Hip arthroscopy is a surgical procedure that has a technically challenging nature, requiring advanced spatial skills and specialised instrumentation. The most common indication for hip arthroscopy is femoroacetabular impingement, which is increasing due to improved awareness and knowledge of the condition among healthcare professionals. Hip arthroscopy requires many different checkpoints from patient positioning to capsule closure to be successfully completed. Patient positioning is one of the keystones of hip arthroscopy and the probability of a surgeon achieving successful outcomes is significantly influenced by the establishment of optimal access points. The importance of the acetabular labrum and capsule has been better understood in recent years. There has been a noticeable preference towards prioritising acetabular labral repair over debridement or excision. Similarly, consistent with the literature, capsule closure restores naive hip biomechanics more successfully and improves functional outcomes following hip arthroscopy. Osteochondroplasty is a frequently employed therapeutic intervention; yet, attaining optimal osteochondroplasty outcomes might present challenges. The aim is, to restore the full perfect sphericity of the femoral head without attenuation of the head. The aim of this article is to highlight the knowledge accumulated from experiences based on previous hip arthroscopy surgeries as a solution for future troubleshooting steps. Level of Evidence: Level V.

BACKGROUND: Dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a primary reason for THA revision. During THA through the direct anterior approach (DAA), the iliofemoral ligament, which provides the main resistance to external rotation (ER) of the hip, is commonly partially transected. We asked: (1) what is the contribution of the medial iliofemoral ligament to resisting ER after DAA THA? and (2) how much resistance to ER can be restored by repairing the ligament?
METHODS: A fellowship-trained surgeon performed DAA THA on 9 cadaveric specimens. The specimens were computed tomography scanned before and after implantation. Prior to testing, the ER range of motion of each specimen to impingement in neutral and 10° of extension was computationally predicted. Each specimen was tested on a 6-degrees-of-freedom robotic manipulator. The pelvis was placed in neutral and 10° of extension. The femur was externally rotated until it reached the specimen\'s impingement target. Total ER torque was recorded with the medial iliofemoral ligament intact, after transecting the ligament, and after repair. Torque at extremes of motion was calculated for each condition. To isolate the contribution of the native ligament, the torque for the transected state was subtracted from both the native and repaired conditions.
RESULTS: The medial iliofemoral ligament contributed an average of 68% (range, 34 to 87) of the total torque at the extreme of motion in neutral and 80% (58 to 97) in 10⁰ of extension. The repaired ligament contributed 17% (1 to 54) of the total torque at the extreme of motion in neutral and 14% (5 to 38) in 10⁰ of extension, restoring on average 18 to 25% of the native resistance against ER.
CONCLUSIONS: The medial iliofemoral ligament was an important contributor to the hip torque at the extreme of motion during ER. Repairing the ligament restored a fraction of its ability to generate torque to resist ER.

OBJECTIVE: 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.
RESULTS: 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.

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).
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 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).
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 4 studies including a total of 387 patients, at an age of 33.1 to 38.0 years and follow-up range of 60.0 to 77 months. Populations with capsular repair were identified in 5 studies including a total of 835 patients, at an age range of 33.6 to 43.1 years and follow-up range of 60.0 to 78.0 months. All studies included PROs and all reported significant improvement (P < .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% to 18.5% and 0.0% to 29.0% for patients with an unrepaired and repaired capsule, respectively. Revision HA occurred in 15.4% to 25.5% and 3.1% to 15.4% in unrepaired and repaired capsular patients, respectively.
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 who underwent capsular repair and those who 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.
Level IV; systematic review of Level II-IV studies.

