Incidence and location of heterotopic ossification following hip arthroscopy

Chemoprophylaxis for heterotopic ossification following hip arthroscopy: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Heterotopic ossification (HO) is a known complication diagnosed following hip arthroscopy.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

This study sought to review the current literature on chemoprophylaxis for HO following hip arthroscopy and to describe what agents and doses are being utilized.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic Review.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines on the use of chemoprophylactic medications for HO prevention following hip arthroscopy. Mechanical and radiation prophylaxis were not included in the current analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 203 studies were identified, of which 15 were included with 6463 patients. There was one randomized control trial (RCT) and 4 additional comparative studies. The most commonly utilized chemoprophylactic agents were the following: naproxen (n ​= ​8), celecoxib (n ​= ​3), indomethacin (n ​= ​3), aspirin (n ​= ​1), etoricoxib (n ​= ​1), and etodolac (n ​= ​1), and non-specific non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (n ​= ​1). Naproxen was either given at a dose of 500 ​mg once or twice daily for 2-4 weeks. RCTs and additional comparative studies showed significant HO prevention using chemoprophylactic agents following hip arthroscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

HO is a known and common complication following hip arthroscopy. The current systematic review found significant heterogeneity across the literature with respect to specific chemoprophylactic agents and their dosing regimens aimed to reduce the incidence and severity of HO following hip arthroscopy. Additionally, this review demonstrates that most studies that utilize chemoprophylaxis use NSAIDs with successful reduction in the incidence of HO.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV Evidence.

Prevalence, Timing, Locational Distribution, and Risk Factors for Heterotopic Ossification After Elbow Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

Arthroscopic techniques aim to reduce complications and accelerate recovery of the elbow after treatments for posttraumatic stiffness, arthritis diseases, lateral epicondylitis, ligament reconstruction, and elbow trauma. However, data on the true prevalence and characteristics of heterotopic ossification (HO) formation after elbow arthroscopy are limited.

PURPOSE

To investigate the prevalence, timing, locational distribution, and risk factors of HO after elbow arthroscopy.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Data on 205 patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy by a single senior elbow surgeon at a single institution between May 2011 and January 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients were evaluated at 2 weeks, 8 weeks, 6 months, and then annually after surgery or more frequently if HO developed, with a minimum of 1 year of postoperative follow-up. Postoperative anteroposterior and lateral elbow radiographs were taken at 2 weeks to rule out fracture and at 8 weeks to identify HO. The clinical outcomes were evaluated based on the pain visual analog scale; the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score; Mayo Elbow Performance Score; and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores before and after surgery. Bivariate logistic regression analyses were used to determine factors affecting HO prevalence.

RESULTS

Thirteen (12 male, 1 female) of 205 (6.3%) patients developed HO, with 10 (76.9%) with HO that formed on the medial compartment of the elbow. Ten (76.9%) patients were diagnosed at 8 weeks after arthroscopic surgery, 1 (7.7%) at 6 months after surgery, and 2 (15.4%) at 12 months after surgery. HO was not found at 2 weeks after surgery in any patient. The mean follow-up time was 3.5 years (range, 1.0-11.8 years). Eleven asymptomatic patients were treated nonoperatively, and 2 symptomatic patients underwent HO excision arthroscopically or had a combination of open surgery and arthroscopy. Age was a protective factor for HO formation (odds ratio [OR], 0.953; 95% CI, 0.910-0.999; P = .047). The risk factors for HO formation were tourniquet time (OR, 1.042; 95% CI, 1.019-1.065; P < .001) and surgical time (OR, 1.026; 95% CI, 1.011-1.041; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Among 205 patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy, HO was a minor complication of elbow arthroscopy, with a prevalence rate of 6.3%, and was usually located on the medial compartment of the elbow. Although the presence of HO may not affect the clinical outcomes in most patients, it should be carefully monitored for a minimum of 8 weeks postoperatively. Younger age, longer tourniquet time, and longer surgical time contributed to HO formation after elbow arthroscopy.

Incidence of heterotopic ossification following hip arthroscopy is low: considerations for routine prophylaxis

PURPOSE

This scoping review aims to map and summarise the available literature on heterotopic ossification (HO) following hip arthroscopy, with particular focus on incidence, distribution as per Brooker classification, efficacy of prophylactic measures and factors that may influence the likelihood of production of HO.

METHODS

A computer-based search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cinahl, ISI web of science and Scopus using the terms 'heterotopic ossification' and 'hip arthroscopy'. Articles reporting heterotopic ossification following hip arthroscopy for any condition were included after two-stage title/abstract and full-text screening.

