Femoroacetabular Impingement Surgical Techniques

Clinical Outcomes of the Arthroscopic Capsular Suture-Lifting Technique in the Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement in Patients With Borderline Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip

Background

Patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) are likely to present with borderline developmental dysplasia of the hip (BDDH). Considering the prolonged risk of negative prognosis in these patients, the need for surgical management of the capsule has been emphasized. Although previous studies have advocated different techniques of capsular closure during surgery, no consensus has been achieved. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a new arthroscopic capsular suture-lifting technique for the treatment of FAI combined with BDDH.

Hypothesis

The arthroscopic capsular suture-lifting technique would achieve better anterior stability and show better clinical outcomes compared with routine capsular closure.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Consecutive patients diagnosed with FAI and BDDH and who underwent hip arthroscopy in our hospital between September 1, 2017, and April 30, 2021, were evaluated. Data were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the capsule closure methods used: capsular suture-lifting technique (lifting group) and routine capsular closure (control group). Anteroposterior hip radiography, Dunn view radiography, and computed tomography imaging were carried out for all patients preoperatively and postoperatively. Patient-reported outcomes, including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, were collected preoperatively and at least 1 year after surgery and compared between the 2 groups. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to evaluate changes in preoperative to postoperative mHHS scores and VAS. Mann-Whitney U test was used to evaluate significant differences in postoperative mHHS and VAS scores in the 2 groups.

Results

In all, 144 patients were included in this study, of whom 77 (53.5%) underwent the arthroscopic capsular suture-lifting technique and 67 (46.5%) underwent routine arthroscopic surgery. The patients in both groups had significant improvement in postoperative mHHS and VAS compared with the preoperative assessment (P < .05). The postoperative VAS score of patients in the suture-lifting group was significantly lower (2.6 vs 3.8; P < .05) and the mHHS score was significantly higher (75.2 vs 68.5; P < .05) than those of patients in the control group. Of the 77 patients in the suture-lifting group, 68 (88.3%) surpassed the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and 49 (63.6%) achieved the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS). Of the 67 patients in the control group, 26 (38.8%) surpassed MCID and 32 (47.8%) achieved PASS. The percentage of patients achieving MCID and PASS in the suture-lifting group was significantly greater than that in the control group (P = .007 for MCID; P = .03 for PASS).

Conclusion

The study demonstrated that the arthroscopic capsular suture-lifting technique provided good clinical outcomes in the treatment of patients with FAI combined with BDDH. This technique showed better improvement of postoperative clinical outcomes than routine capsular closure.

Criteria for Return to Play After Hip Arthroscopy in the Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a common pathology in athletes that often requires operative management in the form of hip arthroscopy.

PURPOSE

To systematically review the rates and level of return to play (RTP) and the criteria used for RTP after hip arthroscopy for FAI in athletes.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature, based on the PRISMA guidelines, was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. Studies reporting outcomes after the use of hip arthroscopy for FAI were included. Outcomes analyzed were RTP rate, RTP level, and criteria used for RTP. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software.

RESULTS

Our review found 130 studies, which included 14,069 patients (14,517 hips) and had a mean methodological quality of evidence (MQOE) of 40.4 (range, 5-67). The majority of patients were female (53.7%), the mean patient age was 30.4 years (range, 15-47 years), and the mean follow-up was 29.7 months (range, 6-75 months). A total of 81 studies reported RTP rates, with an overall RTP rate of 85.4% over a mean period of 6.6 months. Additionally, 49 studies reported the rate of RTP at preinjury level as 72.6%. Specific RTP criteria were reported in 97 studies (77.2%), with time being the most commonly reported item, which was reported in 80 studies (69.2%). A total of 45 studies (57.9%) advised RTP at 3 to 6 months after hip arthroscopy.

CONCLUSION

The overall rate of reported RTP was high after hip arthroscopy for FAI. However, more than one-fourth of athletes who returned to sports did not return at their preinjury level. Development of validated rehabilitation criteria for safe return to sports after hip arthroscopy for FAI could potentially improve clinical outcomes while also increasing rates of RTP at preinjury levels.

Postoperative Musculoskeletal Imaging and Interventions Following Hip Preservation Surgery, Deformity Correction, and Hip Arthroplasty

Total hip arthroplasty and hip preservation surgeries have substantially increased over the past few decades. Musculoskeletal imaging and interventions are cornerstones of comprehensive postoperative care and surveillance in patients undergoing established and more recently introduced hip surgeries. Hence the radiologist's role continues to evolve and expand. A strong understanding of hip joint anatomy and biomechanics, surgical procedures, expected normal postoperative imaging appearances, and postoperative complications ensures accurate imaging interpretation, intervention, and optimal patient care. This article presents surgical principles and procedural details pertinent to postoperative imaging evaluation strategies after common hip surgeries, such as radiography, ultrasonography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. We review and illustrate the expected postoperative imaging appearances and complications following chondrolabral repair, acetabuloplasty, osteochondroplasty, periacetabular osteotomy, realigning and derotational femoral osteotomies, and hip arthroplasty.

