Arthroscopic capsule reconstruction in the hip using iliotibial band allograft

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.

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.

Magnetic Resonance Arthrogram Improves Visualization of Hip Capsular Defects in Patients Undergoing Previous Hip Arthroscopy

Purpose

To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) in the identification of hip capsular defects in patients who previously underwent hip arthroscopy.

Methods

Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy for capsular insufficiency by a single surgeon between March 2014 and December 2019 were identified by Current Procedural Terminology code. Patients with arthroscopically confirmed capsular defects treated surgically who underwent both MRI and MRA between their primary and revision surgeries were identified. Imaging studies were blinded, randomized, and distributed to two fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists. Radiologists evaluated 14 components of different anatomic structures, including the presence of capsular defect and defect grading, over 2 months, with a 2-week washout period between 4 sets of reads to obtain 2 complete reads from each radiologist. Data were analyzed in R version 4.0.2.

Results

Two hundred thirty patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy between March 2014 and December 2019. Twelve patients had both an MRI and an MRA of the operated hip performed between their primary and revision surgeries. Time between primary and revision hip arthroscopy was 2.0 ± 1.5 years (R: .3-6.3). Time between MRI and MRA was .6 ± .6 years (R: .0-1.6). Sensitivity for detecting hip capsular defects was significantly higher for MRA than for MRI (87.5%, 95% CI: [68,96] vs 50%, 95% CI: [31,69], respectively; P = .008).

Conclusions

This retrospective review demonstrates that MRA has higher sensitivity than MRI in detecting surgically confirmed capsular defects. MRA may be more helpful in identifying capsular defects in patients presenting with hip instability symptoms who have had a previous hip arthroscopy.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, diagnostic 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.

Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Arthrography of Post-Arthroscopy Hip Instability Demonstrates Increased Effective Intracapsular Volume and Anterosuperior Capsular Changes

Purpose

To quantify the magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) capsular morphologic findings associated with postarthroscopy hip instability.

Methods

Among patients with clinically significant iatrogenic hip instability at a single center, patients with preindex and postindex surgery MRAs were identified. These MRAs were compared regarding effective intracapsular volume calculated by semi-automated 3-dimensional pixel intensity region segmentation, 2-dimensional anterior proximal intracapsular area in the femoral neck axial plane reconstruction, maximal anterior fluid pocket depth, capsule retraction distance, and capsular instability grade. Morphological measurements were conducted using Horos image processing software. Paired t-test, paired Wilcoxon signed rank test, and the McNemar test were used for identifying statistical significance.

Results

In 42 patients, mean effective intracapsular volume was significantly greater in the postindex surgery MRAs (19.44 cm³ vs 17.26 cm³; P = .006). Proximal anterosuperior (12-3 o'clock) intracapsular area was also significantly greater after index surgery (2.84 cm² vs 1.43 cm²; P < .001. Proximal anteroinferior (3-6 o'clock) intracapsular area (1.34 cm² vs 0.97 cm²; P = .002), capsule deficiency grade (P < .001), anterior capsule retraction distance (4.83 mm vs 0.34 mm; P < .001), and maximum anterior fluid depth (8.33 mm vs 4.90 mm; P <.001) were also significantly increased after index surgery.

Conclusion

In comparison to the preoperative state, iatrogenic hip instability is associated with MRA findings that include increases in total effective intracapsular volume, proximal anterosuperior and anteroinferior intracapsular cross-sectional area, maximum proximal anterosuperior fluid depth, and capsule retraction distance.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, diagnostic case series.

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.

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 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.

