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

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.

Puncture Capsulotomy Technique During Hip Arthroscopy

Background

A number of techniques have been described to enter the capsule and gain access to the hip joint during hip arthroscopy1,2. Among these, the interportal and T-capsulotomies are the most commonly utilized; however, these approaches transect the iliofemoral ligament, which normally resists anterior subluxation and stabilizes extension3. Thus, these approaches may introduce capsuloligamentous instability1,4-7 and have been associated with complications such as dislocation, postoperative pain, microinstability, seroma, and heterotopic ossification5,8-12. Although prior literature has demonstrated durable mid-term results for patients undergoing capsulotomies with capsular closure6,13, avoidance of iatrogenic injury to the hip capsule altogether is preferable. Thus, the puncture capsulotomy technique we present is minimally invasive, preserves the biomechanics of the hip joint and capsule without disrupting the iliofemoral ligament, and allows for appropriate visualization of the joint through placement of multiple small portals.

Description

Following induction of anesthesia and with the patient supine on a hip traction table, the nonoperative leg is positioned at 45° abduction with support of a well-padded perineal post, and the operative hip is placed into valgus against the post14. Intra-articular fluid distention with normal saline solution is utilized to achieve approximately 9 mm of inferior migration of the femoral head and decrease risk of iatrogenic nerve injury15. Then, under fluoroscopic guidance, an anterolateral portal is created 1 cm anterior and 1 cm superior to the greater trochanter at an approximately 15° to 20° angle. Second, via arthroscopic visualization, the anterior portal is created 1 cm distal and 1 cm lateral to the intersection of a vertical line drawn at the anterior superior iliac spine and a horizontal line at the level of the anterolateral portal. Third, equidistant between the anterior and anterolateral portals, the mid-anterior portal is created distally. Finally, at one-third of the distance between the anterior superior iliac spine and the anterolateral portal, the Dienst portal is created. Thus, these 4 portals form a quadrilateral arrangement through which puncture capsulotomy can be performed5.

Alternatives

Alternative approaches to the hip capsule include interportal and T-capsulotomies, with or without capsular closure1,2,4,6,7,16. Although the most frequently utilized, these approaches transect the iliofemoral ligament and thus may introduce capsuloligamentous instability1,4-7,17.

Rationale

The puncture capsulotomy technique has the advantage of maintaining the integrity of the capsule through the placement of 4 small portals. The technique does not transect the iliofemoral ligament and thus does not introduce capsuloligamentous instability. Furthermore, although good mid-term outcomes have been reported with capsular closure6,13,18, the present technique avoids creating unnecessary injury to the capsule and complications of an unrepaired capsule or, conversely, of plication.

Expected Outcomes

Patients who underwent the puncture capsulotomy technique showed significant improvements in multiple functional outcome scores at a mean follow-up of 30.4 months, including the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) (39.6 preoperatively to 76.1 postoperatively), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living subscale (HOS-ADL) (70.0 to 89.3), HOS Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) (41.8 to 75.7), and modified Harris hip score (mHHS) (60.1 to 84.9). At 2 years postoperatively with respect to iHOT-33, 81.0% of patients achieved the minimal clinically important difference, 62.0% achieved the patient acceptable symptom state, and 58.9% achieved substantial clinical benefit. In addition, mean visual analog scale pain scores improved significantly over the follow-up period (6.3 to 2.2; p < 0.001). Finally, there were zero occurrences of infection, osteonecrosis of the femoral head, dislocation or instability, or femoral neck fracture in patients treated with puncture capsulotomy19,20.

Important Tips

Anterolateral portal placement should be performed using the intra-articular fluid distention technique with fluoroscopy to avoid risk of iatrogenic labral damage and distraction-induced neurapraxia. Subsequent portals must then be placed under direct arthroscopic visualization.On establishment of the anterolateral portal, the scope should be switched to the anterior portal to ensure that the anterolateral portal has not been placed through the labrum and to adjust its placement to better access pathology. This portal, as well as all others, may be subsequently modified by adjusting the angle of the cannula, without making a new skin incision.If a cam lesion is located more anteromedially or posterolaterally, an additional accessory portal may be made distal or proximal to the anterolateral portal, respectively, in order to enhance visualization.Intermittent traction is utilized throughout the surgery. No traction is utilized during preparing and draping, suture tensioning and tie-down, and femoroplasty, with minimal traction during acetabuloplasty; these precautions serve to prevent iatrogenic superficial peroneal nerve injury.There can be a steep learning curve for this technique. In particular, greater surgical experience is required to perform adequate femoral osteoplasty for large cam lesions with this approach21.Instrument maneuverability and visualization can be somewhat constrained with this approach.It is more difficult to perform certain procedures with this technique, including segmental and circumferential labral reconstructions, particularly with remote grafts5.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

iHOT-33 = International Hip Outcome Tool-33HOS-ADL = Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living subscaleHOS-SSS = Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific SubscaleAP = anteroposteriorMRA = magnetic resonance arthrogramMRI = magnetic resonance imagingCT = computed tomographyASIS = anterior superior iliac spinemHHS = modified Harris hip score.

