RESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate the current body of evidence surrounding the diagnosis, management, and clinical outcomes of adhesions that developed after hip arthroscopy (HA). METHODS: A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases was designed and conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Eligible studies included patients with confirmed adhesions after HA that reported one or more of the following: (1) diagnostic procedures and criteria used; (2) indications for and details surrounding surgical management; and (3) clinical outcomes after the operative management of adhesions (e.g., patient-reported outcome measures). RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving a total of 4,145 patients (4,211 hips; 38% female sex) were included in this review. The quality of evidence was found to be fair for both comparative studies (mean, 17; range, 13-21) and noncomparative studies (mean, 10; range, 5-12) according to the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) instrument, with the level of evidence ranging from IIB to IV. Adhesions were often diagnosed intraoperatively at the time of revision surgery (10 of 19 studies, 53%), with only 3 studies specifying the criteria used to adjudicate adhesions. The most common indication for operative management (i.e., release or lysis of adhesions) was persistent pain (9 of 19, 47%), but this was often grossly stated for revision HA rather than being specific to adhesions. Patient-reported outcome measures were the most reported postoperative outcomes (9 of 19, 47%) and generally showed significant improvement from preoperative assessment across the short-term follow-up period (range, 24.5-38.1 months). There was a paucity of objective measures of clinical improvement (3 of 19, 16%) and of mid- and long-term follow-up (i.e., 5-7 years and ≥10 years, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the growing body of evidence suggesting that adhesions are highly contributory to revision HA, there is ambiguity in the diagnostic approach and indications for operative management of adhesions. Additionally, although the operative management of adhesions after HA has shown satisfactory clinical outcomes in the short term, there is a paucity of research elucidating the mid- to long-term outcomes, as well as minimal use of objective assessment of clinical improvement (e.g., biomechanics). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies.
RESUMO
CONTEXT: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) is a common cause of hip pain in young adults. Flexibility athletes represent an interesting subset due to the extreme range of motion requirements of their sport. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to provide a summary of the outcomes of hip arthroscopy for FAIS in patients who participate in flexibility sports. DATA SOURCES: Three online databases (Medline, Embase, and PubMed) were searched from database inception (1946, 1974, and 1966, respectively) to January 10, 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were screened for literature addressing surgical outcomes for flexibility athletes undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAIS. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4. DATA EXTRACTION: Various patient-reported outcomes that evaluated the efficacy of hip arthroscopy in this patient population were abstracted and presented in descriptive and analytical format. Abstraction was performed by 2 reviewers. RESULTS: Overall, a total of 8 Level 3 or 4 studies and 295 patients (312 hips) were included in this review. The pooled standardized mean differences for the Visual Analog Scale for pain score, Modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score - Activity of Daily Living scale, and Hip Outcome Score - Sport-Specific Subscale all demonstrated significant improvement after undergoing arthroscopy for FAIS between 12 and 116 months (N = 175, -1.97, 95% CI -2.5 to -1.4, P < 0.01, I2 = 76%; N = 211, 1.82, 95% CI 1.49 to 2.16, P < 0.01, I2 = 52%; N = 164, 1.75, 95% CI 1.42 to 2.05, P < 0.01, I2 = 28%; N = 211, 1.71, 95% CI 1.38 to 2.04, P < 0.01, I2 = 52%, respectively). Across 289 patients, 75.6% to 98% returned to sport at a similar or higher level than presurgery. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates a trend of improvement in patient-reported pain, function, quality of life, and return to sport at a minimum of 12 months among flexibility athletes after hip arthroscopy to treat FAIS.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To assess the utility of the femoroepiphyseal acetabular roof (FEAR) index as a diagnostic tool in hip-preservation surgery. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched from database inception until May 2022 for literature addressing the utility of the FEAR index in patients undergoing hip-preservation surgery, and the results are presented descriptively. RESULTS: Overall, there were a total of 11 studies comprising 1,458 patients included in this review. The intraobserver agreement for the FEAR index was reported by 3 of 11 studies (intraclass correlation coefficient range = 0.86-0.99), whereas the interobserver agreement was reported by 8 of 11 studies (intraclass correlation coefficient range = 0.776-1). Among the 5 studies that differentiated between hip instability and hip impingement, the mean FEAR index in 319 patients in the instability group ranged from 3.01 to 13.3°, whereas the mean FEAR index in 239 patients in the impingement group ranged from -10 to -0.77° and the mean FEAR index in 105 patients in the control group ranged from -13 to -7.7°. Three studies defined a specific cutoff value for the FEAR index, with 1 study defining a cutoff value of 5°, which correctly predicted treatment decision between periacetabular osteotomy versus osteochondroplasty 79% of the time with an AUC of 0.89, whereas another defined a cutoff of 2°, which correctly predicted treatment 90% of the time and the last study set a threshold of 3°, which provided an AUC of 0.86 for correctly predicting treatment decision. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that the FEAR index has a high agreement and consistent application, making it a useful diagnostic tool in hip-preservation surgery particularly in patients with borderline dysplastic hips. However, given the variability in FEAR index cutoff values across studies, there is no absolute consensus value that dictates treatment decision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; Systematic Review of Level II-IV studies.
