Use of Biologics as an Adjunct Therapy to Arthroscopic Surgery for the Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review

Patient Outcomes Are Not Improved by Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection Onto the Capsule at the Time of Closure During Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

Purpose

To determine the effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection onto the capsule at time of closure on outcomes of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.

Methods

Patients who underwent hip arthroscopy between January 2014 and December 2021 were retrospectively identified. The first cohort included patients who received PRP injection onto the capsule following capsular closure at the conclusion of the case. The second cohort did not receive PRP. Pain scores on a visual analog scale, Modified Harris Hip Scores, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), as well as Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function scores were obtained preoperatively as well as at multiple time points postoperatively up to 2 years.

Results

In total, 345 patients were included in the study, with 293 in the PRP cohort and 52 in the non-PRP cohort. There was no significance difference in age (P = .69), sex, or preoperative pain (P = .92) and patient-reported outcome scores between the 2 groups (modified Harris Hip Score, P = .38; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, P = .48), except for preoperative SANE scores, which had a greater baseline in the PRP group (P < .001). Using both observed data as well as repeated measure analysis of variance model to estimate for missing data after baseline, we found there were no differences in visual analog scale pain scores nor patient-reported outcome scores at any time point. There was similarly no difference in change from baseline for SANE scores. There was no difference in rate of revision surgery between the 2 cohorts (P = .66).

Conclusions

Based on the results of this study, intraoperative PRP injection onto the capsule at the time of capsular closure does not improve outcomes of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Orthobiologics as an adjunct in treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: cell-based therapies facilitate improved postoperative outcomes in the setting of acetabular chondral lesions-a systematic review

PURPOSE

To evaluate studies utilizing orthobiologics in the management of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) to (1) assess the indications for usage, and (2) analyze patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) following treatment. It was hypothesized that orthobiologics would (1) be utilized for symptomatic FAIS in the setting of labral or chondral pathology, and (2) improve PROM at most recent follow-up.

METHODS

The Pubmed, Ovid Medline, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched for clinical studies evaluating orthobiologics [hyaluronic acid (HA), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), or cell-based therapy (CBT) for treatment of FAIS. Exclusion criteria included orthobiologics used in conjunction with cartilage transfer or scaffolding procedures and a primary indication other than FAIS. Data collection included patient demographics, indications, and baseline and most recent PROM.

RESULTS

Eleven studies (one level I, four level II, four level III, and two level IV evidence) met inclusion criteria, consisting of 440 patients with mean ages ranging from 32.8 to 47 years. All 11 studies demonstrated an improvement in PROM from baseline to most-recent follow-up. Four studies administered PRP either intraoperatively or the day after surgery as an adjunct to labral repair. CBT was used intraoperatively in the setting of acetabular chondral lesions (three studies) and labral repair (one study). When comparing to a control group at most recent follow-up, three PRP cohorts demonstrated similar PROM (n.s.), while one PRP group exhibited worse visual analog pain scores (2.5 vs. 3.4, p = 0.005) and modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHS) (82.6 vs. 78.7, p = 0.049). The four CBT studies reported favorable results compared to a control group, with a significantly higher mHHS at most recent follow-up or mean improvement from baseline in Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (p < 0.05). Three studies reported on HA, which was utilized exclusively in the nonoperative setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative PRP and CBT have been commonly reported in the setting of hip arthroscopy for labral repairs and acetabular chondral lesions, respectively. The CBT cohorts demonstrated more favorable PROM at most recent follow-up when compared to a control group, though these results should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity of orthobiologic preparations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

[Treatment options for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and osteoarthritis]

Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) is a prearthritic deformity. Many patients with FAIS show signs of osteoarthritis at the time of initial presentation. Ideally, surgical correction of FAIS should stop the progression of osteoarthritis. However, biological changes in the joint, inflammatory processes, and patient-specific factors, which are not influenced by surgery, show a role in the progression of joint degeneration. Thus, it is not surprising that the results of joint-preserving surgery in FAIS and osteoarthritis Tönnis grade 2 and higher are bad, and patients often need to undergo total hip replacement (THR).Even in patients with initial osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade 1) the results of joint-preserving surgery are significantly worse in comparison to in patients without osteoarthritis. As this pathology occurs mainly in young patients, efforts should be made to avoid THR, as the risk of loosening and revision surgery is increased. Analysis of risk factors that lead to worse outcome in joint-preserving surgery can be helpful. Age > 45 years, adiposity, high alpha angle, CE angle < 25° and female sex are risk factors that lead to worse outcome in patients with risk factors and osteoarthritis Tönnis grade 1, the success rate of joint-preserving surgery after 5 years is below 50%. Therefore, we recommend non-surgical treatment. Promising is the use of mesenchymal progenitor cells (MPCs), even if their routine use has not been established. If conservative therapy is not successful, THR is indicated. With the use of modern bearings, a survival rate of THR of more than 90% after 15 years is reported in patients < 50 years. Patient satisfaction after THR is higher than after joint-preserving surgery.The combination of treatment modalities like joint-preserving surgery in combination with the application of MPCs to both correct the mechanical conflict and also influence progression of osteoarthritis is promising the from a biological point of view.

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.

Biological Augments for Acetabular Chondral Defects in Hip Arthroscopy-A Scoping Review of the Current Clinical Evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A wide array of joint-preserving surgical techniques exists in the management of acetabular chondral defects (ACDs). The purpose of this review is to summarize the clinical outcomes of the recent biologics used to treat ACDs during hip arthroscopy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing evidence is available for different biological solutions used in the hip. Studies have shown promising outcomes with minimal complications when using biologics as augmentation to microfracture (MF), including different scaffolds or stem cells, or to enhance autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI). However, data so far is scarce, and more trials and longer follow-ups are needed to better delineate the appropriate indications and benefits for each technique. Presently, the level of evidence is low, but in general, biologics appear safe and trend toward beneficial compared to standard surgical techniques. Augmented MF is recommended for small to medium ACDs, and matrix-assisted ACI or three-dimensional ACI is recommended for medium to large defects.

The use of biologics to improve patient-reported outcomes in hip preservation

Despite lack of clear understanding, the use of biologic treatment methods has increased in the United States. Therapeutic methods, including platelet-rich plasma (PRP), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and hyaluronic acid (HA) among other biologics, are commonly associated with relief of pain in a number of different orthopedic conditions. Within the past two decades, hip preservationists have investigated the roles of these biologic treatments in both non-operative and surgical management of common hip conditions. The purpose is to review the published literature surrounding the application and efficacy of biologics, most notably PRP, BMAC and HA, in the clinical management of hip conditions. The hip conditions examined in this review include hip osteoarthritis, femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and associated labral tear pathology, avascular necrosis of the femoral head and gluteal/hamstring tendinopathy. While our review of the literature suggests that there is support for the implementation of biologics to relieve pain and improve function for hip conditions. Through further research efforts, it is important to stay updated with the clinical efficacy of biologics in hip preservation.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy in the Native Hip: A Review of Contemporary Evaluation and Treatment Options

Hip arthroscopy is a reproducible and efficacious procedure for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Despite this efficacy, clinical failures are observed, clinical entities are challenging to treat, and revision hip arthroscopy may be required. The most common cause of symptom recurrence after a hip arthroscopy that leads to a revision arthroscopy is residual cam morphology as a result of inadequate femoral osteochondroplasty and restoration of head–neck offset, though several other revision etiologies including progressive chondral and labral pathologies also exist. In these cases, it is imperative to perform a comprehensive examination to identify the cause of a failed primary arthroscopy as to assess whether or not a revision hip arthroscopy procedure is indicated. When a secondary procedure is indicated, approaches may consist of revision labral repair, complete labral reconstruction, or labral augmentation depending on labral integrity. Gross instability or imaging-based evidence of microinstability may necessitate capsular augmentation or plication. If residual cam or pincer morphology is present, additional resection of the osseous abnormalities may be warranted. This review article discusses indications, the evaluation of patients with residual symptoms after primary hip arthroscopy, and the evaluation of outcomes following revision hip arthroscopy through an evidence-based discussion. We also present a case example of a revision hip arthroscopy procedure to highlight necessary intraoperative techniques during a revision hip arthroscopy.