Hip Arthroscopy - State of the Art in 2018

Trends in Cartilage Repair Techniques for Chondral Defects in the Hip in Germany: An Epidemiological Analysis from 2006 to 2022

Cartilage repair techniques for chondral defects in the hip are crucial for treating conditions like femoroacetabular impingement, developmental dysplasia, and osteonecrosis, especially in young patients to delay the progression of osteoarthritis. This study aims to present age and sex distributions and trends in hip-preserving surgeries in Germany from 2006 to 2022, analyzing 116,179 procedures using the German OPS coding system. The procedures were categorized into three groups: debridement, refixation, and regeneration. Arthroscopy was more common than arthrotomy (98,916 vs. 17,263). Males underwent more procedures than females (63,771 vs. 52,408). Debridement had a monomodal age distribution peaking at 43.42 years, while refixation and regeneration exhibited bimodal patterns. Regenerative procedures were primarily performed on younger patients (average 27.73 years). A Joinpoint analysis showed an initial increase in procedures, peaking around 2013, followed by a decline. Arthroscopic procedures peaked at approximately 9000 in 2013, whereas arthrotomies peaked at around 1200 after 2014. The decline in procedures post-2013 may reflect refined surgical indications and a shift towards outpatient settings. These findings underscore the trend towards minimally invasive, scaffold-based treatments, with regenerative techniques showing promising outcomes in younger patients. Future research should focus on prospective comparative studies and cost-benefit analyses to guide clinical decision-making.

Comparison of Pain Scores and Functional Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Hip Labral Repair and Concomitant Capsular Repair or Plication Versus No Closure

Background

The need for capsular closure during arthroscopic hip labral repair is debated.

Purpose

To compare pain and functional outcomes in patients undergoing arthroscopic hip labral repair with concomitant repair or plication of the capsule versus no closure.

Study Design

Cohort study.

Methods

Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing arthroscopic hip labral repair with concomitant repair or plication of the capsule versus no closure at up to 2 years postoperatively and with stratification by age and sex. Patients with lateral center-edge angle <20°, a history of instability, a history of prior arthroscopic surgery in the ipsilateral hip, or a history of labral debridement only were excluded. Subanalysis was performed between patients undergoing no capsular closure who were propensity score matched 1:1 with patients undergoing repair or plication based on age, sex, and preoperative Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS). We compared patients who underwent T-capsulotomy with concomitant capsular closure matched 1:5 with patients who underwent an interportal capsulotomy with concomitant capsular repair based on age, sex, and preoperative MHHS.

Results

Patients undergoing capsular closure (n = 1069), compared with the no-closure group (n = 230), were more often female (68.6% vs 53.0%, respectively; P < .001), were younger (36.4 ± 13.3 vs 47.9 ± 14.7 years; P < .001), and had superior MHHS scores at 2 years postoperatively (85.8 ± 14.5 vs 81.8 ± 18.4, respectively; P = .020). In the matched analysis, no difference was found in outcome measures between patients in the capsular closure group (n = 215) and the no-closure group (n = 215) at any follow-up timepoint. No significant difference was seen between the 2 closure techniques at any follow-up timepoint. Patients with closure of the capsule achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the 1-year MHHS at a similar rate as those without closure (MCID, 50.3% vs 44.9%, P = .288; PASS, 56.8% vs 51.1%, P = .287, respectively). Patients with T-capsulotomy achieved the MCID and the PASS for the 1-year MHHS at a similar rate compared with those with interportal capsulotomy (MCID, 50.1% vs 44.9%, P = .531; PASS, 65.7% vs 61.2%, P = .518, respectively).

Conclusion

When sex, age, and preoperative MHHS were controlled, capsular closure and no capsular closure after arthroscopic hip labral repair were associated with similar pain and functional outcomes for patients up to 2 years postoperatively.

Acetabular Labral Reconstruction Does Not Demonstrate Superior Biomechanical Properties Compared to Labral Repair or Intact Native Labrum but Is Superior to Labral Excision: A Systematic Review of Cadaveric Studies

PURPOSE

To systematically review and compare biomechanical properties of labral reconstruction to labral repair, intact native labrum, and labral excision in cadaveric studies.

METHODS

A search of the PubMed and Embase databases was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and checklist. Cadaveric studies focused on hip biomechanics related to intact labrum, labral repair, labral reconstruction, labral augmentation, and labral excision were included. Investigated parameters included biomechanical data measures, such as distraction force, distance to suction seal rupture, peak negative pressure, contact area, and fluid efflux. Review articles, duplicates, technique reports, case reports, opinion articles, articles written in a language other than English, clinical studies focusing on patient-reported outcomes, studies performed in animals, and articles with no abstract available were also excluded.

RESULTS

Fourteen cadaveric biomechanical studies were included that compared labral reconstruction to labral repair (4 studies), labral reconstruction to labral excision (4 studies); and evaluation of distractive force of the labrum (3 studies), the distance to suction seal rupture (3 studies), fluid dynamics (2 studies), displacement at peak force (1 study), and stability ratio (1 study). Data pooling was not performed because of methodological heterogenicity of the studies. Labral reconstruction did not outperform labral repair in restoring the hip suction seal or any other biomechanical property. Labral repair significantly prevented greater fluid efflux when compared to labral reconstruction. Labral repair and reconstruction improved the distractive stability of the hip fluid seal from the labral tear and labral excision stage, respectively. Furthermore, labral reconstruction demonstrated to have better biomechanical properties than labral excision.