RESULTS

Of the 663 articles retrieved, 45 studies were included. The proportion of patients with HO ranged from 0 to 44%. The majority of the cases were either Brooker grade I or II. Of the six studies investigating the effect of NSAID prophylaxis, five reported a significantly lower incidence of heterotopic ossification associated with its use. Weak evidence suggests that an outside-in arthroscopic approach, no capsular closure, male sex and mixed cam and pincer resection may be associated with an increased risk of HO.

CONCLUSION

Although there is a large variation in rates of HO following hip arthroscopy in the current literature, the majority of studies report a low incidence. Evidence exists advocating the administration of post-operative NSAIDs to reduce the incidence of HO following hip arthroscopy. This, combined with the low risk of complications, means there is a favourable risk-benefit ratio for prophylactic NSAID used in HA. Future research should work to identify patient clinical and demographic factors which may increase the risk of development of HO, allowing clinicians to risk stratify and select only specific patients who would benefit from receiving NSAID prophylaxis.

Heterotopic Ossification After Arthroscopic Procedures: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Background:

Heterotopic ossification (HO) is the formation of bone in soft tissue resultant from inflammatory processes. Lesion formation after arthroscopic procedures is an uncommon but challenging complication. Optimal prophylaxis and management strategies have not been clearly defined.

Purpose:

To present a scoping review of the pathophysiology, risk factors, diagnostic modalities, prophylaxis recommendations, and current treatment practices concerning HO after arthroscopic management of orthopaedic injuries.

Study Design:

Scoping review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A scoping review via a PubMed search was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The search strategy was based on the terms “heterotopic ossification” AND “arthroscopy.” The clinical outcomes review included studies on the arthroscopic management of orthopaedic injuries in which the primary subject matter or a secondary outcome was the development of HO. An analysis of the pathophysiology, diagnostic modalities, and management options was reported.

Results:

A total of 43 studies (33,065 patients) reported on HO after hip arthroscopy, while 21 (83 patients) collectively reported on HO after arthroscopic procedures to the shoulder, elbow, knee, or ankle; however, management techniques were not standardized. Identified risk factors for HO included male sex and mixed impingement pathology, while intraoperative capsular management was not suggested as a contributing factor. Diagnosis of ossification foci was performed using radiography and computed tomography. The rate of HO after hip arthroscopy procedures approached 46% without prophylaxis, and administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) decreased occurrence rates to 4% but carries associated risks. External beam radiation has not been exclusively studied for use after arthroscopic procedures.

Conclusion:

HO is a known complication after arthroscopic management of orthopaedic injuries. NSAID prophylaxis has been demonstrated to be effective after hip arthroscopy procedures. Patients with persistent symptoms and mature lesions may be indicated for surgical excision, although variability is present in patient-reported outcome scores postoperatively.

The role of arthroscopy in bullet removal: A systematic review of the literature

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to gain a greater understanding of the role and usage of arthroscopy in removal of retained bullet fragments. Secondarily, we intend to examine the level of evidence and methodologic quality of studies reporting on this topic.

Methods

A search of PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was performed using the search terms ("Arthroscopic" OR "Arthroscopy") AND ("Bullet" OR "Gunshot" OR "Ballistic" OR "Removal"). Inclusion criteria included articles published in English reporting on arthroscopic or arthroscopically-assisted bullet removal. Studies lacking sufficient data to separate arthroscopic and open procedures were excluded. Level of evidence, study information (i.e., country, journal, etc.), and patient data was collected from each eligible article. The methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) score were assigned to each article.

Results

A total of 2676 studies were identified in the initial search with 31 studies meeting criteria for inclusion in the study. Twenty-eight of the 31 studies were case reports. The MINORS score averaged 8.8 ± 1.5 (range 5-10) for included studies. Sixty-two patients were identified, the majority (94%) of whom were male with an average age of 36.2 ± 12.3 years. All 62 patients underwent successful arthroscopic bullet removal. One patient was reported to have a complication (compartment syndrome). Outcome measures were underreported in the majority of studies.

Conclusions

Our study found that very little literature exists on the role of arthroscopy in bullet removal. Of this literature, no high-quality studies exist. Based on the limited existing literature, arthroscopy appears to be a safe, reliable alternative to open surgery for bullet removal. Potential benefits of arthroscopic bullet removal exist and warrant further investigation to further define the role of arthroscopy.

Level of evidence

Level V.