Prospective Randomized Comparison of Capsular Management Techniques During Hip Arthroscopy

Editorial Commentary: Hip Capsular Preservation When Treating Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome Should Remain Universal, and Some Hip Phenotypes Necessitate Maximum Surgical Stability

Hip capsular preservation remains most common in the United States despite literature to-date showing varying outcomes. Different surgeons prefer, and different patients require, periportal capsulotomies versus wider exposure with T-type capsulotomy and traction stitches. In addition to revision cases, some hip phenotypes may require more aggressive capsular management. Patients with borderline hip dysplasia, acetabular retroversion, increased femoral anteversion, and greater Beighton scores necessitate more hip stability; thus, capsular preservation and closure is essential. However, patients with "tight" hips, thicker capsules, and larger cam deformities may require less-stringent capsular care. Regardless, adequate bony decompression is paramount in patients with femoroacetabular impingment syndrome.

Capsular Management at the Time of Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome Varies With Geography and Surgeon Subspecialty Training: A Cross-Sectional, Multinational Surgeon Survey

PURPOSE

To perform a multinational survey and identify patterns in capsular management at the time of hip arthroscopy.

METHODS

An anonymous, nonvalidated survey was distributed by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine; Arthroscopy Association of North America; European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery & Arthroscopy; International Society for Hip Arthroscopy; and Turkish Society of Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, and Knee Surgery. The questions were broken down into 6 categories: demographic characteristics, capsulotomy preference, traction stitches, capsular closure, postoperative rehabilitation, and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 157 surgeons. Surgeons who performed half or full T-type capsulotomies had 2.4 higher odds of using traction sutures for managing both the peripheral and central compartments during hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (P = .024). Surgeons who believed that there was sufficient literature regarding the importance of hip capsular closure had 1.9 higher odds of routinely performing complete closure of the capsule (P = .044). Additionally, surgeons who practiced in the United States had 8.1 higher odds of routinely closing the capsule relative to international surgeons (P < .001). Moreover, surgeons who received hip arthroscopy training in residency or fellowship had 2.4 higher odds of closing the capsule completely compared with surgeons who did not have exposure to hip arthroscopy during their training (P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS

Geographic and surgeon-related variables correlate with capsular management preferences during hip arthroscopy. Surgeons who perform half or full T-capsulotomies more often use traction stitches for managing both the peripheral and central compartments. Surgeons performing routine capsular closure are more likely to believe that sufficient evidence is available to support the practice, with surgeons in the United States being more likely to perform routine capsular closure in comparison to their international colleagues.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As the field of hip preservation continues to evolve, capsular management will likely continue to play an important role in access, instrumentation, and postoperative outcomes.

A Multicenter Analysis of 3 Decades of Hip Arthroscopy: Evolving Techniques and Growing Patient Volumes From 1988 to 2022

Background

The number of hip arthroscopies performed in the United States has grown significantly over the past several decades, with evolving indications and emerging techniques.

Purposes

To (1) examine the evolution of hip arthroscopy at 3 tertiary referral centers between 1988 and 2022 and (2) quantify trends in patient demographics and procedures performed.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed of all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy at 3 academic centers between 1988 and 2022. Demographic data were collected using standardized forms and operative notes, and intraoperative images were manually reviewed for each patient to determine the specific procedures performed at the time of the hip arthroscopy. Surgical procedures were plotted over time to evaluate trends. Patients were divided into 3 time periods for comparison: early hip arthroscopy from 1988 to 2008, 2009 (the time of the first labral repair in our cohort) to 2015, and 2016 to 2022.

Results

A total of 3000 patients (age, 35.7 ± 13.8 years; age range, 10-89 years; female sex, 2109 (70.3%); body mass index, 27.4 ± 6.3 kg/m2) underwent arthroscopic hip procedures between 1988 and 2022. The mean number of cases increased from a mean of 3.2 per year in 1988-2008 to 285.9 per year in 2016-2022 (P < .001). Labral treatment at the time of primary hip arthroscopy evolved from 100% debridement and 0% repair in 1988-2008 to 5.0% debridement, 94.0% repair, and 1.0% labral reconstruction in 2016-2022 (P < .001). Cam resection increased from 4.1% in 1988-2008 to 86.9% in 2016-2022 (P < .001). By 2022, 45 out of 325 cases (13.8%) were revisions. The rate of capsular repair at the time of primary hip arthroscopy increased from 0.0% in 1988-2008 up to 81.0% in 2016-2022.

Conclusion

There has been a significant growth of hip arthroscopy volumes as well as a significant transition from use as a tool for diagnosis and labral debridement to procedures restoring native anatomy including labral repair, cam resection, capsular repair, periacetabular osteotomy, and gluteal repair.

Capsular Repair, Labral Repair, and Femoroplasty With Postless Traction Are Increasingly Performed for the Arthroscopic Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

PURPOSE

To provide an updated assessment of hip arthroscopy use by using an institutional database that is specific to the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

METHODS

All patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for the treatment of FAIS were retrospectively identified between the years 2014 and 2022 via Current Procedural Terminology coding in a multi-institutional, single health system database. A longitudinal analysis was performed to identify trends in the use of arthroscopic techniques including capsular and labral treatment, osteoplasty, and traction set-up.

RESULTS

During the study, 789 arthroscopic hip procedures in 733 patients were analyzed (56 staged bilateral). Between 2016 and 2022, the number of hip arthroscopies performed each year increased by 1,490% (R2 = 0.87, P = .001). Capsular repair (R2 = 0.92, P < .001), labral repair (R2 = 0.75, P = .002), and femoroplasty (R2 = 0.70, P = .004) were performed in an increasing proportion of cases over our study period whereas labral debridement (R2 = -0.84, P < .001) became less used. Postless traction systems were employed in 84% (663/789) of hip arthroscopies overall, were used in at least 70% of hip arthroscopies each year, and did not undergo any significant changes in use (R2 = 0.02, P = .73).

