Effect of Capsular Closure After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome on Achieving Clinically Meaningful Outcomes: A Meta-analysis of Prospective and Comparative Studies

Hip Arthroscopy in Patients With Generalized Joint Hypermobility Yields Successful Outcomes: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To evaluate the outcomes of hip arthroscopy in patients with generalized joint hypermobility (GJH).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. An electronic record search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase. A 2-stage title/abstract and full-text screening was performed using the following inclusion criteria: (1) observational studies, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials; (2) describing more than 5 patients with a mean age over 18 years and GJH; (3) undergoing arthroscopy of the hip; (4) reporting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), return to sport, or complications/reoperations; and (5) published in English.

RESULTS

Of the 517 articles identified, 10 studies meeting all selection criteria were included. Included studies report significant improvements in a range of different functional and pain-based PROMs. Most patients (25.0%-97.0%) in each study achieved a clinically important improvement postoperatively in at least 1 PROM. No complications were described in any of the 4 studies reporting this metric. One study each found an association between GJH and an increased risk of postoperative deep gluteal syndrome and iliopsoas tendinitis. The rate of revision arthroscopy ranged from 0% to 11.4%, and only 2 patients in a single study of 11 hips required conversion to total hip arthroplasty. No statistically significant differences were reported between patients with and without GJH with respect to any of the described outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with GJH may achieve good outcomes following hip arthroscopy with respect to PROMs, perioperative complications, reoperation, and return to sport. With effective labral repair and capsular closure, outcomes achieved in patients with GJH are comparable to those reported in patients without hypermobility.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of level III to IV studies.

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.

Editorial Commentary: Primary Treatment of Hip Labral, Osseous, Chondral, Capsular, and Extra-Articular Pathology Is Essential: Outcomes Following Revision Are Less Predictable

Appropriate labral management is one of many procedures during hip arthroscopy that affects postoperative outcomes and revision rates. Both primary labral repair and reconstruction have been shown to have superior clinical and functional outcomes compared with labral debridement when treating unstable labral tears. Arthroscopic labral reconstruction is one of the most powerful techniques in the arsenal of complex hip-preservation surgeons, and although often reserved for the revision setting, when the native labrum is irreparable, a primary reconstruction may be indicated when the only alternatives are selective labral debridement or a suboptimal repair. Labral reconstruction, either in primary or revision procedures, is indicated when the existing labrum is deemed irreparable based on an intraoperative evaluation. Current indications for primary labral reconstruction, either in the primary or revision setting, include a calcified labrum, an irreparable mixed Seldes type 1 and 2 tear, or a hypoplastic labrum with less than 3 mm of viable tissue. Primary hip arthroscopy has been shown to have superior outcomes compared with revision hip arthroscopy, whether with labral repair or reconstruction. Finally, appropriate labral management is necessary but not always sufficient. Hip arthroscopy requires management of osseous deformities, with care taken to avoid under- and over-resection during both femoroplasty and acetabuloplasty; management of chondral injury; and management of the hip capsule with repair or plication. Consideration also must be given to potential extra-articular pain generators, such as abductor insufficiency, ischiofemoral impingement, lumbar spine disease, as well as deformities requiring open surgical correction such as acetabular dysplasia or pathologic femoral version. The primary goal is getting it right the first time.

No Differences in Clinical Outcomes Between Hip Arthroscopy With Versus Without Capsular Closure in Patients With Cam- or Mixed-Type Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

To compare 2-year clinical outcomes of primary hip arthroscopy with versus without capsular closure after interportal capsulotomy in patients with cam- or mixed-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).

METHODS

Patients with cam- or mixed-type FAI undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with interportal capsulotomy were prospectively enrolled in this randomized controlled trial (RCT) and allocated into either capsular closure or no capsular closure groups. Patients were blinded to group allocation. Clinical outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at 2-year follow-up using the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and 6 subsections of the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS). Complications and reoperations were noted.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients (100 hips) were enrolled, 49 hips in the capsular closure group and 51 in the no capsular closure group, with no significant differences in age (28.5 ± 7.5 vs 30.4 ± 8.4, P = .261), body mass index (23.5 ± 3.0 vs 23.4 ± 1.9, P = .665), and sex distribution (female: 10.2% vs 13.7%, P = .760). Four patients were lost to follow-up (2.0% vs 5.9%, P = .618) and 6 had reoperations (6.1% vs 5.9%, P = 1.000), which left 45 hips per group for clinical assessment. There were no significant differences between groups in the net change of iHOT-12 (28.3 ± 19.6 vs 32.5 ± 22.7, P = .388), mHHS (7.6 ± 13.1 vs 7.5 ± 10.2, P = .954), and subsections of HAGOS (P > .05). Complication rates were also similar between groups (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The present RCT compared primary hip arthroscopy with versus without capsular closure after interportal capsulotomy in a male-dominated, non-dysplastic, non-arthritic cohort with cam- or mixed-type FAI and found no significant differences in patient-reported clinical outcomes, complication rates, or reoperation rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, randomized controlled trial.

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.

Hip Arthroscopic Surgery With Chondrolabral Refixation, Osteochondroplasty, and Routine Capsular Closure for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: Clinical Outcomes at a Minimum 10-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Hip arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) has proven to be an effective surgical intervention, with high rates of return to sport and work as well as favorable outcomes at short- and midterm follow-up. However, limited data exist on outcomes at long-term follow-up.

PURPOSE

To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at a minimum 10-year follow-up after primary hip arthroscopic surgery including labral repair, femoral osteochondroplasty, acetabular osteochondroplasty, and capsular closure for FAIS.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS between June 2012 and January 2013 were identified. PROs were collected preoperatively and at a minimum of 10 years postoperatively, including the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and satisfaction. Unique minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds were calculated, and their rates of achievement were analyzed. An alpha level of <.05 was used to determine statistical significance.

