Background: There is increasing concern of iatrogenic hip instability after capsulotomy during surgery. Greater emphasis is now being placed on capsular closure during surgery. There are no prospective studies that address whether capsular closure has any effect on outcomes.
Purpose/hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient outcomes after interportal capsulotomy repair compared with no repair. We hypothesized that restoration of normal capsular anatomy with interportal repair will achieve clinical outcomes similar to those for no repair.
Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.
Methods: Adult patients with femoral acetabular impingement indicated for hip arthroscopy were randomized into either the capsular repair (CR) or the no repair (NR) groups. All patients underwent standard hip arthroscopy with labral repair with or without CAM/pincer lesion resection. Clinical outcomes were measured via the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) subscale, Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific (HOS-SS) subscale, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), visual analog scale for pain, International Hip Outcome Tool, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12).
Results: A total of 54 patients (56 hips) were included (26 men and 30 women) with a mean age of 33 years. The HOS-ADL score significantly improved at 2 years in both the NR group (from 68.1 ± 20.5 to 88.6 ± 20.0; < .001) and the CR group (from 59.2 ± 18.8 to 91.7 ± 12.3; < .001). The HOS-SS score also significantly improved in both the NR group (from 41.1 ± 25.8 to 84.1 ± 21.9; < .001) and the CR group (from 32.7 ± 23.7 to 77.7 ± 23.0; < .001). Improvement was noted for all secondary outcome measures; however, there was no significant difference between the groups at any time point. Between 1 and 2 years, the NR group showed significant worsening on the HOS-ADL (-1.21 ± 5.09 vs 4.28 ± 7.91; = .044), mHHS (1.08 ± 10.04 vs 10.12 ± 11.76; = .042), and VR-12 Physical (-2.15 ± 5.52 vs 4.49 ± 7.30; = .014) subsets compared with the CR group.
Conclusion: There was significant improvement in the VR-12 Physical subscale at 2 years postoperatively in the capsular CR group compared with the NR group. Capsular closure appears to have no detrimental effect on functional outcome scores after hip arthroscopy. We recommend restoration of native anatomy if possible when performing hip arthroscopy.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8120543 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120963110 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Basic Hip Arthroscopy Part 3: Peripheral-Compartment Arthroscopy (T-Capsulotomy, Femoroplasty, and Capsular Closure).
Arthrosc Tech
December 2024
From the Department of Orthopedics, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Over the past decade, hip preservation strategies have gained momentum, resulting in a notable increase in the use of hip arthroscopy for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions for hip-related pathology. In this 3-part series, we aim to comprehensively review the fundamentals of hip arthroscopy in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement. This Technical Note will thoroughly review the senior authors' approach to managing the peripheral compartment of the hip in the context of femoroacetabular impingement.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe combination of hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) has been proven safe and effective for addressing symptoms in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). As not every patient with dysplasia will require a hip arthroscopy to obtain desired clinical improvement in the setting of periacetabular osteotomy, a challenge is identifying which patients require adjacent procedures (either via arthroscopic or open) to fully treat their hip pathology. Even though labral repair is the most reported arthroscopic procedure in cases of hip dysplasia, I would suggest that labral treatment is the least likely helpful component of hip arthroscopy in these cases.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFNo Difference in 2-Year Outcomes for Non-Hypermobile Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy With and Without Closure of Periportal Capsulotomy.
Arthroscopy
December 2024
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.. Electronic address:
Purpose: To assess whether capsular closure during hip arthroscopy with periportal capsulotomy affects 2-year postoperative outcomes for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) without hypermobility.
Methods: A matched-cohort retrospective analysis of a single institutional database of patients who underwent hip arthroscopy with periportal capsulotomy for management of FAIS between 2014 and 2022 was performed. Study inclusion criteria consisted of patients with FAIS who exhibited no signs of generalized ligamentous laxity (GLL) (Beighton score 0).
In all aspects of orthopaedic surgery, restoring native patient anatomy has shown improved outcomes in comparison to nonanatomic reconstructions. Particular attention has been paid to the hip capsule, as the complex of the iliofemoral, pubofemoral, and ischiofemoral ligaments, as well as the zona orbicularis and iliocapsularis, all play an essential role in hip stability, mechanics, and maintenance of intra-articular pressures. An anatomic approach toward hip arthroscopy also includes labral repair or reconstruction with preservation of the chondrolabral junction and cam resection.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFRoutine Capsular Closure Outperforms Incomplete Capsular Closure After Hip Arthroscopy: A Meta-analysis and Expected-Value Decision Analysis.
Arthroscopy
December 2024
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Rehabilitation, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, U.S.A.
Purpose: To determine the optimal treatment decision for capsular management after primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.
Methods: An expected-value decision analysis was performed (1) organizing the decision problem, (2) determining outcome probabilities, (3) determining outcome utilities, (4) performing fold-back analyses, and (5) performing sensitivity analyses. A decision tree was constructed (complete capsule closure vs incomplete closure) and a meta-analysis was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework, a systematic review was conducted to determine outcome probabilities.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!