 included patients, 15 underwent an SLR with a hamstring autograft and were matched to 15 patients with labral reconstruction using a hamstring allograft. Groups were similar for sex (P > .999), age (P = .775), and BMI (P = .486). The mean follow-up times were 80.8 ± 25.5 and 66.1 ± 8.3 months (P = .223) for the autograft and allograft groups, respectively. Baseline PROs, preoperative radiographic measurements, surgical findings, and intraoperative procedures were similar. The groups achieved significant and comparable improvements for all PROs (P < .0001), satisfaction (P = .187), and the rate of achieving the MCID and the PASS. However, a tendency for higher postoperative PROs favoring allograft reconstruction was found.

CONCLUSION

At a minimum 5-year follow-up, patients who underwent primary arthroscopic SLR in the context of FAIS and irreparable labra, with either autograft or allograft hamstring tendons, reported significant improvements and comparable postoperative scores for all PROs, patient satisfaction, MCID, and PASS.

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.

Editorial Commentary: Complete Capsular Closure During Hip Arthroscopy Provides the Most Reliable and Durable Outcome . . . Capsule Closed . . . Case Closed!

The management of the hip capsule has been a recent area of controversy in hip arthroscopy. Over the past 5 years, there has been mounting biomechanical and clinical evidence that complete capsular closure is an important step to achieve the best and most durable outcome from hip arthroscopy. Numerous studies in the laboratory have shown that repairing the capsulotomy during simulated hip arthroscopy establishes normal hip biomechanics. Multiple studies have also reported improved clinical outcomes and less conversion to total hip arthroplasty in patients undergoing capsular repair. We have published that patients improve after revision hip arthroscopy for repair of capsular defects. I think it is safe to say that complete capsular closure after hip arthroscopy is becoming the standard of care in our field.