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.

Capsular Management in Hip Arthroscopy: Interportal and T-Capsulotomy, Suspension, and Closure

Capsular management in hip arthroscopy has recently become a popular topic in the literature. Various approaches have been developed around the critical balance between safe and satisfactory exposure while maintaining hip joint stability and the restoration of capsular integrity at the conclusion of the case. Advocates for capsular closure recognize the role of the capsule in providing hip joint stability and aim to reestablish normal hip biomechanics through capsule preservation. Several recent studies have also shown capsular management strategies to influence both clinical outcomes and risk of revision surgery. We present an effective method for capsular management in hip arthroscopy that consistently allows excellent exposure and working space while allowing for facile, anatomic closure.

Predicting Outcomes in Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) continues to rise in incidence, and thus there is an increased focus on factors that predict patient outcomes. The factors that impact the outcomes of arthroscopic FAIS treatment are complex. The purpose of this review is to outline the current literature concerning predictors of patient outcomes for arthroscopic treatment of FAIS.

RECENT FINDINGS

Multiple studies have shown that various patient demographics, joint parameters, and surgical techniques are all correlated with postoperative outcomes after arthroscopic FAIS surgery, as measured by both validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores and rates of revision surgery including hip arthroplasty. To accurately predict patient outcomes for arthroscopic FAIS surgery, consideration should be directed toward preoperative patient-specific factors and intraoperative technical factors. The future of accurately selecting patient predictors for outcomes will only improve with increased data, improved techniques, and technological advancement.

Risk Factors for Suboptimal Outcome of FAI Surgery in the Adolescent Patient

BACKGROUND

Surgical treatment for adolescent patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is increasing. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical outcomes of FAI surgery in a multicenter cohort of adolescent patients and to identify predictors of suboptimal outcomes.

METHODS

One hundred twenty-six adolescent hips (114 patients < 18 years of age) undergoing surgery for symptomatic FAI were studied from a larger multicenter cohort. The group included 74 (58.7%) female and 52 male hips (41.3%) with a mean age of 16.1 (range 11.3 to 17.8). Clinical outcomes included the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (5 domains), and University of California Los Angeles activity score. Failure was defined as revision surgery or clinical failure (inability to reach minimally clinical important differences or patient acceptable symptoms state for the mHHS). Statistical analysis was used to identify factors significantly associated with failure.

RESULTS

There was clinically important improvement in all patient-reported outcomes for the overall group, but an 18.3% failure rate. This included a revision rate of 8.7%. Females were significantly more likely than males to be classified as a failure (25.7 vs. 7.7%, P =0.01), in part because of lower preoperative mHHS (59.1 vs. 67.0, P < 0.001). Mild cam deformity (alpha angle <55 degrees) was present in 42.5% of female hips compared with 17.3% male hips. Higher alpha angles were inversely correlated with failure. Alpha angles >63 have a failure rate of 8.3%, between 55 and 63 degrees, 12.0% failure rate, and <55 degrees (mild cam) failure rate of 37.5%. Patients who participated in athletics had a 10.3% failure rate compared with nonathletes at 25.0% ( P =0.03, RR (relative risk) 2.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescent patients undergoing surgical treatment for FAI generally demonstrate significant improvement. However, female sex, mild cam deformities, and lack of sports participation are independently associated with higher failure rates. These factors should be considered in surgical decision-making and during patient counseling.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III-retrospective comparative study.

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.

Late post-arthroscopy hip instability. Diagnosis, treatment, and 5-year follow-up: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Hip instability following arthroscopy is a rare complication with a clinical spectrum ranging from gross dislocation (macro-instability) to micro-instability, characterized by pain and limitation for daily activities. Therefore, it should be considered as a potential differential diagnosis in patients experiencing persistent pain after hip arthroscopy.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 41-year-old male presented with a history of anterior hip dislocation and macro-instability symptoms three years post-hip arthroscopy. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed a disruption of the anterior hip capsule. The patient initiated physiotherapy and resumed activities, but ten months later, experienced another anterior dislocation. Pain and apprehension during external hip rotation were evident. Three-dimensional computed tomography (CT) indicated irregularities in the anterior and superior margin of the acetabulum, while MRI arthrogram showed a rupture of the anterior capsule and deficiency in the anterior hip ligaments. Open reconstruction of the anterior capsule was performed, resulting in favorable progression over the 5-year follow-up.