Arthroscopic Triple Reconstruction in the Hip Joint: Restoration of Soft-Tissue Stabilizers in Revision Surgery for Gross Instability

Gross hip instability in an active adult with previous normal hip anatomy is usually due to disruption of the static stabilizers of the hip joint. Although such a disruption can result from a high-grade injury, it can be iatrogenic after previous hip arthroscopy. The patient may present with a painful limp and recurrent subluxation sensation in the affected hip joint. Revision hip arthroscopy in this scenario is generally complicated, and it is not uncommon for all the soft-tissue stabilizers to be compromised. The labrum, ligamentum teres (LT), and capsule of the hip joint are often so damaged that reparation is not an option. Reconstruction of the torn LT is an established method to add secondary stability while addressing the labral pathology in the hip joint with microinstability. Concomitant reconstruction of all the static restraints has yet to be described addressing triple instability. This Technical Note presents a stepwise approach, including tips and pearls, for arthroscopic triple reconstruction of the labrum, LT, and capsule. We believe this method is a safe and reproducible way to effectively treat gross hip instability in young patients.

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.

Capsular Reconstruction of the Hip Using Modified Kite Technique: A Technical Guide for Efficient Graft Management and Fixation

Preserving capsular integrity has become an important principle of hip preservation surgery given the increasingly recognized deleterious effects of instability in cases of capsular insufficiency. When capsular tissue is deficient, capsular reconstruction may be indicated to restore function of the iliofemoral ligament and improve hip biomechanics. To date, few studies have presented technical guidance on performing arthroscopic capsular reconstruction of the hip. In this Technical Note, we introduce a modified kite technique for arthroscopic entry, control, and fixation of a capsular reconstruction graft. Similar to flying a kite with multiple fly lines, and to the previously described kite technique for hip labral reconstruction, the principles of this method are founded on the belief that control sutures within a pulley system facilitate safe and efficient graft management during capsular reconstruction procedures.

Iatrogenic Hip Instability After Hip Arthroscopy: Is There a Role for Open Capsular Reconstruction?: A Case Report

CASE

A 23-year-old female athlete presented with postoperative hip pain and laxity following 3 arthroscopic hip procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Open reconstruction of the anterior hip capsule with Achilles allograft can correct arthroscopy-induced hip laxity.

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.

Prospective Randomized Comparison of Capsular Management Techniques During Hip Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

Capsular management during hip arthroscopy remains controversial. Studies evaluating this topic consist mostly of retrospective comparative reviews of prospectively gathered data on a large series of patients.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to perform a prospective randomized trial to comparatively assess 3 commonly performed capsular management techniques. It was hypothesized that capsular closure during hip arthroscopy would result in superior outcomes when compared with unclosed capsulotomy management techniques.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Patients (N = 150) who had hip arthroscopy with labral repairs and femoral osteoplasties performed by the senior author were randomly assigned into 3 groups at the time of their surgery: T-capsulotomy without closure (TC), interportal capsulotomy without closure (IC), and interportal capsulotomy with closure (CC). All patients underwent labral repair and femoral osteoplasty. Patient-reported outcomes were obtained preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Other outcomes obtained included the need for future hip surgery.

RESULTS

Patient demographics, preoperative patient-reported outcomes, and radiographic measurements were similar among all 3 groups. Revision hip arthroscopy was performed in 5 TC cases, 2 IC cases, and 1 CC case (P = .17). Conversion to hip arthroplasty occurred in 4 patients in the TC group and none in the IC and CC groups (P = .02). The CC group showed higher modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) at the 2-year follow-up when compared with the IC group (P = .003 and P < .001, respectively). When compared with the TC group, the CC group demonstrated superior mHHS (86.2 vs 76), HOS-ADL (85.6 vs 76.8), and HOS-SSS (Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale; 74.4 vs 65.3) at the final 2-year follow-up (P < .001). At the 2-year follow-up, the IC group had a higher mHHS (81.7 vs 76), HOS-ADL (82 vs 76.8), and HOS-SSS (71.4 vs 65.3; P > .001) as compared with the TC group.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing complete capsular closure during hip arthroscopy showed improved patient-reported and surgical outcomes when compared with those with unrepaired T-capsulotomy or interportal capsulotomy. These results suggest that repair after capsulotomy may be a favorable arthroscopic capsular management technique.