CONCLUSIONS

Capsular repair, labral repair, and femoroplasty were increasingly performed for the arthroscopic treatment of FAIS whereas the use of labral debridement decreased significantly over our study period. Postless traction systems were used in the majority of cases each year.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As comparative literature continues to define the safety and efficacy of hip arthroscopy, understanding how novel techniques or procedures are incorporated in clinical practice is important.

Patient Factors Influencing Outcomes at 12-Year Follow-up of Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement has increased in popularity since the early 2000s when it was first described, although only a few midterm follow-up studies have been published.

PURPOSE

To describe the outcomes of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement at a mean 12-year follow-up and to determine the risk factors for failure.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

The Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS) and a radiographic evaluation were completed preoperatively and at midterm follow-up. Participants were divided into 2 groups according to their clinical evolution. The success group consisted of patients whose NAHS at the final follow-up was above the established Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) threshold of 81.9, whereas patients who underwent a second surgical intervention or did not reach the PASS threshold at final follow-up were assigned to the failure group. These groups were compared to identify preoperative differences in demographic, pathological, and surgical factors.

RESULTS

A total of 95 hips were included, after 23 were lost to follow-up (80.5% follow-up). At a mean follow-up of 12.1 years (range, 9.2-16.0 years), 9 hips required total hip arthroplasty (9.5%), 5 required revision hip arthroscopy (5.3%), 29 did not achieve the NAHS PASS threshold (30.5%), and 52 achieved the NAHS PASS threshold (54.7%). The mean NAHS was 82.4 at final follow-up compared with 66.9 preoperatively (mean difference = 15.5; P < .001). Higher mean body mass index (24.9 vs 23.0; P = .030), older age (30.0 vs 27.2; P = .035), and inferior preoperative lateral joint space width (3.9 vs 4.4; P = .019) were associated with inferior prognosis in the failure group versus success group. Osteoarthritis progression was observed in 69.2% of the failure group and in 34.8% of the success group (P = .082). Labral ossification was observed in 78.3% of all patients, and its lateral projection length was statistically associated with failure (P = .015).

CONCLUSION

At a mean 12-year follow-up, hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement led to significant clinical improvement, with 55% PASS achievement. In total, 31% of patients were below the PASS threshold, 5% had revision arthroscopy, and only 9% had conversion to total hip arthroplasty for a 45% global failure rate. Increased body mass index, older age, and smaller preoperative lateral joint space width were significant negative prognostic factors. Postoperative degenerative changes were highly prevalent and demonstrated association with failure.

Long-term Survivorship and Outcomes of Patients Without Dysplasia Undergoing Capsular Repair During Primary Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of literature evaluating long-term outcomes and survivorship of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with capsular repair for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

PURPOSE

To report 10-year survivorship and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after primary hip arthroscopy with capsular repair for FAIS and evaluate the effect of capsular repair in patients at the highest risk for conversion to arthroplasty.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed on all patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with capsular repair between October 2008 and February 2011. Patients with a minimum 10-year follow-up on the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and visual analog scale for pain (VAS) scores were selected. The preoperative and minimum 10-year follow-up Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) scores were also reported, if available. Patients with ipsilateral hip surgery, worker's compensation, Tönnis osteoarthritis grade >1, and hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <25°) were excluded. Survivorship, PROS, and clinical benefit-minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS)-were reported. An additional propensity-matched subanalysis was performed on patients at the highest risk for conversion to arthroplasty, comparing patients undergoing capsular repair to patients with unrepaired capsules.

RESULTS

A total of 145 (n = 130 patients) out of 180 eligible hips (n = 165 patients) had a minimum 10-year follow-up (80.6%). Also, 126 hips (86.9%) belonged to women, and 19 hips (13.1%) belonged to men. The mean patient age was 30.3 ± 12.9 years. The survivorship rate was 91% at the 10-year follow-up. The cohort experienced significant improvements (P < .001) in the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS for pain scores. Moreover, the cohort achieved high rates of the PASS for the mHHS (89.8%), high rates of the MCID for the mHHS (82.4%), and high rates of the MCID for VAS for pain (80.6%) scores. In the propensity-matched subanalysis performed on patients with the highest risk for arthroplasty, 29 hips with capsular repair were matched to 81 hips with unrepaired capsules. While both groups experienced significant improvements in all PROs (P < .05), the group without capsule repair trended toward a higher conversion to arthroplasty rate when compared with the repair group. In addition, an odds ratio was calculated for the likelihood of converting to arthroplasty after having an unrepaired capsule compared with capsular repair (2.54 [95% CI, 0.873-7.37]; P = .087).

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with capsular repair experienced a high survivorship rate of 91% at a minimum 10-year follow-up. Patients who did not convert to arthroplasty saw favorable improvements in PROs and achieved high clinical benefit rates. In addition, among those patients at the highest risk for conversion to arthroplasty, a trend toward greater survivorship was observed with capsular repair.

Capsular Repair Versus No Repair After Hip Arthroscopy in Patients Without Dysplasia or Generalized Ligamentous Laxity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Many recent studies have shown that patients who undergo capsular repair after hip arthroscopy achieve superior clinical outcomes compared with those who do not. However, patients with dysplasia or generalized ligamentous laxity (GLL) were not excluded from most of these studies, which may have affected the outcomes.

Purpose

To determine whether capsular repair influences the outcomes of hip arthroscopy for patients without dysplasia or GLL.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods

Under the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of capsulotomy with versus without repair were included, but studies that included patients with dysplasia or GLL were excluded. The study outcomes were patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 6 months and 2 years postoperatively-including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS)- and were compared between the repair and no-repair groups. A narrative analysis and meta-analysis were performed to integrate and compare the results of the 2 groups. In the meta-analysis of the outcome measures, studies with significant differences in the preoperative scores between the repair and no-repair groups were excluded because previous studies have shown that these can affect the outcomes.

Results

A total of 761 studies were initially identified, of which 3 were included. Of the 322 included patients, 136 underwent capsular repair, and 186 underwent capsulotomy with no repair. The meta-analysis showed that capsular repair was associated with significantly higher postoperative PROMs: the mHHS at 2 years (P = .03), the HOS-ADL at 6 months (P = .02) and 2 years (P < .0001), and the HOS-SSS at 6 months (P = .02) and 2 years (P = .001).