DISCUSSION

This case highlights post-arthroscopy hip instability with a delayed presentation, possibly linked to chronic anterior capsule deficiency and inadequate acetabular coverage. Primary capsule repair after hip arthroscopy has proven effective in reducing the occurrence of instability symptoms and reoperations.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-arthroscopic hip instability may manifest immediately after surgery or several years later. Open reconstruction of the anterior capsule emerges as a successful strategy for addressing this complication, demonstrating satisfactory outcomes in a 5-year follow-up.

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.

Similar Outcomes Are Found Between Quadriceps Tendon Repair With Transosseous Tunnels and Suture Anchors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the clinical outcomes and biomechanical performance of transosseous tunnels compared with suture anchors for quadriceps tendon repair.

Methods

In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic search was performed in April 2021 in the following databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed (1980-2021), MEDLINE (1980-2021), Embase (1980-2021), and CINAHL (1980-2021). Level I-IV studies were included if they provided outcome data for surgical repair of the quadriceps tendon using transosseous tunnels or suture anchors with minimum 1-year follow-up. Biomechanical studies comparing transosseous tunnels and suture anchors were separately analyzed.

Results

The systematic search yielded 1,837 citations, 23 of which met inclusion criteria (18 clinical, 5 biomechanical). In total, 13 studies reported results for transosseous repair and 7 studies reported results for repair with suture anchors. There were results for 508 patients from clinical studies. The average postoperative Lysholm score ranged from 88 to 92 for suture anchor repairs and 72.8 to 94 for transosseous repairs with range of motion ranging from 117° to 138° and 116° to 135°, respectively. Synthesis of the biomechanical data revealed the mean difference in load to failure was not significant between constructs (137.21; 95% confidence interval -10.14 to 284.57 N; P = .068).

Conclusions

Transosseous and suture anchor techniques for quadriceps tendon repair result in similar biomechanical and postoperative outcomes. No difference between techniques in regard to ultimate load to failure among comparative biomechanical studies were observed.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review level III-IV studies.

Editorial Commentary: The Hip Arthroscopy Volume-to-Competency Learning Curve Debate Is Complicated: Learning When "Enough Is Enough" Is a Lifetime Discipline

As hip arthroscopy use grows, so does resident and fellow exposure, providing more "hands-on" learning opportunities. Nevertheless, hip arthroscopy is technically challenging, particularly noting that improved patient-reported outcomes and survivorship are reported after labral repair or reconstruction (vs debridement) as well as routine capsular closure. Undoubtedly a requisite number of cases is required to reach the saturation point of the "learning curve." A recent review shows that traction time, complication rates, and reoperation rates decrease with increasing case volumes, but there is a wide range of cases reported after which the learning curve "plateaus," ranging from 30 to 520 cases. A large database study shows that hip arthroscopy readmissions and complications are significantly lower in high-volume centers. However, large database studies may include biases requiring attention. First, the rates are relatively low across the entire cohort. Second, more younger patients were treated in the greater-volume centers, which may contribute to the difference in outcomes observed. Finally, older patients (often >50 years old) with concomitant osteoarthritis are also associated with greater complication, readmission, and reoperation rates. Such patients may not be selected as candidates for hip arthroscopy by greater-volume surgeons. The hip arthroscopy volume to competency learning curve debate is complicated. Learning when "enough is enough" is a lifetime discipline.

Does response to preoperative intra-articular anesthetic injections predict outcomes of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome?

INTRODUCTION

Some patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) who undergo surgery do not show satisfactory outcomes. Reliable tests that can inform prognosis of FAIS surgery are needed for optimized indications and contraindications to surgery. We aimed to review and critically appraise available literature on the capability of patient response to preoperative intra-articular anesthetic injections (PIAI) to predict post-surgical outcomes in patients with FAIS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement. Studies that assessed the patient pain response to PIAI and post-surgical outcomes in patients with FAIS were considered eligible. Study selection and data collection were performed by three independent reviewers. Main outcomes evaluated were those measured by hip outcome scales often used in assessing postoperative pain and functional recovery, such as the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT). The likelihood ratio of achieving satisfactory postoperative outcomes at the mHHS (LHR) was extracted or calculated-for patients with significant response to PIAI and for those without a significant response to PIAI. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.

RESULTS

Six studies were considered eligible for analysis. Five studies indicated that patient response to PIAI are associated to surgical outcomes for patients with FAIS, with a greater reduction in pain typically indicating a better surgical outcome. Additionally, the LHR ranged from 1.15 to 1.92 for patients with significant response to PIAI (I2 = 90.6%). For patients without a significant response, the LHR ranged from 0.18 to 0.65 (I2 = 87.5). An overall high risk of bias was observed for all studies included in the analysis. Study attrition, the prognostic factor measurement and the presence of confounding factors were the main sources of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater reductions in pain with preoperative intra-articular anesthetic injections were found to be associated to better outcomes after FAIS surgery, but all available studies contain a high risk of bias.