Anterior Capsule Reconstruction of the Native Hip: A Technique Guide

This is a technique guide for open anterior capsule reconstruction in unstable native hips due to Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. Ehlers-Danlos syndrome is a connective tissue disease that predisposes an individual to hypermobility of their soft tissues and recurrent subluxations and dislocations of their joints. This may lead to constant instability, guarding of the hip, and subsequent arthritic changes and poor quality of life. We demonstrate anterior capsule reconstruction of the hip using an Achilles tendon allograft performed through a direct anterior approach to the hip (Heuter's approach). This technique guide outlines in detail the surgical steps required to accomplish this reconstructive procedure. Furthermore, a narrated surgical video is provided that clearly depicts the anticipated result of the increased constrained provided to the hip from the anterior capsule reconstruction using an Achilles tendon allograft.

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

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes between 2 groups of patients who underwent arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction with the same surgical technique with an iliotibial band (ITB) allograft versus dermal allograft tissue.

METHODS

From March 2013 to October 2015, patients who were 18 years of age or older and who underwent revision arthroscopic hip surgery with capsular reconstruction by the senior author were identified. Patients who were younger than 18 years old, had a lateral center-edge angle <20° or Tonnis osteoarthritis grade 2 or 3, or refused to participate were excluded. Patients were assigned to 2 groups based on whether an ITB (ITB group) or a dermal allograft (dermal group) was used to reconstruct the capsule. The ITB graft was used initially, then the dermal graft was used when it was available. The dimensions were based on the intraoperative measurement of the capsular defect, and the thickness was 3 mm. Other treatments included labral debridement, repair, or reconstruction; treatment of residual femoroacetabular impingement; and treatment of cartilage damage. Clinical outcome scores including the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activity of Daily Living scale (primary outcome measure), modified Harris Hip Score, HOS-Sports scale, SF-12, and Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were compared between the groups in addition to the failure rate (conversion to total hip arthroplasty, revision hip arthroscopy) and patient satisfaction rate with the outcome (range, 1-10).

RESULTS

Thirty-six patients (9 men and 27 women) met the inclusion criteria. Each group consisted of 18 patients (18 hips) with a mean age of 30.9 ± 9.4 years in the ITB group and a mean age of 29.8 ± 9.4 years in the dermal group (P = .718). There were no differences in patient demographics, physical examination findings, or imaging characteristics. The procedure failed for 8 patients (4 in the ITB group and 4 in the dermal group), and another surgery was required (P = 1.0). Additional surgeries included 3 total hip arthroplasties, 1 periarticular osteotomy, and 4 revision arthroscopies. The mean follow-up time was 25 months (range, 18-38 months) in both groups (P = .881). At follow-up, the HOS-Activity of Daily Living scale, SF-12, modified Harris Hip Score, and HOS-Sports scale measures were significantly higher in the ITB group than in the dermal group (P < .05). A greater percentage of patients reached minimum clinically important difference in the ITB group for Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and HOS scales with the minimum clinically important difference for HOS-Sports scale being significantly higher in the ITB group (P = .04). Patient satisfaction scores were 8 and 6 in the ITB and dermal groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

At a mean follow-up time of 25 months, hip capsular reconstruction with an ITB allograft results in improved clinical outcomes compared with the dermal allograft. A similar failure rate was noted in both groups, but a greater percentage of patients in the ITB group achieved clinical improvement.

Arthroscopic capsular repair using proximal advancement for instability following hip arthroscopic surgery: a case report

Arthroscopic capsular reconstruction has been reported for joint capsule tear and joint instability after hip arthroscopic surgery. However, the procedure is complicated and requires proficiency. Herein, we present a case of mild dysplasia and instability following arthroscopic surgery performed against pain due to synovitis and labral injury. The patient refused osteotomy of the hip joint, so we performed hip arthroscopic surgery using a new method of arthroscopic capsular repair using proximal advancement. A 37-year-old woman underwent hip arthroscopic surgery two times at the right side and periacetabular osteotomy at the left side. She noticed instability of the right hip joint after the second hip arthroscopic surgery. For the joint capsular management at the second surgery, which was not suitable for capsular plication, arthroscopic capsular repair using proximal advancement was performed by lifting the distal capsule to the acetabular margin. This method is less technically demanding compared with capsular reconstruction, and it can securely achieve joint stability by retensioning the joint capsule and iliofemoral ligament. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed by modified Harris hip score (mHHS), non-arthritic hip score (NAHS) and visual analog scale (VAS). The patient reported an increase in the mHHS from 35.2 pre-operatively to 90.1, the NAHS increased from 50 pre-operatively to 88.7, and the VAS score improved from 9 points pre-operatively to 1 point at 2 years post-operatively. To our knowledge, this is the first report on arthroscopic capsular repair using proximal advancement in a patient with hip instability following hip arthroscopic surgery.