Conclusion

Capsular repair after hip arthroscopy was associated with superior clinical outcomes when compared with no capsular repair in patients without dysplasia or GLL.

Capsule closure has better hip function than non-closure in hip arthroscopy for femoracetabular impingement: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The impact of capsular closure vs non-closure in hip arthroscopy for femoracetabular impingement (FAI) was assessed by a meta-analysis.

Methods

With the most recent search update occurring in August 2022, relevant studies were found by searching the Pubmed and EMBASE databases. A collection of studies was made that conducted hip arthroscopy for FAI. Review Manager 5.3 was used to carry out the meta-analysis. The dichotomous and continuous factors were compared using the odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD). A fixed-effect or random-effect model was chosen, depending on the degree of heterogeneity (I2). Forest plots were used to assess the results. A significance level of P < 0.05 was applied to the statistical analysis.

Results

Ultimately, 15 studies were incorporated into the meta-analysis. The surgery time was longer for the capsular closure group (CC group) compared to the non-closure (NC group) group. (P < 0.001, SMD = 8.59, 95%CI [7.40, 9.77], I2 = 32 %). Following hip arthroscopy, the CC group's mHHS was superior to that of the NC group (P = 0.001, MD = 2.05, 95%CI [0.83, 3.27], I2 = 42 %), HOS-ADL (P < 0.001, MD = 4.29, 95%CI [3.08, 5.50], I2 = 0 %). The capsular closure group had a reduced rate of postoperative complications (P = 0.001, OR = 0.21, 95%CI [0.08, 0.54], I2 = 0 %) and conversion to THA (P = 0.01, OR = 0.42, 95%CI [0.21, 0.83], I2 = 0 %) following hip arthroscopy than the non-closure group. The revision rate, VAS, and postoperative HOS-SSS did not significantly differ between these two groups (P＞0.05).

Conclusion

The current meta-analysis found that the closed group had a lower complication rate and considerably greater mHHS and HOS-ADL following surgery compared to the non-closed capsule group. Whether this is related to the continuous progress of biomechanical and clinical research techniques deserves our attention.

Level of evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level I through Level III studies.

Demographic and Socioeconomic Patient Data Are Rarely Included in Randomized Controlled Trials for Femoral Acetabular Impingement and Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review

Purpose

To determine the rate of reporting for sociodemographic variables in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating femoral acetabular impingement (FAI) and hip arthroscopy.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were queried for articles relating to FAI and hip arthroscopy. Articles included in final analysis were RCTs investigating operative management of FAI. Included RCTs were analyzed for reporting of age and sex or gender as well as the following sociodemographic variables: race, ethnicity, insurance status, income, housing status, work status, and education level in the results section or any section of the paper. Data was analyzed using χ2 and Fisher exact tests with significance defined as P < .05.

Results

Forty-eight RCTs were identified from 2011 to 2023. Age was reported in 48 of 48 (100%) of included papers; sex or gender was reported in 47 of 48 (97.9%). Reporting of sociodemographic variables in any section respectively was: race (7/48, 14.6%), ethnicity (4/48, 8.33%), insurance status (0/48, 0%), income (1/48, 2.08%), housing status (0/48, 0%), work status (3/48, 6.25%), and education (2/48, 4.17%). There was no significant difference for reporting demographic variables with respect to journal or year of publication (P = .666 and P = .761, respectively). Sociodemographic variables (9/48) were reported significantly less frequently than age and sex or gender (48/48) (P < .001).

Conclusions

This study found that sociodemographic variables in FAI and hip arthroscopy RCTs are reported with much lower frequency than age and sex or gender. These findings may demonstrate the need to include patient sociodemographic data in RCTs so that their results can be better generalized and applied to the appropriate patient population.

Level of Evidence

Level II, systematic review of level I and II evidence.

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.

Early Postoperative Activities of Daily Living Do Not Adversely Affect Joint Torques or Translation Regardless of Capsular Condition: A Cadaveric Study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of capsular management on joint constraint and femoral head translations during simulated activities of daily living (ADL).

METHODS

Using 6 (n = 6) cadaveric hip specimens, the effect of capsulotomies and repair was then evaluated during simulated ADL. Joint forces and rotational kinematics associated with gait and sitting, adopted from telemeterized implant studies, were applied to the hip using a 6-degrees of freedom (DOF) joint motion simulator. Testing occurred after creation of portals, interportal capsulotomy (IPC), IPC repair, T-capsulotomy (T-Cap), partial T-Cap repair, and full T-Cap repair. The anterior-posterior (AP), medial-lateral (ML), and axial compression DOFs were operated in force control, whereas flexion-extension, adduction-abduction, and internal-external rotation were manipulated in displacement control. Resulting femoral head translations and joint reaction torques were recorded and evaluated. Subsequently, the mean-centered range of femoral head displacements and peak signed joint restraint torques were calculated and compared.

RESULTS

During simulated gait and sitting, the mean range of AP femoral head displacements with respect to intact exceeded 1% of the femoral head diameter after creating portals, T-Caps, and partial T-Cap repair (Wilcoxon signed rank P < .05); the mean ranges of ML displacements did not. Deviations in femoral head kinematics varied by capsule stage but were never very large. No consistent trends with respect to alterations in peak joint restrain torques were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In this cadaveric biomechanical study, capsulotomy and repair minimally affected resultant femoral head translation and joint torques during simulated ADLs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The tested ADLs appear safe to perform after surgery, regardless of capsular status, because adverse kinematics were not observed. However, further study is required to determine the importance of capsular repair beyond time-zero biomechanics and the resultant effect on patient-reported outcomes.

