IV.

Capsulotomy is necessary to facilitate instrument manoeuvrability within the joint capsule in many arthroscopic hip surgical procedures. In cases where a clear indication for capsular closure does not exist, surgeon’s preference and experience often determines capsular management. The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of capsular closure on clinical outcome scores and satisfaction in patients who underwent hip arthroscopy surgery for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and labral tear. Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analysed for hip arthroscopy surgeries with a minimum 2 years follow-up. Patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip, previous back or hip surgeries, and degenerative changes to this hip and secondary gains were excluded. Demographic data, intraoperative findings and patient-reported outcome scores were recorded, including the Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS) and Hip Outcome Score (HOS). A total of 29 and 35 patients were included in the non-closure and closure groups, respectively. The mean follow-up time was over 3 years for both groups. The mean pre-operative and post-operative HOS scores and MHHS scores did not significantly differ between groups (pre-operative HOS: 65.6 and 66.3, P = 0.898; post-operative HOS: 85.4 and 87.2, P = 0.718; pre-operative MHHS: 63.2 and 58.4, P = 0.223; post-operative MHHS: 85.7 and 88.7, P = 0.510). Overall patient satisfaction did not differ significantly between groups (non-closure 86.3%, closure group 88.6%; P = 0.672). Capsular closure did not significantly influence satisfaction or clinical outcome scores in patients who underwent arthroscopic hip surgery for FAI or labral tear.

The acetabular labrum plays a key role in maintaining hip function and minimizing hip degeneration. Once thought to be a rare pathology, advances in imaging have led to an increase in the number of diagnosed labral tears. While still a relatively new field, labral reconstruction surgery is an option for tears that are irreparable or require revision after primary repair. Various autograft and allograft options exist when considering labral reconstruction. The first labral reconstruction surgery was described using the ligamentum teres capitis, and has since evolved, incorporating more graft sources and reconstructive techniques. The purpose of this review is to assess and describe the different graft sources and technique currently implemented by hip surgeons. Moreover, this review attempts to determine whether a single labral reconstructive graft type is superior to the others. Techniques using the Ligamentum teres capitis autograft, ITB autograft, gracilis autograft, quadriceps tendon autograft, capsular autograft, semitendinosus allograft, indirect head of the rectus femoris autograft, peroneus brevis tendon allograft and Tensor fascia lata allograft were found. Scoring was available on 5 out of the 9 graft types. The advantages and disadvantages of each graft source is described as a comparative tool. No single graft type has shown increased benefit in acetabular labral reconstruction. The lack of uniform outcome measurements hinders comparison of reported outcomes. Surgeons should make an informed decision based on their experience as well as the patient’s history and needs when choosing which graft type would be best suited for their patients.

No abstract

The diagnosis and treatment of chondral lesions in the hip is an ongoing challenge in orthopedics. Chondral lesions are common and several classification systems exist to classify them based on severity, location, radiographic parameters, and potential treatment options. When working up a patient with a potential hip chondral lesion, a complete history, thorough physical exam, and ancillary imaging are necessary. The physical exam is performed with the patient in standing, supine, prone, and lateral positions. Plain film radiographs are indicated as the first line of imaging; however, magnetic resonance arthrogram is currently the gold standard modality for the diagnosis of chondral lesions outside of diagnostic arthroscopy. Multiple treatment modalities to address chondral lesions in the hip exist and new treatment modalities continue to be developed. Currently, chondroplasty, microfracture, cartilage transplants (osteochondral autograft transfer, mosaicplasty, Osteochondral allograft transplantation) and incorporation of orthobiologics (Autologous chondrocyte implantation, Autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis, Mononuclear concentrate in platelet-rich plasma) are some techniques that have been successfully applied to address chondral pathology in the hip. Further refinement of these modalities and research in novel techniques continues to advance a surgeon’s ability to address chondral lesions in the hip joint.

Background: With a greater understanding of the importance of the acetabular labrum in the function of the hip, labral repair is preferred over debridement. However, in some scenarios, preservation or repair of the labrum is not possible, and labral reconstruction procedures have been growing in popularity as an alternative to labral resection. Purpose: To provide an up-to-date analysis of the literature to determine the overall efficacy of labral reconstruction when compared with labral repair or resection. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE databases were searched for literature regarding labral reconstruction in the hip before July 21, 2020. The results were screened and evaluated by 2 reviewers, and a third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. The final studies were evaluated using the MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies) score. Results: There were 7 comparative studies that fit the inclusion criteria, with 228 hips from 197 patients. The mean follow-up was 34.6 months, and the mean age of all patients was 38.34 years. There were slightly more female patients than male patients (105 vs 92). Arthroscopic reconstruction was performed in 86% of studies (6/7); open surgical techniques, in 14% (1/7). A variety of grafts was used in the reconstructions. The indications for labral reconstruction and outcome measures varied in these publications. Nine patients were lost follow-up, and 6 patients converted to total hip replacement postlabral reconstruction. The assessment of these comparative studies illustrated statistically equivalent results between labral reconstruction and labral repair. Comparisons of labral reconstruction with labral resection also showed statistically equivalent postoperative patient-reported outcome scores; however, the rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty were significantly higher in the population undergoing resection. Conclusion: The review of current available comparative literature, which consists entirely of level 3 studies, suggests that labral reconstruction does improve postoperative outcomes but does not demonstrate superiority over repair. There may, however, be benefit to performing labral reconstruction over resection owing to the higher rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty in the labral resection group.

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No abstract