OBJECTIVE: To objectively evaluate the effect different management strategies have on the following post-surgical outcomes.
METHODS: The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were reviewed for articles published between January 1st, 2000 to September 18, 2019 that reported on studies comparing techniques for handling the capsule during hip arthroscopy. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, our final analysis included 10 studies. In total, these articles included 1556 hips. The following capsular management strategies were implemented: complete repair (n = 444; 28.53%), partial repair (n = 32; 2.06%), plication (n = 223; 14.33%) and release/no-repair (n = 857; 55.08%). A meta-analysis was performed on outcomes presented in three or more studies using sufficient pooled statistical analysis data.
RESULTS: Our meta-analysis demonstrated an improvement in the HOS-SS with capsular repair without being statistically significant (95%CI [-6.71, 8.21], p = 0.06). However, a significant improvement in the mHHS was detected with capsular repair (95%CI [-1.37, 9.39], p = 0.03). Of the Four studies evaluating HOS-ADL, two reported improved outcomes with capsular repair (p < 0.05 for both) while the other two reported no significant difference. While mixed results were demonstrated for reoperation rates, no difference was found across capsular management strategies regarding radiological outcomes, NAHS (all p-values >0.05) pain (p > 0.05), flexion (p > 0.05), and patient satisfaction (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Capsular repair has the potential to improve patient reported outcomes after hip arthroscopy. While there was no consensus in literature, studies consistently reported similar or superior outcomes in the capsular repair cohorts compared to capsular release. Further randomized controlled studies need to be conducted for better evaluation of outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The importance of the hip capsule and its effect on hip biomechanics, functional outcomes, and hip arthroscopy success rates has been demonstrated in recent studies. These results have led to a shift in management of the hip capsule, where an increasing number of surgeons routinely perform complete capsular closure. The purpose of this review is to highlight recent studies evaluating the hip capsule and describe contemporary capsular management and repair.
RESULTS: Biomechanical studies using cadaveric models have demonstrated that complete capsular closure restores hip distraction, rotation, and extension forces back to the native, intact state. Additionally, capsular closure by plication results in quantifiable intraarticular volume reduction, which increases hip stability, particularly in cases of patulous capsule and hypermobility. Clinical studies have demonstrated superior patient-reported functional outcomes and decreased failure rates when undergoing hip arthroscopy with comprehensive capsular management for femoroacetabular impingement surgery. Complete capsular management, including appropriate capsulotomy and subsequent closure, is critical for restoring biomechanical properties of the hip, ensuring high survivorship and improving functional outcomes. This review provides an update on the effects of contemporary capsular management as well as a detailed description of efficient T-capsulotomy and comprehensive capsule closure via plication.