Capsular Management During Hip Arthroscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hip arthroscopy is widely used for the management of intra-articular pathology and there has been growing interest in strategies for management of the hip capsule during surgery. The hip capsule is an essential structure that provides stability to the joint and it is necessarily violated during procedures that address intra-articular pathology. This article reviews different approaches to capsular management during hip arthroscopy including anatomical considerations for capsulotomy, techniques, clinical outcomes, and the role of routine capsular repair. This article also reviews the concept of hip microinstability and its potential impact on capsular management options as well as iatrogenic complications that can occur as a result of poor capsular management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current research highlights the key functional role of the hip capsule and the importance of preserving its anatomy during surgery. Capsulotomies that involve less tissue violation (periportal and puncture-type approaches) do not appear to require routine capsular repair to achieve good outcomes. Many studies have investigated the role of capsular repair following more extensive capsulotomy types (interportal and T-type), with most authors reporting superior outcomes with routine capsular repair. Strategies for capsular management during hip arthroscopy range from conservative capsulotomy techniques aimed to minimize capsular violation to more extensive capsulotomies with routine capsule closure, all of which have good short- to mid-term outcomes. There is a growing trend towards decreasing iatrogenic capsular tissue injury when possible and fully repairing the capsule when larger capsulotomies are utilized. Future research may reveal that patients with microinstability may require a more specific approach to capsular management.

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.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies Comparing Complete Capsular Closure Against Unrepaired Hip Capsules During Hip Arthroscopy

Background

While the biomechanical importance of the hip capsule is well described, there remains controversy over the necessity of routine capsular closure after hip arthroscopy.

Purpose

To perform a meta-analysis of clinical studies to compare pooled outcomes of complete hip capsular closure cohorts against unrepaired hip capsule cohorts.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL/EBSCO, and Scopus were queried in February 2022 for studies that directly compared clinical outcomes for hip arthroscopy patients treated with either complete capsular closure or an unrepaired capsule. Outcomes assessed were incidence of revision hip arthroscopy, incidence of subsequent conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), and improvement from baseline in modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS) activities of daily living (ADL), HOS sports specific (SS) subscale, Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) ADL, and HAGOS SS subscale. A pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) was used to compare changes in mHHS. A pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to compare changes in the ADL and SS outcomes. A pooled risk ratio (RR) was used to compare the probability of revision hip arthroscopy and conversion to THA based on capsular management. For pooled outcomes where heterogeneity was regarded as potentially unimportant, a fixed-effects model was implemented. For pooled outcomes with considerable heterogeneity, a random-effects model was implemented.

Results

Of the 1896 records identified in our search, 11 studies (1897 patients) were included. A significantly higher improvement in mHHS (WMD, -3.72; 95% CI, -4.95 to -2.50; P < .00001) and ADL outcomes (SMD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.54 to -0.07; P = .01) were seen after complete capsular closure. There was a significantly lower probability of subsequent revision hip arthroscopy (RR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.45; P = .008) and conversion to THA (RR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.06 to 3.79; P = .03) after complete capsular repair. There was no difference in SS outcomes (SMD, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.13; P = .81) between the 2 groups.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis demonstrated that routine complete capsular closure after hip arthroscopy led to superior clinical outcomes relative to unrepaired hip capsules.

Hip Capsular Closure in Distraction: A Technique to Allow Easier Closure of T and Interportal Capsulotomies

Capsule closure during hip arthroscopy is increasingly being shown to optimize outcomes and minimize complications. Although various techniques and suture configurations have been described, closure of the hip capsule remains a technically challenging step for many hip arthroscopists. The purpose of this Technical Note is to summarize capsular management in arthroscopic hip-preservation surgery and to outline a technique of passing capsule sutures under hip traction. This technique is useful, as it facilitates adequate visualization of the vertical limb of the T capsulotomy and interportal capsulotomy, which is difficult when attempted with the hip out of traction and flexed. Our technique also helps to reduce the risk of iatrogenic cartilage injury during suture passage by increasing the distance between the femoral head and capsule leaflets, or the functional working area for capsule closure.

The revision hip arthroscopy complex: capsular deficiency, labral deficiency, femoral over-resection and adhesions can result in good survivorship with revision hip arthroscopy

To evaluate the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship of combined arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction/augmentation, capsular reconstruction, femoral neck remplissage and lysis of adhesions. Patients ≥18 years old who underwent this combination of procedures during revision hip arthroscopy and were eligible for minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. PRO scores including Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living scale, HOS-Sports scale, modified Harris Hip Score, Short Form 12, and Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, patient satisfaction and failure rates were analyzed. Seven patients (5 females and 2 males) with average age of 45.0 ± 5.2 (range: 40-54 years) met inclusion criteria. Patients had a median of 1 (range: 1-3) prior hip surgery at an outside institution. All patients had previously undergone femoral osteoplasty, and 85% (6/7) of patients had a labral repair performed. Four patients had no capsule closure performed in their prior procedures. Six patients were available for minimum 2-year follow-up. Two patients converted to total hip arthroplasty: one patient with four prior hip arthroscopies and the other had advanced osteoarthritis with outerbridge grade 3/4 defects requiring microfracture. Mean patient satisfaction was 7 (range: 2-9). At mean follow-up of 3 years, most patients who underwent the combination of labral reconstruction, capsular reconstruction, femoral neck remplissage and lysis of adhesions during revision hip arthroscopy demonstrated improved PROs. This salvage procedure has the potential to restore hip function in patients who have failed an initial hip arthroscopy procedure. In patients with these pathologies present and concomitant joint space narrowing, a total hip arthroplasty may be a more appropriate salvage option.

Does capsular repair make a difference in the integrity and thickness of anterior capsule in the setting of borderline hip dysplasia

BACKGROUND

Hip joint capsular ligaments serve a fundamental role in balancing functional mobility and joint stability. However, few studies had focused on postoperative capsule changes in patients with borderline developmental dysplasia of the hip (BDDH).

PURPOSE

To evaluate the integrity and thickness of anterior hip capsular thickness on pre and postoperative MRI in BDDH patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series study; Level of evidence III.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using data from BDDH patients who had arthroscopy between 2016 and 2019. Two groups were created and propensity-score matched based on whether the capsule was sutured. The study group comprised patients who have undergone routine capsule repair between 2018 and 2019. The control group includes BDDH patients with unrepaired capsulotomy between 2016 and 2018. Capsular integrity and thickness were measured on MRI before surgery and at least one year postoperatively. Furthermore, analysis was performed on correlations between the presence of a capsular defect and related factors.