The Expanding Role of Hip Arthroscopy in Modern Day Practice

Over the past decade, hip arthroscopy has become increasingly popular in managing hip conditions in a minimally invasive approach. The development of specialist equipment and training in this field has allowed indications for hip arthroscopy to be extended to a range of conditions. However, the need for special equipment and training has also limited the use of hip arthroscopy to specialized centers. This article will outline the evolution of hip arthroscopy, the pathology of hip conditions, what it has been used for and how this technique has now been extended to help manage these conditions in a minimally invasive approach, limiting the complications of open surgery.

Effects of Capsular Reconstruction With an Iliotibial Band Allograft on Distractive Stability of the Hip Joint: A Biomechanical Study

BACKGROUND

The capsular ligaments and the labral suction seal cooperatively manage distractive stability of the hip. Capsular reconstruction using an iliotibial band (ITB) allograft aims to address capsular insufficiency and iatrogenic instability. However, the extent to which this procedure may restore hip distractive stability after a capsular defect is unknown.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the biomechanical effects of capsular reconstruction on distractive stability of the hip joint.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric hip specimens were dissected to the level of the capsule and axially distracted in 3 testing states: intact capsule, partial capsular defect, and capsular reconstruction with an ITB allograft. Each femur was compressed with 500 N of force and then distracted 6 mm relative to the neutral position at 0.5 mm/s. Distractive force was continuously recorded, and the first peak delineating 2 phases of hip distractive stability in the force-displacement curve was analyzed.

RESULTS

The median force at maximum distraction in the capsular reconstruction state (156 N) was significantly greater than that in the capsular defect state (89 N; P = .036) but not significantly different from that in the intact state (218 N; P = .054). Median values for distractive force at first peak (60 N, 72 N, and 61 N, respectively; P = .607), distraction at first peak (2.3 mm, 2.3 mm, and 2.5 mm, respectively; P = .846), and percentage decrease in distractive force (35%, 78%, and 63%, respectively; P = .072) after the first peak were not significantly different between the intact, defect, and reconstruction states.

CONCLUSION

Capsular reconstruction with an ITB allograft significantly increased the force required to distract the hip compared with a capsular defect in a cadaveric model. To our knowledge, this is the first study to report an initial peak distractive force and to propose 2 distinct phases of hip distractive stability.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The consequences of a capsular defect on distractive stability of the hip may be underappreciated among the orthopaedic community; with that said, capsular reconstruction using an ITB allograft provided significantly increased distractive stability and should be considered an effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic capsular deficiency.

Current concepts in revision hip arthroscopy

Hip arthroscopy is an evolving procedure and its indications have expanded. The number of patients undergoing this procedure has increased significantly as well as the number of surgeons being trained. This has resulted in a notable increase in post-operative complication rates creating the need to develop advanced hip arthroscopic techniques. Revision hip arthroscopy is often complex and many factors should be considered to achieve a satisfactory clinical outcome. Careful pre-operative planning and agreement of expectations between the physician and patient regarding the procedure are important. This review describes several advanced treatment options that are used mainly in revision or complex primary hip arthroscopy cases. Labral reconstruction or augmentation technique is used in cases of severely deficient acetabular labral tissue to restore the fluid seal mechanism. In cases of symptomatic (often post-operative) adhesion formation, a spacer between the labrum and the joint capsule is useful for pain relief and prevention of future adhesions. Large defects of the capsule due to previous unrepaired capsulotomy or any other cause can be addressed with the capsular reconstruction technique. Ligamentum teres reconstruction using an anterior tibialis allograft is indicated in patients with hip instability and persistent pain after previous debridement or with complete tears of this structure. The senior author's treatment of choice in cases of previous over-resection of CAM impingement is the remplissage technique to restore the bony defect of the femoral head-neck junction and preserve the joint seal.

