학술논문
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
Document Type
article
Author
Soshi Uchida, M.D., Ph.D.; Kazuha Kizaki, M.D., M.Sc.; Maharaj S. Arjuna, M.D., M.Sc.; Yoichi Murata, M.D., Ph.D.; Yoshiharu Shimozono, M.D.; Kazutomo Miura, M.D., Ph.D.; Koichi Nakagawa, M.D., Ph.D.; Atsuo Nakamae, M.D., Ph.D.; Toshiyasu Nakamura, M.D., Ph.D.; Tadahiro Sakai, M.D., Ph.D.; Kazuhiko Kikugawa, M.D., Ph.D.; Tatsuo Mae, M.D., Ph.D.; Eiichi Tsuda, M.D., Ph.D.; Harukazu Tohyama, M.D., Ph.D.
Source
Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation, Vol 5, Iss 6, Pp 100800- (2023)
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
2666-061X
Abstract
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.