THIRD Test: Diagnosing Hip Labral Tears With a New Physical Examination Technique

Stability Reliability and External Validity of Myrick THIRD Test for Hip Labral Tears

The purpose of the study is to examine whether the physical examination technique, Myrick The Hip Internal Rotation with Distraction (THIRD), is reliable and valid. The Myrick THIRD test has previously established and documented sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and internal and external validity. The goal of this original research was to demonstrate stability reliability of the Myrick THIRD test when the study is conducted in a clinical setting where the test has not previously been performed, as well as to demonstrate that the Myrick THIRD test has external validity when conducted across multiple examiners in a new setting. The importance of the study reflects current clinical practice and the lack of specific clinical assessment techniques used to determine the source of intra-articular hip pain successfully. Testing included the Myrick THIRD test, magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA), and arthroscopy. The primary outcomes included the results of the MRA, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), Myrick THIRD test, and arthroscopy. The inclusion criteria were 18- to 49-year-olds presenting with hip pain. The exclusion criteria included patients younger than 18 and older than 49 years and patients who were willing to undergo MRI arthrogram. A test of paired proportions, correlation, sensitivity, and specificity was performed. The significance level was preset at .05. All 86 patients had a positive Myrick THIRD test, which was confirmed with arthroscopy. Eight of the 11 positive MRI results and 64 of the 74 positive MRA results were confirmed with arthroscopy. The Myrick THIRD test had a statistically significant higher accuracy rate than the MRA (p = .002) but not the MRI (p = .08). Myrick THIRD test showed a significantly higher accuracy rate than MRA.

Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and labral injuries: grading the evidence on diagnosis and non-operative treatment-a statement paper commissioned by the Danish Society of Sports Physical Therapy (DSSF)

This statement summarises and appraises the evidence on diagnostic tests and clinical information, and non-operative treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome and labral injuries. We included studies based on the highest available level of evidence as judged by study design. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation framework. We found 29 studies reporting 23 clinical tests and 14 different forms of clinical information, respectively. Restricted internal hip rotation in 0° hip flexion with or without pain was best to rule in FAI syndrome (low diagnostic effectiveness; low quality of evidence; interpretation of evidence: may increase post-test probability slightly), whereas no pain in Flexion Adduction Internal Rotation test or no restricted range of motion in Flexion Abduction External Rotation test compared with the unaffected side were best to rule out (very low to high diagnostic effectiveness; very low to moderate quality of evidence; interpretation of evidence: very uncertain, but may reduce post-test probability slightly). No forms of clinical information were found useful for diagnosis. For treatment of FAI syndrome, 14 randomised controlled trials were found. Prescribed physiotherapy, consisting of hip strengthening, hip joint manual therapy techniques, functional activity-specific retraining and education showed a small to medium effect size compared with a combination of passive modalities, stretching and advice (very low to low quality of evidence; interpretation of evidence: very uncertain, but may slightly improve outcomes). Prescribed physiotherapy was, however, inferior to hip arthroscopy (small effect size; moderate quality of evidence; interpretation of evidence: hip arthroscopy probably increases outcome slightly). For both domains, the overall quality of evidence ranged from very low to moderate indicating that future research on diagnosis and treatment may alter the conclusions from this review.

Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for the diagnosis of hip femoroacetabular impingement/labral tear: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Surgery for hip femoroacetabular impingement/acetabular labral tear (FAI/ALT) is exponentially increasing despite lacking investigation of the accuracy of various diagnostic measures. Useful clinical utility of these measures is necessary to support diagnostic imaging and subsequent surgical decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

Summarise/evaluate the current diagnostic accuracy of various clinical tests germane to hip FAI/ALT pathology.

METHODS

A computer-assisted literature search of MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE databases using keywords related to diagnostic accuracy of the hip joint, as well as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for the search and reporting phases of the study. Quality assessment of bias and applicability was conducted using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). Random effects models were used to summarise sensitivities (SN), specificities (SP), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and respective confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

The employed search strategy revealed 21 potential articles, with one demonstrating high quality. Nine articles qualified for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis demonstrated that flexion-adduction-internal rotation (pooled SN ranging from 0.94 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.97) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00); DOR 5.71 (95% CI 0.84 to 38.86) to 7.82 (95% CI 1.06 to 57.84)) and flexion-internal rotation (pooled SN 0.96 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99); DOR 8.36 (95% CI 0.41 to 171.3) tests possess only screening accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

Few hip physical examination tests for diagnosing FAI/ALT have been investigated in enough studies of substantial quality to direct clinical decision-making. Further high-quality studies across a wider spectrum of hip pathology patients are recommended to discern the confirmed clinical utility of these tests.

TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO Registration # CRD42014010144.