MRI Evaluation of Repaired Versus Unrepaired Interportal Capsulotomy in Simultaneous Bilateral Hip Arthroscopy: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Techniques used in hip arthroscopy continue to evolve, and controversy surrounds the need for capsular repair following this surgical intervention. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appearance of the hip capsule in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) who underwent simultaneous bilateral hip arthroscopy through an interportal capsulotomy with each hip randomized to undergo capsular repair or not undergo such a repair.

METHODS

This double-blind, randomized controlled trial included 15 patients (30 hips), with a mean age of 29.2 years, who underwent simultaneous bilateral hip arthroscopy utilizing a small (<3-cm) interportal capsulotomy for the treatment of FAI. The first hip treated in each patient was intraoperatively randomized to undergo capsular repair or no capsular repair. The contralateral hip then received the opposite treatment. MRI was performed at 6 and 24 weeks postoperatively, and the scans were analyzed by 2 musculoskeletal radiologists. The patients and the radiologists were blinded to the treatment performed on each hip. Capsular dimensions were measured at the level of the healing capsulotomy site and, for hips with a persistent defect, at locations both proximal and distal to the defect. These values were then analyzed at both time points to assess the rate and extent of capsular healing.

RESULTS

At 6 weeks postoperatively, a continuous hip capsule (with no apparent capsulotomy defect) was observed in 8 hips treated with capsular repair and 3 hips without such a repair. Of the 19 hips with a discontinuous capsule at 6 weeks, 17 were available for follow-up at 24 weeks postoperatively; all 17 demonstrated progression to healing, with a contiguous appearance without defects and no difference in capsular dimensions between treatment cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic repair of a small interportal hip capsulotomy site yields an insignificant increase in the percentage of continuous hip capsules seen on MRI at 6 weeks postoperatively compared with no repair. Repaired and unrepaired capsulotomy sites progressed to healing with a contiguous appearance on MRI by 24 weeks postoperatively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Refractory pain following hip arthroscopy: evaluation and management

With increased knowledge and understanding of hip pathology, hip arthroscopy is rapidly becoming a popular treatment option for young patients with hip pain. Despite improved clinical and radiographic outcomes with arthroscopic treatment, some patients may have ongoing pain and less than satisfactory outcomes. While the reasons leading to failed hip arthroscopy are multifactorial, patient selection, surgical technique and rehabilitation all play a role. Patients with failed hip arthroscopy should undergo a thorough history and physical examination, as well as indicated imaging. A treatment plan should then be developed based on pertinent findings from the workup and in conjunction with the patient. Depending on the etiology of failed hip arthroscopy, management may be nonsurgical or surgical, which may include revision arthroscopic or open surgery, periacetabular osteotomy or joint arthroplasty. Revision surgery may be appropriate in settings including, but not limited to, incompletely treated femoroacetabular impingement, postoperative adhesions, heterotopic ossification, instability, hip dysplasia or advanced degeneration.

Biomechanical Assessment of Hip Capsular Repair and Reconstruction Procedures Using a 6 Degrees of Freedom Robotic System

BACKGROUND

Although acetabular labral repair has been biomechanically validated to improve stability, capsular management of the hip remains a topic of growing interest and controversy.

PURPOSE

To biomechanically evaluate the effects of several arthroscopically relevant conditions of the capsule through a robotic, sequential sectioning study.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Ten human cadaveric unilateral hip specimens (mean age, 51.3 years [range, 38-65 years]) from full pelvises were used to test range of motion (ROM) for the intact capsule and for multiple capsular conditions including portal incisions, interportal capsulotomy, interportal capsulotomy repair, T-capsulotomy, T-capsulotomy repair, a large capsular defect, and capsular reconstruction. Hips were biomechanically tested using a 6 degrees of freedom robotic system to assess ROM with applied 5-N·m internal, external, abduction, and adduction rotation torques throughout hip flexion and extension.