CONCLUSIONS

In cadaveric studies, labral repair or intact native labrum was biomechanically more superior than labral reconstruction; however, labral reconstruction can restore acetabular labral biomechanical properties and was biomechanically superior to labral excision.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In cadaveric models, labral repair outperforms segmental labral reconstruction in preserving the hip suction seal; nonetheless, segmental labral reconstruction biomechanically outperforms labral excision at time 0.

Variation in Reported Learning Outcomes and Measurement Instruments in Hip Arthroscopy Simulation Training: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To systematically review the current literature on the effectiveness of hip arthroscopy simulation training and to determine the consistency of reporting and validation of simulation used in hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

Three databases (PubMed, EMBase, and CINAHL) were screened using PRISMA guidelines in January 2022 for published literature on virtual simulation in hip arthroscopy. Studies reporting on the use of hip arthroscopy simulation training in orthopedic surgical trainees were included and assessed for quality and risk of bias using MINORS criteria. The number of participants, participant education level, experience, simulator type, validation type, method of assessment, and simulation outcomes were extracted from included studies.

RESULTS

Of the 286 articles screened, 11 met inclusion criteria for review evaluating 323 orthopedic trainees with a mean of 29.36 participants per study published between 2012 and 2021, most commonly in the United Kingdom (55%). The four most reported surgical skills evaluated were visualization and probing tasks (82%), mean time to perform the task (73%), number of cartilage and soft tissue collisions (73%), and number of hand movements (73%). The most described measurement instruments included a simulation built-in scoring system (55%), Arthroscopic Surgical Skill Evaluation Tool (ASSET) Global Rating Scale (GRS) (27%), and motion analysis system (18%). Construct validity was the most reported overall type of validity (82%), followed by face validity (36%), transfer validity (18%) and content validity (18%). Construct validity was also the most reported validity for the simulator and measurement instrument (55% and 89%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant variation in reported learning outcomes and measurement instruments for evaluating the effectiveness of hip arthroscopic-based education. This study highlights that simulation training may be an effective tool for evaluation of hip arthroscopy skills.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, systematic review of level I to III studies.

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

Definitions of Return to Sport After Hip Arthroscopy: Are We Speaking the Same Language and Are We Measuring the Right Outcome?

Background:

Return to sport is a commonly studied outcome of hip arthroscopy that is relevant to both patients and providers. There exists substantial variability in criteria used to define successful return to sport.

Purpose:

To review and evaluate the definitions used in the literature so as to establish a single standard to enable comparison of outcomes in future studies.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

The PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were searched from inception to June 1, 2019, for studies relating to hip arthroscopy and return to sport. Articles included were those that met the following criteria: (1) contained 2 or more patients, (2) studied patients 18 years of age and older, (3) reported postoperative outcomes after hip arthroscopy, (4) clearly defined return to play, and (5) were written in English. Excluded articles (1) reported outcomes for nonoperative or open treatments, (2) did not clearly define return to play, or (3) were review articles, meta-analyses, or survey-based studies. Return-to-play definitions and additional metrics of postoperative performance and outcome were recorded.

Results:

A total of 185 articles were identified, and 28 articles were included in the final review, of which 18 involved elite athletes and 10 involved recreational athletes. Of articles studying elite athletes, 6 (33%) defined return to play as participation in regular or postseason competition, 3 (17%) extended the criteria to the preseason, and 2 (11%) used participation in sport-related activities and training. The remaining 7 (39%) reported rates of return to the preoperative level of competition but did not specify preseason versus regular season. All 10 articles evaluating recreational athletes defined return to play based on patient-reported outcomes. Four (40%) did so qualitatively, while 6 (60%) did so quantitatively.

Conclusion:

There exists significant variability in criteria used to define successful return to sport after hip arthroscopy, and these criteria differ among elite and recreational athletes. For elite athletes, return to the preoperative level of competition is most commonly used, but there exists no consensus on what type of competition—regular season, preseason, or training—is most appropriate. For recreational athletes, patient-reported data are most commonly employed, although there are clear differences between authors on the ways in which these are being used as well.

Arthroscopic bullet removal from the hip joint and concurrent treatment of associated full-thickness chondral defects: A case report

The diagnosis of a bullet inside the hip joint is a rare finding. The usual method to treat this condition has been open surgery, with its associated complications and morbidity. The arthroscopic approach has been increasingly utilized for the diagnosis and treatment of several hip conditions, and the number of indications for this technique has been steadily rising. We report the case of a 35-year-old man who suffered a gunshot wound and was operated on for abdominal perforation. He later presented with groin pain that worsened with weight-bearing on his right leg and then underwent arthroscopic removal of a bullet located inside his right hip joint. After a 2-year follow-up, the patient had an excellent clinical outcome, with no radiologic signs of arthritis. The removal of an intra-articular projectile is necessary to avoid complications such as synovitis, osteoarthritis, septic arthritis, and saturnism. The best access to the hip joint remains a topic of debate. Arthroscopy has the advantage of less soft-tissue damage and quicker recovery. The treatment of associated chondral lesions can be done with several techniques, including microfracture, autologous chondrocyte implantation, mosaicplasty, and fresh osteochondral allograft transplantation. There is no consensus as to the best course of treatment for associated chondral lesions in such cases. Hip arthroscopy can be a safe and effective technique for the removal of intra-articular bullets in the hip.