RESULTS

Propensity-score matching yielded 37 hips in the repair group and 37 hips in the non-repair group. There were no significant differences detected in age, sex, and BMI between the two groups. MRI detected capsular defects in 3 hips (8.1%) in the repair group and 10 hips (27.0%) in the non-repair group (p = 0.032). The defect was found to be along the interportal capsulotomy line in all capsular defect cases. Moreover, the postoperative anterior capsule thickness in the study group was significantly thinner compared with preoperative (2.9 ± 0.5 mm vs 3.7 ± 0.6 mm; p < 0.001), and no significant difference was detected in the control group. There were no statistically significant correlations between the presence of a defect capsule and demographic characteristics such as patient age, sex, BMI, preoperative alpha angle, or lateral center-edge angle (LCEA).

CONCLUSION

The majority (91.9%) of the repaired hip capsules in BDDH patients remained closed compared with patients without repair (73.0%). The anterior capsule was significantly thinner in the zone of capsulotomy postoperative compared with preoperative in patients with unrepaired capsules. The presence of a defective capsule does not correlate with demographic factors.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Improve at 2-Year Minimum Follow-Up After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To provide an updated review of recent literature on postoperative outcomes following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS), focusing on larger-population studies with a minimum 2-year follow-up published within the last 5 years.

METHODS

A literature search of the PubMed, Ovid Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Articles were screened for clinical studies published from 2017 to 2022 with greater than 100 patients and minimum 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria included failure to report postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs), no preoperative radiographic measurements, and surgery for pathology other than FAIS. Data collection included study characteristics, patient demographics, radiographic findings, intraoperative findings, procedures performed, postoperative PROs, and subsequent surgeries.

RESULTS

Nine studies met inclusion criteria. Mean or median patient ages ranged from 32.3 to 41 years, with 4 studies reporting on greater than 50% female patients. Mean preoperative lateral center edge angles and alpha angles ranged from 30.2° to 37° and from 56.2° to 71°, respectively. Labral repairs (range 69.7%-100%) were performed more commonly than debridements (range 0%-26.3%). All studies demonstrated improved PROs at most recent follow-up. Seven studies reported mean or median modified Harris Hip Scores, with preoperative and postoperative values that ranged from 53.1 to 80 and from 67.4 to 100, respectively. Revision hip arthroscopies and conversions to hip arthroplasty ranged from 0.8% to 11.6% and from 0% to 34%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

All included studies found improvements in PROs after hip arthroscopy for FAIS at a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Conversion to total hip arthroplasty is most common in older patients at minimum 10-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I through IV studies.

Hip Capsular Repair Results in Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes and Survivorship: A Systematic Review of the Literature

PURPOSE

To determine whether routine capsular closure following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in patients without dysplasia results in improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and increased survivorship rates.

METHODS

A literature search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed using the Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for clinical studies reporting PROs following arthroscopic hip labral repair for FAI. A quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies grading system. Inclusion criteria consisted of comparative clinical studies investigating routine capsular closure with nonclosure in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for the treatment of FAI and labral tears. Exclusion criteria included non-English language, minimum follow-up of less than 2 years after surgery, technique articles, case reports, noncomparative case series of fewer than 10 patients, failure to report surgical technique, absence of postoperative PROs, or partial repair. Data collection included study characteristics, demographics, indications, radiographic metrics, perioperative findings, surgical technique, baseline and most recent PROs, and subsequent surgeries.

RESULTS

A total of 531 articles were reviewed, of which 3 were included with 249 hips that underwent capsular repair and 157 hips that underwent capsulotomy with no repair. There were 2 Level III studies and 1 Level II study, with an average The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies score of 16.7. All studies cited FAI and labral tear as an indication for surgery. All studies demonstrated improved PROs from baseline to most recent follow-up. Postoperatively, the repair group reported modified Harris Hip Score values ranging from 80.8 to 87, whereas the nonrepair group reported scores ranging from 76 to 81.7. In addition, the repair group reported postoperative Hip Outcome Score - Sports-Specific Subscale values ranging from 68.1 to 9, whereas the nonrepair group reported scores ranging from 65.3 to 76.1. The studies also reported minimal clinically important difference for modified Harris Hip Score, with the repair group reporting percentages ranging from 71 to 100 and the nonrepair group reporting percentages ranging from 52 to 95.6. All 3 studies also observed a lower rate of hip survivorship in the nonrepair group, ranging from 94.6 to 100 in the repair group and 90.8 to 100 in the nonrepair group. There were no significant differences in the rate of revision arthroscopy between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients without dysplasia who undergo capsular repair have greater improvements in PROs and greater survivorship rates at early- and mid-term follow-up than patients who do not undergo capsular repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, systematic review of level II and III studies.

Puncture Capsulotomy Technique for Hip Arthroscopy: Midterm Functional Outcomes

Background

The most common surgical approaches in hip arthroscopy are interportal and T-capsulotomy. However, these methods may introduce capsular instability. Puncture capsulotomy preserves capsuloligamentous integrity by avoiding iatrogenic transection of the iliofemoral capsular ligament.

Purpose

To present minimum 2-year functional outcomes for patients who underwent arthroscopic treatment for acetabular labral tears and concomitant femoroacetabular impingement using the puncture capsulotomy technique.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

The authors conducted a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on patients who underwent arthroscopic acetabular labral tear treatment between December 2013 and May 2019. Included were patients aged ≥18 years who underwent hip arthroscopy by a single surgeon and completed a minimum of 2 years of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) surveys. Intraoperatively, patients underwent hip arthroscopy via puncture capsulotomy to treat labral tears and any concomitant femoroacetabular impingement. Clinical outcome data consisted of PROMs.