RESULTS

All capsulotomy procedures (portals, interportal capsulotomy, and T-capsulotomy) created increases in external, internal, adduction, and abduction rotations compared with the intact state throughout the full tested ROM (-10° to 90° of flexion). Reconstruction significantly reduced rotation compared with the large capsular defect state for external rotation at 15° (difference, 1.4°) and 90° (difference, 1.3°) of flexion; internal rotation at -10° (difference, 0.4°), 60° (difference, 0.9°), and 90° (difference, 1.4°) of flexion; abduction rotation at -10° (difference, 0.5°), 15° (difference, 1.1°), 30° (difference, 1.2°), 60° (difference, 0.9°), and 90° (difference, 1.0°) of flexion; and adduction rotation at 0° (difference, 0.7°), 15° (difference, 0.8°), 30° (difference, 0.3°), and 90° (difference, 0.6°) of flexion. Repair of T-capsulotomy resulted in significant reductions in rotation compared with the T-capsulotomy condition for abduction rotation at -10° (difference, 0.3°), 15° (difference, 0.9°), 30° (difference, 1.3°), 60° (difference, 1.7°), and 90° (difference, 1.5°) of flexion and for internal rotation at -10° (difference, 0.9°), 60° (difference, 1.5°), and 90° (difference, 2.6°) of flexion. Similarly, repair of interportal capsulotomy resulted in significant reductions in abduction (difference, 0.9°) and internal (difference, 1.4°) rotations compared with interportal capsulotomy at 90° of flexion. In most cases, however, after the repair procedures, ROM was still increased in comparison with the intact state.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that common hip arthroscopic capsulotomy procedures can result in increases in external, internal, abduction, and adduction rotations throughout a full range (-10° to 90°) of hip flexion. However, capsular repair and reconstruction succeeded in partially reducing the increased rotational ROM caused by common capsulotomy procedures. Thus, consideration should be allotted toward capsular repair or reconstruction in cases with an increased risk of residual instability.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although complete restoration of joint stability may not be fully achieved at time zero, capsular repair and reconstruction may lead to improved patient outcomes by bringing hip rotational movements nearer to normal values in the immediate postoperative period, especially in cases in which extensive capsulotomy is performed.

Microinstability of the hip: a previously unrecognized pathology

BACKGROUND

Hip microinstability is an established diagnosis; however, its occurrence is still debated by many physicians. Diagnosis of hip microinstability is often challenging, due to a lack of specific signs or symptoms, and patients may remain undiagnosed for long periods. This may lead to early manifestation of degenerative joint disease. Consequently, careful patient and family history must be obtained and diagnostic imaging should follow. After a thorough clinical evaluation of the patient with suspected hip microinstability, the physician should focus on how to improve symptoms and functionality in daily and sports activities.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review article was to give a current update regarding this diagnosis and to provide a complete diagnostic approach in order to effectively treat hip microinstability.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature on the diagnosis, the non-operative and operative indications for the treatment of this complex and often misdiagnosed pathology.

CONCLUSION

Conservative treatment is considered the best initial approach, though, surgical intervention should be considered if symptoms persist or other hip pathology exists. Successful surgical intervention, such as hip arthroscopy, should focus on restoring the normal anatomy of the hip joint in order to regain its functionality. The role of the hip joint capsule has gained particular research interest during the last years, and its repair or reconstruction during hip arthroscopy is considered necessary in order to avoid iatrogenic hip microinstability. Various capsular closure/plication techniques have been developed towards this direction with encouraging results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.

Arthroscopic Capsular Reconstruction of the Hip With Acellular Dermal Extracellular Matrix: Surgical Technique

Atraumatic instability of the hip has become an increasingly studied occurrence in recent years. There are several established surgical techniques that help restore stability of the native hip joint. In some cases, these procedures are not an option. As the phenomenon has become recognized more frequently, a greater number of revision surgeries are warranted in patients with ligamentous laxity. A durable solution for irreparable microinstability needs to be formulated to address this vulnerable patient demographic. We describe the surgical technique for capsular reconstruction with acellular dermal extracellular matrix.

