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

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Level of Evidence

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Integrity of the hip capsule measured with magnetic resonance imaging after capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy in hip arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

Current literature shows no clear answer on the question how to manage the capsule after hip arthroscopy. Regarding patient reported outcome measures there seems to be no difference between capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy.

AIM

To evaluate and compare the integrity of the hip capsule measured on a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan after capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy.

METHODS

A case series study was performed; a random sample of patients included in a trial comparing capsular repair vs unrepaired capsulotomy had a postoperative MRI scan. The presence of a capsular defect and gap size were independently evaluated on MRI.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients (29 hips) were included. Patient demographics were comparable between treatment groups. There were 2 capsular defects in the capsular repair group and 7 capsular defects in the unrepaired capsulotomy group (P = 0.13). In the group of patients with a defect, median gap sizes at the acetabular side were 5.9 mm (range: 2.7-9.0) in the repaired and 8.0 mm (range: 4.5-18.0) in the unrepaired group (P = 0.462). At the muscular side gap sizes were 6.6 mm (range: 4.1-9.0) in the repaired group and 11.5 mm (range: 3.0-18.0) in the unrepaired group (P = 0.857). The calculated Odds ratio (OR) for having a capsular defect with an increasing lateral center-edge (CE) angle was 1.12 (P = 0.06). The OR for having a capsular defect is lower in the group of patients that underwent a labral repair with an OR of 0.1 (P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

There is no significant difference in capsular defects between capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy. Regarding clinical characteristics our case series shows that a larger CE angle increases the likelihood of a capsular defect and the presence of a labral repair decreases the likelihood of a capsular defect.

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.

The role of the iliofemoral ligament as a stabilizer of the hip joint

The purpose of this systematic literature review is to analyse the role of the iliofemoral ligament (ILFL) as a hip joint stabilizer in the current literature.

A total of 26 articles were included in the review. The ILFL is the largest hip ligament consisting of two distinct arms and is highly variable, both in its location and overall size, and plays a primary role in hip stability; in the case of hip dislocation, the iliofemoral ligament tear does not heal, resulting in a persistent anterior capsule defect. Clinically, the ILFL is felt to limit external rotation in flexion and both internal and external rotation in extension.

The abduction–hyperextension–external rotation (AB-HEER) test is overall the most accurate test to detect ILFL lesions. Injuries of the ILFL could be iatrogenic or a consequence of traumatic hip instability, and can be accurately studied with magnetic resonance imaging. Different arthroscopic and open techniques have been described in order to preserve the ILFL during surgery and, in case of lesions, several procedures with good to excellent results have been reported in the existing literature.

The current systematic review, focusing only on the ILFL of the hip, summarizes the existing knowledge on anatomy, imaging and function and contributes to the further understanding of the ILFL, confirming its key role in anterior hip stability. Future studies will have to develop clinical tests to evaluate the functionality and stability of the ILFL.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:545-555. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200112

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

Background:

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

Purpose:

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

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

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

Results:

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

Conclusion:

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

Hip Capsular Reconstruction Made Easy: The Timing and the Technique

An iatrogenic capsular defect can be a major contributing factor to macroinstability of the hip. For this circumstance, capsular reconstruction may be appropriately indicated when the capsule cannot be primarily reconstituted. Severe dysfunction may accompany previous failed arthroscopy. This dysfunction should be assessed and addressed with a properly structured rehabilitation program prior to revision surgery. We describe a simplified technique for capsular reconstruction using a dermal allograft.