There has been increasing interest in defining clinically meaningful outcomes in patient reported outcomes following orthopaedic surgery. Little is known about the factors associated with clinically meaningful outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement.
Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.
To report on a large, prospectively collected consecutive series of patients who underwent comprehensive arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and capsular management with greater than 2-year follow-up. The objectives were to determine (1) what percentage of patients achieve clinically significant outcomes after hip arthroscopic surgery for FAI as determined by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and (2) what factors are associated with achieving the MCID and PASS.
Data from an institutional repository of consecutive patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery with routine capsular closure for FAI that had failed nonsurgical management between January 2012 and January 2014 were prospectively collected and analyzed. Of 474 patients during the enrollment period, 386 (81.4%) patients were available for a minimum 2-year follow-up. Demographics, radiographic measurements, intraoperative characteristics, and patient-reported outcome scores were collected. The primary outcome measure was achieving published thresholds for the MCID and PASS for the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living (ADL) in patients with FAI. The HOS-Sport-Specific Subscale (SSS), complications, and reoperations were secondary outcome measures. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with achieving the MCID and PASS.
At a minimum of 2-year follow-up, the patients had statistically significant improvements in all patient-reported outcomes (HOS-ADL, HOS-SSS, and modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS]; P < .001 for all), with a 1.2% rate of revision hip arthroscopic surgery and 1.7% rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty. The MCID was achieved by 78.8% of patients for the HOS-ADL, and the PASS was achieved by 62.5% for the HOS-ADL. Younger age ( P = .008), Tönnis grade 0 ( P = .022), and lower preoperative HOS-ADL score ( P < .001) were associated with successfully achieving the MCID for the HOS-ADL. Younger age ( P < .001), larger medial joint space width ( P = .028), and higher preoperative HOS-ADL score ( P < .001) were associated with achieving the PASS for the HOS-ADL. Younger age ( P < .001), lower body mass index ( P = .006), non-workers\' compensation status ( P = .020), and lower preoperative HOS-SSS score ( P < .001) were associated with achieving the MCID for the HOS-SSS. Younger age ( P = .001), Tönnis grade 0 ( P = .014), running ( P = .008), and higher preoperative HOS-SSS score ( P < .001) were associated with achieving the PASS for the HOS-SSS. Overall, 49.4% of patients achieved all 4 clinically significant outcomes: both the MCID and PASS for the HOS-ADL and HOS-SSS.
The majority of patients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery with routine capsular closure for FAI experienced clinically significant outcomes that met the MCID or PASS criteria, with low rates of revision and conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Factors associated with these successful outcomes on multivariate analyses included younger age with a normal joint space. Patients with lower preoperative HOS scores were more likely to achieve the MCID, whereas patients with higher preoperative HOS scores were more likely to achieve the PASS.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Although acetabular labral repair has been biomechanically validated to improve stability, capsular management of the hip remains a topic of growing interest and controversy.
OBJECTIVE: To biomechanically evaluate the effects of several arthroscopically relevant conditions of the capsule through a robotic, sequential sectioning study.
METHODS: Controlled laboratory study.
METHODS: Ten human cadaveric unilateral hip specimens (mean age, 51.3 years [range, 38-65 years]) from full pelvises were used to test range of motion (ROM) for the intact capsule and for multiple capsular conditions including portal incisions, interportal capsulotomy, interportal capsulotomy repair, T-capsulotomy, T-capsulotomy repair, a large capsular defect, and capsular reconstruction. Hips were biomechanically tested using a 6 degrees of freedom robotic system to assess ROM with applied 5-N·m internal, external, abduction, and adduction rotation torques throughout hip flexion and extension.
RESULTS: All capsulotomy procedures (portals, interportal capsulotomy, and T-capsulotomy) created increases in external, internal, adduction, and abduction rotations compared with the intact state throughout the full tested ROM (-10° to 90° of flexion). Reconstruction significantly reduced rotation compared with the large capsular defect state for external rotation at 15° (difference, 1.4°) and 90° (difference, 1.3°) of flexion; internal rotation at -10° (difference, 0.4°), 60° (difference, 0.9°), and 90° (difference, 1.4°) of flexion; abduction rotation at -10° (difference, 0.5°), 15° (difference, 1.1°), 30° (difference, 1.2°), 60° (difference, 0.9°), and 90° (difference, 1.0°) of flexion; and adduction rotation at 0° (difference, 0.7°), 15° (difference, 0.8°), 30° (difference, 0.3°), and 90° (difference, 0.6°) of flexion. Repair of T-capsulotomy resulted in significant reductions in rotation compared with the T-capsulotomy condition for abduction rotation at -10° (difference, 0.3°), 15° (difference, 0.9°), 30° (difference, 1.3°), 60° (difference, 1.7°), and 90° (difference, 1.5°) of flexion and for internal rotation at -10° (difference, 0.9°), 60° (difference, 1.5°), and 90° (difference, 2.6°) of flexion. Similarly, repair of interportal capsulotomy resulted in significant reductions in abduction (difference, 0.9°) and internal (difference, 1.4°) rotations compared with interportal capsulotomy at 90° of flexion. In most cases, however, after the repair procedures, ROM was still increased in comparison with the intact state.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that common hip arthroscopic capsulotomy procedures can result in increases in external, internal, abduction, and adduction rotations throughout a full range (-10° to 90°) of hip flexion. However, capsular repair and reconstruction succeeded in partially reducing the increased rotational ROM caused by common capsulotomy procedures. Thus, consideration should be allotted toward capsular repair or reconstruction in cases with an increased risk of residual instability.
CONCLUSIONS: Although complete restoration of joint stability may not be fully achieved at time zero, capsular repair and reconstruction may lead to improved patient outcomes by bringing hip rotational movements nearer to normal values in the immediate postoperative period, especially in cases in which extensive capsulotomy is performed.