RESULTS

A total of 94 patients (55 female; mean age, 34.3 ± 12.4 years) were analyzed with a mean follow-up of 10.1 ± 0.3 years (range, 10.0-10.7 years). Patients demonstrated significant 10-year improvement across all PRO measures (P < .001). MCID and PASS thresholds were calculated as follows: HOS-ADL (10.4 and 85.3, respectively), HOS-SS (14.6 and 60.2, respectively), mHHS (8.8 and 76.0, respectively), VAS pain (14.6 and 27.5, respectively), and iHOT-12 (PASS: 71.4). The majority of patients achieved the MCID and PASS for each PRO measure: HOS-ADL (73.4% and 70.9%, respectively), HOS-SS (78.5% and 77.2%, respectively), mHHS (81.0% and 70.9%, respectively), VAS pain (88.6% and 70.9%, respectively), and iHOT-12 (PASS: 73.4%). Overall, 9 patients (9.6%) underwent subsequent revision hip arthroscopic surgery at a mean 4.9 ± 3.7 years (range, 1.1-10.1 years) postoperatively, and 6 patients (6.4%) underwent conversion to total hip arthroplasty at a mean 4.1 ± 3.1 years (range, 0.9-9.3 years) postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS utilizing contemporary methods of labral repair, acetabular and/or femoral osteochondroplasty, and capsular closure commonly experienced sustained clinical improvement and reported high levels of satisfaction at a minimum 10-year follow-up with low rates of reoperation.

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.

Capsular Repair is Associated with Lower Revision Rates Yet Similar Clinical Outcomes and Arthroplasty Conversion 5-Years after Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of studies reporting on minimum 5-year outcomes of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy (HA) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) to determine whether capsular management influences patient-reported outcomes (PROs), rates of clinically significant outcome, and rates of revision surgery or conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched around the terms hip arthroscopy, FAIS, five-year follow-up, and capsule management. Articles available in English, presenting original data, and reporting minimum 5-year follow-up after HA using either PROs or conversion to THA and/or revision surgery were included. Quality assessment was completed using MINORS assessment. Articles were stratified into unrepaired and repaired capsule cohorts (excluding periportal capsulotomy techniques).

RESULTS

Eight articles were included. MINORS assessment ranged from 11-22, with excellent (k=0.842) inter-rater reliability. Populations without capsular repair were identified in four studies including a total of 387 patients, at an age of 33.1-38.0 years and follow-up range of 60.0-77 months. Populations with capsular repair were identified in five studies including a total of 835 patients, at an age range of 33.6-43.1 years and follow-up range of 60.0-78.0 months. All studies included PROs and all reported significant improvement (p<0.05) at the 5-year timepoint, with modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) being the most frequent (n=6). No differences were noted between groups regarding any of the measured PROs. Average rates of achieving MCID and PASS for mHHS were similar between patients without capsular repair (MCID 71.1%, PASS 73.7%, n=1) and with capsular repair (MCID 66.0%-90.6%, PASS 55.3%-87.4%, n=4). Conversion to THA occurred in 12.8-18.5% and 0.0-29.0% for patients with an unrepaired and repaired capsule, respectively. Revision HA occurred in 15.4-25.5% and 3.1-15.4% in unrepaired and repaired capsular patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAI had significant improvement in PRO scores at minimum 5-year follow-up, and scores did not differ between patients that underwent capsular repair and those that did not. Similar rates of markers of clinical benefit and THA conversion were achieved by both groups; however, lower rates of revision hip arthroscopy were demonstrated in the capsular repair cohort.

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.

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.

Intramedullary core decompression combined with endoscopic intracapsular decompression and debridement for pre-collapse non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head

BACKGROUND

The effect of core decompression on the treatment of pre-collapse non-traumatic osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) is still limited. This study aimed to explore the efficacy of core decompression combined with intra-articular decompression (debridement of the hip joint and incision of the hip capsule) under hip arthroscopic guidance in patients with pre-collapse ONFH.

METHODS

The clinical data of 101 patients with pre-collapse ONFH were analysed retrospectively. Sixty patients (80 hips) received small-diameter multi-channel core decompression alone in first half review period (group B). Forty-one patients (59 hips) were treated with small-diameter multi-channel core decompression combined with intra-articular decompression under hip arthroscopy guidance in second half review period (group A). The surgical duration; intraoperative bleeding; intra-articular pressure(IAP) before and after surgery; length of hospital stay; hospitalisation expenses; visual analogue scale (VAS) score before, 1 week, 4 weeks, 3 months and 1 year after surgery; and Harris score of the hip joint before, 3 months and 1 year after surgery were recorded and compared between group A and group B. X-ray examination was performed every month to observe the collapse of the femoral head within 2 years after surgery, which was compared using the Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis.

RESULTS

When the two groups were compared, the surgical duration was longer and hospitalisation expenses were higher in group A than in group B (P < 0.05). However, the VAS score and the Harris score of the hip joint after surgery improved significantly compared with those before surgery (P < 0.05), which were more apparent in group A than in group B (P < 0.05). X-ray examination revealed that 6 hips in group A and 22 in group B received femoral head collapse at the 2-year follow-up. The survival rate of the femoral head in group A was significantly higher than that in group B (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Small-diameter multi-channel core decompression combined with intra-articular decompression (debridement of the hip joint and incision of the hip capsule) under hip arthroscopic guidance for treating early ONFH can more effectively alleviate joint pain, improve joint function and delay ONFH progression.

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.

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.