Results

A total of 163 hips were included; the mean patient follow-up was 30.4 months (range, 24-60 months; 95% CI, 28.5-32.3 months). Patients had a mean age of 37.9 years (range, 36.1-39.6 years), with a mean body mass index of 25.9 (range, 25.2-26.5). There were significant improvements in mean [95% CI] baseline to final follow-up scores for the 33-Item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) (39.6 [36.8-42.4] vs 76.1 [72.7-79.6]), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (70.0 [67.0-73.0] vs 89.3 [87.3-91.3]), modified Harris Hip Score (60.1 [57.9-62.4] vs 84.9 [82.5-87.2]), and Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (41.8 [37.9-45.6] vs 75.7 [71.7-79.7]) (P < .001 for all). Additionally, the mean [95% CI] visual analog scale pain scores were noted to significantly improve throughout the duration of the postoperative period (from 6.3 [5.9-6.7] to 2.2 [1.8-2.6]; P < .001). There were no incidences of infection, avascular necrosis of the femoral head, dislocation/instability, or femoral neck fracture. At the 2-year follow-up, 81.0%, 62.0%, and 58.9% of hips achieved previously published clinically meaningful iHOT-33 thresholds for minimally clinically important difference, Patient Acceptable Symptom Score, and substantial clinical benefit, respectively.

Conclusion

Puncture capsulotomy demonstrated significantly improved functional and clinically meaningful outcomes at a minimum 2-year follow-up, along with a minimal complication rate.

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.

A higher proportion of patients may reach the MCID with capsular closure in patients undergoing arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review is to provide a summary of the techniques and outcomes of various capsular management strategies in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). The information this review provides on capsular management strategies will provide surgeons with operative guidance and decision-making when managing patients with FAI lesions arthroscopically.

METHODS

Three databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched from database inception to November 2nd 2021, for literature addressing capsular management of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAI. All level I-IV data on capsular management strategy as well as postoperative functional outcomes were recorded. A meta-analysis was used to combine the mean postoperative functional outcomes using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Overall, there were a total of 36 studies and 4744 patients included in this review. The mean MINORS score was 10.7 (range 8-13) for non-comparative studies and 17.6 (range 15-20) for comparative studies. Three comparative studies in 1302 patients examining the proportion of patients reaching the MCID for the mHHS score in patients undergoing interportal capsulotomy with either capsular repair or no repair found that the capsular repair group had a higher odds ratio of reaching the MCID at 1.46 (95% CI 0.61-3.45, I² = 67%, Fig. 2, Table 3); however, this difference was not significant with a p value of 0.39. When looking at only level 1 and 2 studies, four studies in 1308 patients reporting on the mHHS score in patients undergoing capsular closure regardless of capsulotomy type, found a pooled standardized mean difference in the mHHS score of 2.1 (95% CI 1.7-2.55, I² = 70%, Fig. 3), while four studies in 402 patients reporting on the mHHS score in patients not undergoing capsular closure regardless of capsulotomy type found a pooled standardized mean difference in the mHHS score of 1.46 (95% CI 1.2-1.7, I² = 30%, Fig. 4).

CONCLUSION

This review may demonstrate improved postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing complete capsular closure regardless of capsulotomy type based on postoperative mHHS score. Furthermore, this review may suggest improved postoperative outcomes after closure of an interportal capsulotomy. There are limited published outcome data regarding T-type capsulotomy without closure. This review provides surgeons with operative guidance on capsular management strategies when treating patients with FAI lesions arthroscopically.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Arthroscopic Hip Capsular Reconstruction Using Iliotibial Band Allograft as a Salvage Option for Unrepairable Capsular Defects Demonstrates Good Survivorship and Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes

PURPOSE

To describe patient outcomes 3 to 5 years after arthroscopic hip capsule reconstruction.

METHODS

Between January 2007 and December 2016, patients aged 18 to 50 years who underwent arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction using an Iliotibial band allograft by the senior author and had minimum of 3-year follow-up were identified. Patients were excluded if they had previous open hip surgery, advanced osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade >2), significant acetabular dysplasia (lateral center edge angle <20°), avascular necrosis, or Legg-Calve-Perthes disease. Outcome scores including the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living scale, modified Harris Hip Score, HOS-Sports scale, SF-12, and Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were compared in addition to failure rate, revision rate, and patient satisfaction rate with the outcome (range, 1-10). All patients were assessed by the senior author pre- and postoperatively.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of the cohort was 32 ± 10 years, with 6 male and 33 female patients. The average number of previous hip arthroscopy surgeries was 2 ± 1. Six patients (15%) converted to total hip arthroplasty at an average of 2.1 years (range 7 months to 6 years) following capsular reconstruction. Four patients required revision hip arthroscopy after the arthroscopic capsular reconstruction. All arthroscopic revisions occurred in female patients with the primary intraoperative finding of capsulolabral adhesions at the time of revision. At mean follow-up of 4.3 years (range 3-6.8 years), the 29 patients who did not require subsequent surgery had significant improvements from preoperatively to postoperatively in HOS-Activities of Daily Living and HOS-Sport with 90% reaching minimal clinically important difference. All other scores showed significant improvement. Survival for patients not requiring total hip arthroplasty was 86% at 3 years, with a mean survival of 5.7 years (95% confidence interval 4.97-6.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction with iliotibial band allograft is a successful treatment option for patients with symptomatic capsular defects, demonstrating improved patient-reported outcomes maintained at mean follow-up time of 4 years. This technique offers restoration of the anatomic structure and function of the capsular ligaments to improve pain and instability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case series.