Does Capsular Closure Affect Clinical Outcomes in Hip Arthroscopy? A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Background:

There is increasing concern of iatrogenic hip instability after capsulotomy during surgery. Greater emphasis is now being placed on capsular closure during surgery. There are no prospective studies that address whether capsular closure has any effect on outcomes.

Purpose/Hypothesis:

The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient outcomes after interportal capsulotomy repair compared with no repair. We hypothesized that restoration of normal capsular anatomy with interportal repair will achieve clinical outcomes similar to those for no repair.

Study Design:

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods:

Adult patients with femoral acetabular impingement indicated for hip arthroscopy were randomized into either the capsular repair (CR) or the no repair (NR) groups. All patients underwent standard hip arthroscopy with labral repair with or without CAM/pincer lesion resection. Clinical outcomes were measured via the Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) subscale, Hip Outcome Score–Sport Specific (HOS-SS) subscale, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), visual analog scale for pain, International Hip Outcome Tool, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12).

Results:

A total of 54 patients (56 hips) were included (26 men and 30 women) with a mean age of 33 years. The HOS-ADL score significantly improved at 2 years in both the NR group (from 68.1 ± 20.5 to 88.6 ± 20.0; P < .001) and the CR group (from 59.2 ± 18.8 to 91.7 ± 12.3; P < .001). The HOS-SS score also significantly improved in both the NR group (from 41.1 ± 25.8 to 84.1 ± 21.9; P < .001) and the CR group (from 32.7 ± 23.7 to 77.7 ± 23.0; P < .001). Improvement was noted for all secondary outcome measures; however, there was no significant difference between the groups at any time point. Between 1 and 2 years, the NR group showed significant worsening on the HOS-ADL (–1.21 ± 5.09 vs 4.28 ± 7.91; P = .044), mHHS (1.08 ± 10.04 vs 10.12 ± 11.76; P = .042), and VR-12 Physical (–2.15 ± 5.52 vs 4.49 ± 7.30; P = .014) subsets compared with the CR group.

Conclusion:

There was significant improvement in the VR-12 Physical subscale at 2 years postoperatively in the capsular CR group compared with the NR group. Capsular closure appears to have no detrimental effect on functional outcome scores after hip arthroscopy. We recommend restoration of native anatomy if possible when performing hip arthroscopy.

Effect of Capsular Closure on Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy for Femoracetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the effect of hip arthroscopy with or without capsular closure in femoracetabular impingement (FAI) by meta‐analysis.

Methods

Pertinent studies were identified by searching Pubmed, EMBASE databases with the last search update on 16 February 2020. Studies that reported hip arthroscopy for FAI were collected. Meta‐analysis was performed by the use of Review Manager 5.3 software. The odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) were used to compare dichotomous and continuous variables. Additionally, the I² was used to assess heterogeneity among studies, and the fixed‐effects model or the random‐effects model was selected for the quantitative analysis. Outcomes were evaluated by forest plots. For statistical analysis, P < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

There was no significant difference among the preoperative mHHS (MD = –2.66，95% CI [−7.25, 1.92], I² = 80%, P = 0.25), preoperative (MD = ‐4.94, 95% CI [−11.56, 1.67], I² = 50%, P = 0.14) and postoperative HOS‐SSS (MD = ‐1.00, 95% CI [−6.98, 4.98], I² = 66%, P = 0.74), patient satisfaction (MD = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.25, 0.31], I² = 19%, P = 0.84; OR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.59, 1.50], I² = 0%, P = 0.78), complications (OR = 1.23, 95%CI [0.56, 2.67], I² = 0%, P = 0.61), revisions (OR = 1.77, 95% CI [0.87, 3.60], I² = 36%, P = 0.11), and surgery time (SMD = –0.38, 95% CI [−1.16, 0.40], I² = 92%, P = 0.34) between the capsule closure group and the non‐closure group. For the comparison of postoperative mHHS (MD = –2.66, 95% CI [−7.25, 1.92], I² = 80%, P = 0.25) and HOS‐ADL (MD = ‐4.20, 95% CI [−5.75, −2.65], I² = 24%, P < 0.00001), the score of the non‐closure group was significantly better than that of the closure group.

Conclusions

Remain capsule unclosed after hip arthroscopy for FAI may, to some extent, has a better postoperative functional score than the non‐closure treatment.