Anatomic Hip Capsular Reconstruction With Separate Suture Anchors

The number of reports on the use of capsule suturing techniques during hip arthroscopy has increased in the last few years because of the important function played by the iliofemoral ligament (IFL). This study describes an arthroscopic technique whereby the hip capsule is opened by a limited vertical dissection of both the capsule itself and the IFL from their footprint on the acetabular rim, and the capsulolabral junction and the IFL's deep fibers are released. After the intra-articular procedure, the capsule is closed through 2 to 4 side-to-side sutures in the vertical arm of the capsulotomy and 1 to 2 suture anchors with sutures are passed through either side of the capsular confluence. This technique prevents a full transverse section of the IFL and allows complete capsular closure through reconstruction of the capsular footprint.

Hip Capsular Reconstruction Using Dermal Allograft

Because hip arthroscopic procedures are increasing in number, complications related to the operation itself are starting to emerge. Whereas the capsule has been recognized as an important static stabilizer for the hip, it has not been until recently that surgeons have realized the importance of its preservation and restoration. Disruption of the capsule during arthroscopic procedures is a potential contributor to postoperative iatrogenic hip instability. In cases of a symptomatic deficient capsule, a capsular reconstruction is mandatory because instability may lead to detrimental chondral and labral changes. The purpose of this report was to describe our technique for arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction using dermal allograft.

Arthroscopic Capsular Repair for Symptomatic Hip Instability After Previous Hip Arthroscopic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Management of the hip capsule has been a topic of recent debate in hip arthroscopic surgery. Postoperative instability after hip arthroscopic surgery has been reported and can lead to poor outcomes.

PURPOSE

To determine the outcome of patients diagnosed with symptomatic instability after hip arthroscopic surgery at a minimum of 12 months and 24 months after revision surgery for capsular repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

In a cohort of approximately 1100 patients who underwent hip arthroscopic surgery, 33 patients (33 hips) developed symptomatic instability requiring a revision surgery. Two patients suffered anterior dislocations following their initial surgery. Radiographs were reviewed to evaluate for acetabular dysplasia. Three patients were lost to follow-up and 10 patients were excluded as they were <1 year out from the revision surgery. A total of 20 patients (18 female, 2 male) completed a preoperative and postoperative modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and Hip Outcome Score (HOS) at a minimum of 12 months. Eleven of these patients had a minimum follow-up of 24 months. All patients filled out a Likert scale of perceived improvement in physical ability at final follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients was 29.7 years (range, 15.2-55.5 years). The mean lateral center-edge angle was 25°, and the mean acetabular index was 7° before revision. All patients underwent interportal capsulotomy during the index arthroscopic procedure. After their index arthroscopic procedures, patients had minimal improvement at a mean of 19.1 months postoperatively on the mHHS (from 57.1 to 57.6; P = .423), HOS-Activities of Daily Living (ADL) (from 62.7 to 66.4; P = .260), and HOS-Sports (from 42.0 to 39.1; P = .800). For the patients with a minimum 1-year follow-up after revision surgery (n = 20; mean follow-up, 21.3 months), the mean mHHS (from 57.6 preoperatively to 85.8 at final follow-up; P < .001), HOS-ADL (from 66.4 to 85.7; P < .001), and HOS-Sports (from 39.1 to 79.8; P < .001) all improved significantly. The results were similar when looking at only the patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up after revision surgery (n = 11; mean follow-up, 26.1 months); the mean mHHS (from 56.0 preoperatively to 91.5 at final follow-up; P = .001), HOS-ADL (from 68.3 to 89.9; P = .009), and HOS-Sports (from 35.7 to 87.9; P = .001) all improved significantly. When comparing patients with isolated capsular repair to those with additional procedures performed, there were no differences between the groups (all P > .05). At final follow-up, all but 1 patient had improved overall physical ability levels.

CONCLUSION

Revision hip arthroscopic surgery for capsular repair in patients with symptomatic instability after hip arthroscopic surgery provides good functional outcomes at a minimum of 1 and 2 years postoperatively.