Does endoscopic piriformis tenotomy provide safe and complete tendon release? A cadaver study

Tendinopathies and Allied Disorders of the Hip

There are many soft tissue structures around the hip joint that may serve as a source of pain in both the native and prosthetic hip. In this review, the role of the gluteal, piriformis, iliopsoas, and rectus femoris musculotendinous units in the etiology of pathology around the hip joint will be discussed. Management options ranging from tailored physical therapy regimens to local steroid infiltration along with more invasive open and arthroscopic surgical techniques will be reviewed for each pathological entity. While not all conditions are well understood, advancements have been made in the management of each of these often challenging cases in both the native and prosthetic hip settings. This review explores these advancing treatment methods which will supplement the practice of any hip surgeon who is presented with problematic tendinopathy around both the native and prosthetic hip joint.

Surgical and Non-surgical Treatment Options for Piriformis Syndrome: A Literature Review

Context

Piriformis syndrome is a solely clinical diagnosis that often eludes the practitioner and goes underdiagnosed. PS is a pain syndrome and for those it affects, causes persistent pain and limits daily activity and work capacity. It is a form of deep gluteal syndrome that needs to be considered on the differential of low back pain as it comprises between 0.3% - 6% of all low back pain cases and is frequently underdiagnosed. Piriformis syndrome may be primary due anatomic anomalies or secondary, though the majority of cases are secondary to some insult. The objective of this manuscript is to provide a description of the epidemiology and presentation of piriformis as well as both non-operative and operative treatment options. We review all of the recent clinical evidence regarding the aforementioned therapies.

Evidence Acquisition

Literature searches were performed using the below MeSH Terms using Mendeley version 1.19.4. Search fields were varied until further searches revealed no new articles. All articles were screened by title and abstract. Decision was made to include an article based on its relevance and the list of final articles was approved three of the authors. This included reading the entirety of the article. Any question regarding the inclusion of an article was discussed by all authors until an agreement was reached.

Results

Medical management and physical therapy show some promise; however, when conservative treatment fails minimally invasive methods such as steroid injections, botulinum toxin injections, dry needling are all efficacious and there is substantial clinical evidence regarding these therapies. In those patients in which minimally invasive techniques do not result in an adequate relief of pain and return of function, endoscopic release can be considered. Endoscopic release is far superior to open release of the piriformis syndrome given the higher success and lower rate of complications.

Conclusions

Piriformis syndrome is an important differential diagnosis in the work up of lower back pain and should not be ruled out with proper examination and testing. Clinicians should consider medical management and conservative management in the initial treatment plan for piriformis syndrome. There are many options within the conservative management and the literature shows much promise regarding these. Physical therapy, steroid injections, botulinum toxin injections, and dry needling are all potentially effective therapies with few adverse effects. Surgical options remain as gold standard, but only when conservative management has failed and the symptoms are significant to affect daily living activities. Endoscopic decompression of the sciatic nerve with or without release of the piriformis muscle has a reported high likelihood of success and a low complication rate. Current literature supports the preference of the endoscopic approach over the open approach due to improved outcomes and decreased complications. Further research is to well define the metrics for the diagnosis of piriformis syndrome and may include a need to develop diagnostic criteria.

Hip arthroscopy in France: An epidemiological study of postoperative care and outcomes involving 3699 patients

BACKGROUND

Hip arthroscopy is a surgical procedure that is becoming more and more prevalent in France. Even though indications are now well-established little is still known about patient outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of our retrospective study was to: (1) describe the circumstances in which hip arthroscopies are being performed; (2) study arthroscopy and arthroplasty reoperation rates; (3) assess the incidence of readmissions for complications.

HYPOTHESIS

Hip arthroscopy in France produced similar results to those observed in other countries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a cohort study from January 2008 to December 2014 in the French population using the national hospital discharge database called "Programme de médicalisation des systèmes d'information (PMSI)." We included all admissions that had a hip arthroscopy code and analyzed readmissions for conversion to hip arthroplasty, revision hip arthroscopy and complications (without being able to provide detailed descriptions). Risk factors associated with conversion, revision and readmission for complications were studied after performing a population analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 3,699 patients were included over a period of seven years. The mean age was 40 years, with women being significantly older (mean age of 43 years) than men (38 years) (p<0.05). The number of procedures increased from 240 in 2008 to 702 in 2014. Synovectomies (67.9%; 2514/3699) and surgical bone procedures (acetabuloplasty or femoroplasty) (47.3%; 1751/3699) were the main procedures performed during the primary arthroscopy. In total, 410 patients underwent a conversion to arthroplasty, 231 patients had a revision arthroscopy, and 126 patients suffered a complication. Five years after the index procedure, the conversion rate was 16.3%, revision rate was 8.2%, and readmission rate for a postoperative complication was 5%. The main risk factor associated with conversions was [Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% Confidence Index (CI)] an age between 40 and 79 years during the first arthroscopy [3.04 (2.40; 3.87) compared with the reference class of 25-39 years]. Patients between ages 16 to 24 years during the first arthroscopy (0.35 [0.20; 0.61] compared with the reference class of 25-39 years) had a decreased risk of conversion (HR and 95% CI). The main risk factors associated with revisions were: synovectomies [1.90 (1.34; 2.70)] and surgical bone procedures on the femoral neck and/or the acetabulum [1.82 (1.36; 2.4)]. The risk factor associated with complication-related readmissions was an age greater than 40 years [2.23 (1.43; 3.49)].

CONCLUSION

Unlike the international literature, our study population was largely male. The rates of revision (8.2% after five years) and conversion to arthroplasty (16.3% after five years) were relatively low and comparable to the different international studies. This procedure, which is not widely performed, is growing in popularity, has low morbidity and remains an interesting approach given the revision and conversion rates after five years. The implementation of specific coding for arthroscopic hip procedures and the pathologies to be treated seems warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; descriptive epidemiological study.