Routine Capsular Closure With Hip Arthroscopic Surgery Results in Superior Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In hip arthroscopic surgery, capsulotomy is performed to improve visualization and allow instrumentation of the joint. Traditionally, the defect has been left unrepaired; however, increasing evidence suggests that this may contribute to persistent pain and iatrogenic capsular instability. Nevertheless, the clinical benefit of performing routine capsular repair remains controversial.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of routine capsular closure on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), hypothesizing that superior PROs would be observed with routine capsular closure.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis and systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The terms "hip,""arthroscopy,""capsule,""capsular,""repair," and "closure" were used to query Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), SPORTDiscus, and PubMed. Articles with PROs stratified by capsular management were included. Multivariate mixed-effects metaregression models were implemented with study-level random-effects and fixed-effects moderators for capsular closure versus no repair and after controlling for surgical indication and preoperative PROs. The effect of repair on both the postoperative score and the change in scores was evaluated via the Harris Hip Score (HHS)/modified HHS (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living (ADL), and HOS-Sport Specific Subscale (SSS), with a supplemental analysis of additional outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 432 initial articles, 36 were eligible for analysis, with results for 5132 hip arthroscopic procedures. The capsule was repaired in 3427 arthroscopic procedures and unrepaired in 1705. Capsular repair was associated with significantly higher postoperative HHS/mHHS (2.011; SE, 0.743 [95% CI, 0.554-3.467]; P = .007), HOS-ADL (3.635; SE, 0.873 [95% CI, 1.923-5.346]; P < .001), and HOS-SSS (4.137; SE, 1.205 [95% CI, 1.775-6.499]; P < .001) scores as well as significantly superior improvement on the HHS/mHHS (2.571; SE, 0.878 [95% CI, 0.849-4.292]; P = .003), HOS-ADL (3.315; SE, 1.131 [95% CI, 1.099-5.531]; P = .003), and HOS-SSS (3.605; SE, 1.689 [95% CI, 0.295-6.915]; P = .033).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis is the largest to date evaluating the effect of capsular closure on PROs and demonstrates significantly higher mean postoperative scores and significantly superior improvement with repair, while controlling for the effects of preoperative score and surgical indication. The true magnitude of the benefit of capsular repair may be clarified by large prospective randomized studies using PRO measures specifically targeted and validated for hip arthroscopic surgery/preservation.

Pre- and intraoperative decision-making challenges in hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement

There has been a marked increase in the number of hip arthroscopies performed over the past 16 years, primarily in the management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Insights into the pathoanatomy of FAI, and high-level evidence supporting the clinical effectiveness of arthroscopy in the management of FAI, have fuelled this trend. Arthroscopic management of labral tears with repair may have superior results compared with debridement, and there is now emerging evidence to support reconstructive options where repair is not possible. In situations where an interportal capsulotomy is performed to facilitate access, data now support closure of the capsule in selective cases where there is an increased risk of postoperative instability. Preoperative planning is an integral component of bony corrective surgery in FAI, and this has evolved to include computer-planned resection. However, the benefit of this remains controversial. Hip instability is now widely accepted, and diagnostic criteria and treatment are becoming increasingly refined. Instability can also be present with FAI or develop as a result of FAI treatment. In this annotation, we outline major current controversies relating to decision-making in hip arthroscopy for FAI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):532-540.

Previous Arthroscopic Hip Surgery Increases Axial Distractibility Compared to the Native Contralateral Hip and May Suggest Instability

PURPOSE

To compare intraoperative hip joint distractibility between hips that previously underwent arthroscopic surgery and the contralateral hip with no history of surgical manipulation.

METHODS

Patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy between April 2019 and December 2020, who previously underwent arthroscopic hip surgery for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, were prospectively enrolled. Exclusion criteria were any contralateral hip surgery. Before instrumentation, fluoroscopic images of both hips were obtained at 25 lbs traction intervals up to 100 lbs. Total joint space was measured at each traction interval. Distraction was calculated as the difference between the baseline joint space and the total joint space at each subsequent traction interval. Wilcoxon signed ranks tests and McNemar tests were used to compare distraction between revision and native contralateral hips.

RESULTS

Forty-seven patients were included. Mean distraction of operative hips was significantly greater than mean distraction of nonoperative hips at traction intervals of 50 lbs (2.13 vs 1.04 mm, P = .002), 75 lbs (6.39 vs 3.70 mm, P < .001), and 100 lbs (8.24 vs 5.39, P < .001). Mean total joint space of operative hips was significantly greater than mean total joint space of nonoperative hips at traction intervals of 50 lbs (6.60 vs 5.39 mm, P < .001), 75 lbs (10.86 vs 8.05 mm, P < .001), and 100 lbs (12.73 vs 9.73, P < .001). A greater percentage of operative hips achieved all distraction thresholds, in 2-mm intervals up to 10-mm, at each traction interval.

CONCLUSIONS

In the majority of patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy, previous arthroscopic hip surgery increases axial distractibility of the hip joint compared with the native contralateral hip at axial traction forces of 50-100 lbs. Increased axial distractibility following hip arthroscopy may be suggestive of hip instability and can be assessed on a stress examination with the patient under anesthesia.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, case-control study.

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.

Handle With Care: The Anterior Hip Capsule Plays a Key Role in Daily Hip Performance

Background:

Passive energy storage and return has long been recognized as one of the central mechanisms for minimizing the energy cost needed for terrestrial locomotion. Although the iliofemoral ligament (IFL) is the strongest ligament in the body, its potential role in energy-efficient walking remains unexplored.

Purpose:

To identify the contribution of the IFL to the amount of work performed by the hip muscles for normal, straight-level walking.

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

Straight-level walking of 50 healthy and injury-free adults was simulated using the AnyBody Modeling System. For each participant, the bone morphology and soft tissue properties were nonuniformly scaled. The superior and inferior parts of the IFL were represented by 2 springs each, and a linear force-strain relation was defined. A parameter study was conducted to account for the uncertainty surrounding the mechanical properties of the IFL. The work required from the gluteus, quadriceps, iliopsoas, and sartorius with and without inclusion of the IFL was calculated. Analysis of variance with subsequent post hoc paired t test was used to test the significance of IFL presence on the required mechanical work.

Results:

During walking, the strain in the IFL reached a median of 18.7% (95% CI, 8.0%-26.5%), with the largest values obtained at toe-off. With the IFL undamaged and fully operational, the effort required by the hip flexor muscles was reduced by a median of 54% (99% CI, 45%-62%) for the iliopsoas and by a median of 41% (99% CI, 27%-54%) for the sartorius muscles. The inclusion of the IFL did not significantly alter the work required by the gluteus and the quadriceps.

Conclusion:

The findings emphasized the key role the IFL plays in hip flexion by working synergistically with the hip musculature.

Clinical Relevance:

The importance of the contribution of the IFL to the hip flexors warrants careful handling and repair of these ligaments in cases of surgery and structural damage.

