A Biomechanical Comparison of 2 Hip Capsular Reconstruction Techniques: Iliotibial Band Autograft Versus Achilles Tendon Allograft

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 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.

Arthroscopic Anchor-Based Hip Capsular Reconstruction Without Graft Augmentation

The hip capsule is one of the most important static stabilizers of the hip joint. Routine capsulotomy without closure during hip arthroscopy increases instability of the hip joint, leading to pain and dysfunction. Capsular repair is now part of routine practice for most hip arthroscopists with restoration of normal hip biomechanics. In patients requiring revision surgery due to ongoing pain and instability as a result of deficient capsule, capsular reconstruction often is necessary to restore hip stability. Although there are many techniques available both with and without the use of allograft tissue, the purpose of this report is to describe a novel technique for capsular reconstruction without the use of graft augmentation using suture anchors at the acetabular rim.

Femoroacetabular impingement surgery leads to early pain relief but minimal functional gains past 6 months: experience from the FIRST trial

PURPOSE

To understand the early outcomes after hip arthroscopy and better define the trajectory of improvement in a prospective cohort of patients who have undergone hip arthroscopic osteochondroplasty for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome.

METHODS

Data were analyzed from the Femoroacetabular Impingement RandomiSed controlled Trial (FIRST) on the 108 study patients who underwent osteochondroplasty, with or without labral repair. Study outcomes included patient-reported pain (using a 100-point Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)), hip function (using the Hip Outcome Score (HOS) and International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12)), and health-related quality of life (using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D)) measured at baseline, 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months post-operatively.

RESULTS

There was a decrease in mean post-operative pain VAS scores from baseline. The first 2 weeks post-operative yielded the greatest reduction in pain with a mean (SD) VAS score of 37.8 (23.4), with score stabilization between 6 months (26.9 (26.9)) and 12 months (25.3 (27.6)). Mean HOS (activities of daily living) scores improved from baseline (59.7 (16.2)) starting at 6 weeks post-operative (64.1 (19.1)). The HOS (Sports) showed no improvement from baseline (41.2 (20.4)) until 3 months (49.1 (27.9)), and continued to improve at 6 months (64.1 (28.7)) and 12 months (68.6 (30.5)). The iHOT-12 scores showed functional improvement from baseline (31.3 (18.8)), as early as 6 weeks (44.9 (22.4)) up to and including 12 months (67.1 (29.7)). EQ-5D index scores showed modest steady improvement from 6 weeks to 12 months post-operative, while the EQ-5D VAS component similarly showed modest and steady improvements from 3 months onward.

CONCLUSION

Results from this study highlight that hip arthroscopic osteochondroplasty with or without labral repair for FAI leads to early pain relief. While all scores improved from baseline, functional gains appear to plateau from 6 months onwards. These data can be used to inform decision-making about timelines for rehabilitation and return to sport, a knowledge gap in the current FAI literature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Lower body mass index and age are predictive of improved pain and health utility scores following arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement

PURPOSE

To identify patient factors associated with improved pain scores, functional hip scores, health-related quality of life, and re-operation rates after arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).

METHODS

Using the comprehensive dataset from the multinational Femoroacetabular Impingement Randomized Controlled Trial (FIRST), a total of 13 prognostic factors that were chosen a priori were identified that would be expected to predict post-surgical outcomes. The primary outcome was pain assessed using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and secondary outcomes included hip function (Hip Outcome Score [HOS] and International Hip Outcome Tool [iHOT-12]), health-related quality of life (Short Form-12 [SF-12] and Euro-Qol 5 Dimensions [EQ-5D]), and re-operation rate. A multivariable linear regression was used to analyse the change questionnaire scores from baseline to 12 months post-surgery including all 13 prognostic factors as independent variables. A total of 27 re-operation events were analysed at 24 months using a multivariable logistic regression including only the treatment group variable.

RESULTS

Of the 154 patients that had VAS scores completed at 12 months, a lower BMI (adjusted mean difference [aMD], 4.48 for a 5-unit decrease in BMI; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-8.63; p = 0.035) was significantly associated with less pain. There was a significant negative association between increasing age and 1-year EQ-5D scores (aMD, - 0.04 for every 10-year increase in age; 95% CI - 0.07 to - 0.006; p = 0.020). The degree of impingement, severity of osteoarthritis, type of procedure, and adjudicated quality of surgery were not significantly associated with improvement across all outcomes at 12 months. Furthermore, there was no significant association between the treatment variable and the incidence of re-operation at 24 months.

CONCLUSION

This study identified that lower BMI and age are predictive of improved pain and health utility scores, respectively, following arthroscopic management of FAI at 12 months post-surgery. These results may be a helpful adjunct in clinical decisions for this patient population when determining candidacy for surgical intervention.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.