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.

Editorial Commentary: Successful Hip Arthroscopy for Patients With Hypermobility Requires a Patient-centric Approach, Meticulous Capsular Management, and Preservation of the Fibrous Capsular Ligaments

Successful arthroscopic hip surgery for patients with generalized ligamentous laxity requires dedicated attention to preoperative patient counseling, including consideration of each patient's functional status and goals, careful evaluation of patient symptomatology, and meticulous capsular management. Maximal preservation of the fibrous capsular ligaments that stabilize the hip is of particular importance. It is incorrect to assume all hip patients with an elevated Beighton score should be categorically treated a certain way. There is a complex interplay of morphologic features, such as acetabular version, femoral orientation, capsular volume, and subspine morphology, that play a role in the symptomatology for every hip patient, hypermobility notwithstanding. Moreover, consideration must be given to the variable degree of phenotypic expression of the hypermobility syndromes.

Hip Capsular Reconstruction With Indirect Head of the Rectus Femoris Tendon

Hip capsulotomy is performed during arthroscopic hip procedures to achieve adequate visualization of the joint and instrument access. The hip capsule, and in particular the iliofemoral ligament, is an important stabilizer of the hip joint, and patients who undergo capsulotomy without subsequent repair may experience hip pain and instability, with increased risk of requiring revision hip arthroscopy. Therefore, restoring watertight closure of the capsule is necessary to restore native biomechanics and achieve desired postoperative outcomes. Although primary repair or plication suffice in most cases, capsule reconstruction may instead be necessary when there is insufficient tissue, often due to capsular insufficiency following index surgery. The purpose of this Technical Note is to describe the authors' current technique for arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction using the indirect head of the rectus femoris tendon in the setting of capsular iatrogenic hip instability, as well as its advantages and disadvantages and technical pearls and pitfalls.

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.

Effective Management Options for Treatment of Microinstability of the Hip: a Scoping Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the recent literature identifying and summarizing the research involving management of microinstability of the hip and highlight new and evolving techniques in its treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent updates in the understanding of capsular management hip arthroscopy will likely lead to less revision surgery and a decreased incidence of persistent post-operative pain. Repair of residual capsular defects has shown good outcomes with high patient satisfaction. Capsular plication remains the gold standard for hips with increased pain that show signs of capsular laxity/deficiency on exam or imaging. Capsular reconstruction has shown equivalent results to other revision hip arthroscopy procedures with low rates of complications. Ligamentum teres pathology, although rare, should be considered a source of pain, particularly in patients with laxity on exam. In cases where CAM over-resection has occurred, remplissage using allograft is an effective option for restoring the capsular suction seal and stability. Microinstability is increasingly being recognized as a source of post-operative hip pain. Patients with collagen disorders remain a challenging clinical entity with increased rates of complications and post-operative pain. CAM resection should be performed carefully and not disrupt the suction seal but be sufficient to not cause further impingement. Improved evidence including well-designed prospective studies with large sample sizes will determine the future management of this complex problem.

Editorial Commentary: Hip Central Acetabular Osteophyte Treatment Improves Outcome: Flip Your Arthroscope 90° and Look Down!

Three goals are at the top of our minds when achieving optimal outcomes for the arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome in the primary setting: (1) accurate bony correction, (2) labral function restoration-typically with labral repair-and (3) comprehensive capsular management-which involves capsular preservation and closure. Notwithstanding, additional intra-articular concomitant conditions require our attention as well. Central acetabular impingement is characterized by the presence of central acetabular osteophytes at the cotyloid fossa. It has been proposed that central acetabular osteophytes lead to lateralization of the femoral head with relative femoroacetabular incongruency that increases contact force and mechanical cartilage abrasion.

Editorial Commentary: Differences in Femoral Torsion Measurements Based on Axial Versus Axial-Oblique Magnetic Resonance Imaging Sequences-Let's Begin to Standardize Hip-Preservation Techniques to Improve Research and Clinical Outcomes

Femoral torsion is an important measure in patients with femoroacetabular impingement presenting with limited hip range of motion. However, femoral torsion may be measured using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging and on axial or axial-oblique sequences. Recent research shows that femoral torsion measurements differ based on the magnetic resonance imaging sequences on which this parameter is measured. In some cases, this may be clinically relevant in the sense that a derotational femoral osteotomy may be considered when otherwise it would not be. As more research is published within the specialized field of hip preservation surgery, we must begin to standardize our research and clinical techniques such that outcomes may be appropriately compared across studies.