Surgeon-Specific Traction Time During Hip Arthroscopy for Primary Labral Repair Can Continue to Decrease After a Substantial Number of Surgeries

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the total traction time and traction time as a function of anchors placed (TTAP) for primary labral repair in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy by a single surgeon.

METHODS

Patients were included if they received a primary labral repair with or without acetabuloplasty, chondroplasty, or ligamentum teres debridement as part of the treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Patients were excluded if they had a previous ipsilateral hip surgery, prior hip conditions, Tönnis grade >1, open procedures, microfracture, ligamentum teres reconstruction, or labral reconstruction. TTAP was calculated by dividing total traction time by the number of anchors placed.

RESULTS

2,350 hips met the inclusion criteria. The mean age and BMI in this cohort were 34.22 years and 25.72 kg/m², respectively. A total traction time of 60 minutes was first achieved after 268 cases. Mean overall total traction time was 58.16 minutes (95% CI [57.35, 58.97]) and mean TTAP was 16.24 minutes (95% CI [15.93,16.55]) after 2,350 cases. Total traction time plateaued after 374 cases at 55.92 minutes, while TTAP plateaued after 487 cases at 14.93 minutes.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons who introduce hip arthroscopy into their practice can expect to see improvements in traction time during the first 500 surgeries performed, as total traction time plateaued after 374 cases and TTAP plateaued after 487 cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV: case series.

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.

Capsular Repair May Improve Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review of Comparative Outcome Studies

PURPOSE

To review the existing literature in order to determine the effect of hip capsule repair on outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.

METHODS

This study used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to find articles by using PubMed and Embase. Included studies were Level I through III studies that focused on patient outcomes as a function of hip capsular treatments: capsulotomy repair, partial repair, plication, and unrepaired capsulotomies. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies was used for quality assessment of clinical outcome studies. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 16 comparative outcome studies evaluating 2,996 hips were included; they evaluated the following capsular management techniques: complete repair (n = 1,112, 37.1%), partial repair (n = 32, 1.1%), plication (n = 223, 7.4%), and unrepaired capsulotomy (n = 1629, 54.4%).

RESULTS

Of the 16 studies, 13 included patient-reported outcome scores (PROs), 3 included imaging outcomes data, and 2 reported on reoperation. Of the studies, 10 directly compared patient-reported outcomes between a capsular repair group and an unrepaired group. Of the 10 studies that directly compared PROs between a group with unrepaired capsulotomy and a group with capsular repair, 8 studies demonstrated statistically significantly better PROs in the repaired group compared to the unrepaired group, and 2 studies found no difference between the groups. Reoperation rates demonstrated mixed results between groups, and no difference was found in regard to imaging outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Midterm outcome studies suggest that capsular repair is safe and effective in patients without arthritis who are undergoing hip arthroscopy, and it may result in superior PROs compared with those found after unrepaired capsulotomy. Studies consistently demonstrate similar or superior outcomes in cohorts after capsular repair compared to unrepaired capsulotomy, and no studies reported superior results in unrepaired capsulotomy patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I through Level III studies.

Top Ten Pearls for Successful Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement

Hip arthroscopy is an increasingly popular procedure used to treat femoroacetabular impingement. However, the procedure is technically challenging with a steep learning curve. To prevent complications and to optimize patient outcomes, proper patient positioning, correct portal placement, and adequate capsular closure are necessary. For central compartment procedures, creation of a minimal interportal capsulotomy, placement of traction stitches, adequate rim trimming, and balanced labral repair are recommended. For peripheral compartment procedures, adequate osteochondroplasty should be performed and assessed intraoperatively. The purpose of this technical note is to describe the senior author's top 10 pearls for a successful hip arthroscopy procedure to treat femoroacetabular impingement.

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.

Editorial Commentary: Complete Capsular Closure During Hip Arthroscopy Provides the Most Reliable and Durable Outcome . . . Capsule Closed . . . Case Closed!

The management of the hip capsule has been a recent area of controversy in hip arthroscopy. Over the past 5 years, there has been mounting biomechanical and clinical evidence that complete capsular closure is an important step to achieve the best and most durable outcome from hip arthroscopy. Numerous studies in the laboratory have shown that repairing the capsulotomy during simulated hip arthroscopy establishes normal hip biomechanics. Multiple studies have also reported improved clinical outcomes and less conversion to total hip arthroplasty in patients undergoing capsular repair. We have published that patients improve after revision hip arthroscopy for repair of capsular defects. I think it is safe to say that complete capsular closure after hip arthroscopy is becoming the standard of care in our field.

Nonsurgical Versus Surgical Management of Femoroacetabular Impingement: What Does the Current Best Evidence Tell Us

Controversy exists as to the management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). When nonsurgical management of symptomatic FAI fails, surgical management is generally indicated. However, many groups with a stake in patient care (particularly payors) have insisted on higher levels of evidence. Recently, there have been several Level I studies published, comparing physical therapy (PT) with hip arthroscopy in the management of symptomatic FAI. All of these studies have used outcomes tools developed and validated for patients with nonarthritic hip pain (the International Hip Outcome Tool). Most highest level evidence confirms that although patients with FAI do benefit from PT, patients who undergo surgical management for FAI with hip arthroscopy benefit more than those who undergo PT (mean difference in the International Hip Outcome Tool 6.8 [minimal clinically important difference 6.1], P = 0.0093). Future large prospective studies are needed to evaluate the effect on the outcomes when there is a delay in surgical management in symptomatic individuals, assess whether FAI surgery prevents or delays osteoarthritis, and determine the role of other advanced surgical techniques.

Editorial Commentary: Finally, a Salvage Procedure for Hip Capsular Insufficiency!

Capsular management during hip arthroscopy can influence the outcome of the operation for better or for worse. Capsulectomy and unrepaired capsulotomy can lead to residual hip instability. Capsular repair has been associated with improved outcomes after surgery compared with unrepaired capsulotomies. Repair or plication of the capsule can be facilitated by effective capsular elevation during central- and peripheral-compartment work. If capsular deficiency is present in a symptomatic patient with continued instability, capsular reconstruction is a viable option.