Intraoperative radiation exposure in hip arthroscopy: a systematic review

Fluoroscopy is used in hip arthroscopy (HA) for portal placement, instrument localisation, and guidance in bony resection. The recent increase in arthroscopic hip procedures may place patients and surgeons at risk for increased radiation exposure and radiation-induced complications. The purpose of the current systematic review was to assess intraoperative radiation exposure in HA. The systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines; inclusion criteria were studies assessing radiation exposure in HA. 9 studies including 994 patients were included. Mean age was 38.6 years and 48% (436 of 906) were female. Mean time of fluoroscopy exposure was 0.58 minutes. Dose area product was 129.5 cGycm². Mean intraoperative absorbed radiation dose studies was 12.6 mGy. Mean intraoperative effective dose was 0.48 mSv. The mean occupational exposure to the surgeon per case was 0.0031 mSv. Higher patient body mass index (BMI) correlated to greater patient effective and cumulative dose (p < 0.05, r = 0.404), and greater occupational exposure (p < 0.001, r = 0.460). Increasing surgeon experience decreased fluoroscopy time (p = 0.039) and radiation dose (p = 0.002). Radiation dose and effective dose were well under the thresholds for deterministic effects (2 Gy) and annual radiation exposure for occupational workers (20 mSv). Intraoperative radiation exposure to patients and surgeons is within acceptable annual radiation limits. Ensuring careful selection of perioperative imaging modalities, proper protective shielding, specifically the use of leaded eyeglasses, and optimal C-arm positioning are key strategies to reduce radiation exposure to patients and surgeons alike.

Orthopaedic surgeons' use and knowledge of ionizing radiation during surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement

PURPOSE

To better understand how radiograph imaging is currently used throughout perioperative care for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and to define surgeon knowledge and perspective on radiation safety when treating FAI.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was designed to be completed by hip arthroscopists on the imaging modalities and projections they use during evaluation and treatment of FAI and the associated radiation exposures and safety. A sample of practicing attending orthopaedic surgeons was surveyed via an anonymous survey link emailed to corresponding authors on publications related to FAI. The anonymous survey link was also provided to orthopaedic surgeons at the 2014 Vail Hip Symposium.

RESULTS

Ninety-one surgeons completed the survey. Of these participants, 72 surgeons (79.1 %) indicated they use pre-operative radiographs and intra-operative spot fluoroscopic images during FAI treatment. Thirty-three surgeons (36.3 %) use pre-operative computed tomography (CT). Twenty-three surgeons (25.3 %) use real-time moving fluoroscopy. A majority of surgeons incorrectly answered multiple-choice questions about which C-arm positions and settings result in the lowest doses of radiation to the surgeon or patient. Eighty-three surgeons (91.2 %) indicated they believe most orthopaedic surgeons need to be more informed about radiation safety.

CONCLUSIONS

This study gives a quantitative representation of the imaging modalities and projections utilized during perioperative treatment for FAI. This study also identified a lack of knowledge of radiation safety among orthopaedic surgeons treating patients with FAI and demonstrates the need for greater education.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

MRI Evaluation of Femoroacetabular Impingement After Hip Preservation Surgery

OBJECTIVE

This article reviews the surgical treatment options for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), including labral repair and osteochondroplasty, and the expected postoperative appearance on MRI. Complications, including residual osseous deformities, chondral injury, adhesions, femoral neck stress fractures, osteonecrosis, instability, malpositioned suture anchors, and infection, will also be discussed.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge of the surgical treatment of FAI can assist in improving our understanding of the expected postoperative MRI appearance and in evaluating surgical complications.

Arthroscopic capsular repair in the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement

The role of capsular repair in the arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement remains poorly defined. Some surgeons rarely repair the capsule, whereas others perform repairs routinely. There is little direct clinical evidence to guide surgeon decision making. When capsular repairs are performed, the procedure requires adequate visualization and careful suture placement either to re-establish the patient's normal capsular volume or to plicate a redundant capsule in a hip with hyperlaxity preoperatively. We present our preferred technique for arthroscopic capsular repair.

Arthroscopic capsulotomy, capsular repair, and capsular plication of the hip: relation to atraumatic instability

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the available literature exploring the role of the hip joint capsule in the normal state (stable) and pathologic states (instability or stiffness). Furthermore, we examined the various ways that arthroscopic hip surgeons address the capsule intraoperatively: (1) capsulotomy or capsulectomy without closure, (2) capsulotomy with closure, and (3) capsular plication.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers (B.D.G. and B.G.D.) performed a systematic review of the literature using PubMed and the reference lists of related articles by means of defined search terms. Relevant studies were included if these criteria were met: (1) written in English, (2) Levels of Evidence I to V, (3) focus on capsule and its role in hip stability, and (4) human studies and reviews. Articles were excluded if they evaluated (1) total hip arthroplasty constructs using bony procedures or prosthetic revision, (2) developmental dysplasia of the hip where reorientation osteotomies were used, (3) syndromic instability, and (4) traumatic instability with associated bony injury.

RESULTS

By use of the search method described, 5,085 publications were reviewed, of which 47 met appropriate criteria for inclusion in this review. Within this selection group, there were multiple publications that specifically addressed more than 1 of the inclusion criteria. Relevant literature was organized into the following areas: (1) capsular anatomy, biomechanics, and physiology; (2) the role of the capsule in total hip arthroplasty stability; (3) the role of the capsule in native hip stability; and (4) atraumatic instability and capsulorrhaphy.

CONCLUSIONS

As the capsuloligamentous stabilizers of the hip continue to be studied, and their role defined, arthroscopic hip surgeons should become facile with arthroscopic repair or plication techniques to restore proper capsular integrity and tension when indicated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review.