scholarly journals Hip Arthroscopy for Femoracetabular Impingement in China: A Review and Meta‐Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 1721-1729
Author(s):  
Hsueh Yang ◽  
Mingke You ◽  
Ya Li ◽  
Tao Li ◽  
Taolin Qin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Femoracetabular Impingement

scholarly journals Effect of Capsular Closure on Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy for Femoracetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 1153-1163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liang Liu ◽  
Yan Zhang ◽  
Qi Gui ◽  
Feng Zhao ◽  
Xue‐Zhen Shen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Femoracetabular Impingement

Return to Play After Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (11) ◽  
pp. 2780-2788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michaela O’Connor ◽  
Anas A. Minkara ◽  
Robert W. Westermann ◽  
James Rosneck ◽  
T. Sean Lynch
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Return To Play ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Rehabilitation Protocols ◽  
The Mean

Background: The use of arthroscopic treatment for intra-articular hip pathology has demonstrated improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with a lower rate of complications, reoperation, and patient morbidity as compared with traditional methods. Although the use of this minimally invasive approach has increased in prevalence, no evidence-based return-to-play (RTP) criteria have been developed to ensure an athlete’s preparedness for sporting activities. Purpose: To determine if there exists sufficient evidence in the literature to support an RTP protocol and functional assessment after hip arthroscopy, as well as to assess the mean rate and duration of RTP. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The search terms “hip arthroscopy,” “return to play,” and 10 related terms were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, yielding 263 articles. After screening, 22 articles were included. RTP timeline, rehabilitation protocols, and conditional criteria measures were assessed with previously established criteria. Pooled estimates were calculated for RTP rate and duration, and weighted mean scores were determined for PROs. Results: A total of 1296 patients with 1442 total hips were identified. Although 54.5% (12 of 22) of studies did not provide a guideline for RTP duration after hip arthroscopy, 36.4% (8 of 22) recommended a duration of 4 months, while 9.1% (2 of 22) recommended 3 months. The most frequently described postoperative rehabilitation protocols were weightbearing guidelines (15 studies) and passive motion exercises (9 studies). Only 2 studies satisfied the criteria for a sufficient RTP protocol, and 3 provided a specific replicable test for RTP. The mean RTP duration was 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.1-8.8 months), and the return rate was 84.6% (95% CI, 80.4%-88.8%; P = .008) at a mean ± SD follow-up of 25.8 ± 2.4 months. Mean modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) improved from 63.1 to 84.1 postoperatively (+33.3%), while Non-arthritic Hip Score improved from 61.7 to 86.8 (+40.7%). A lower preoperative mHHS was significantly associated with a higher postoperative improvement ( r = −0.95, P = .0003). Conclusion: Significant variability exists in RTP protocols among institutions owing to a lack of standardization. Despite a high overall rate of RTP and improvement in PROs after hip arthroscopy, the majority of rehabilitation protocols are not evidence based and rely on expert opinion. No validated functional test currently exists to assess RTP.

scholarly journals Return to Driving After Hip and Knee Arthroscopic Procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Palma ◽  
Purva Patel ◽  
Jeya Palan ◽  
HG Pandit ◽  
BH Van Duren
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Reaction Time ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Knee Arthroscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Harm To Others ◽  
Assess Quality ◽  
Arthroscopic Procedures

Background: Hip and knee arthroscopies are common orthopaedic procedures. As patients are looking to return to their regular schedules and regain their independence post-surgery, physicians often encounter the question of, “when can I drive again?” While safety of the patient is of the utmost importance when making these recommendations, it is equally important to consider the possibility of harm to others and potential legal ramifications. The purpose of this study is to consolidate evidence from available literature and undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine when it is safe for patients to return to driving after hip and knee arthroscopic procedures.  Methods:  A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines. OVID, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases were searched through June 2020 for articles containing keywords and/or MeSH terms “Hip arthroscopy” and “knee arthroscopy” in conjunction with “total brake response time” or “reaction time” in the context of automobile driving. Title review and full article review were done to assess quality and select relevant articles. Review Manager Version 5.4 was utilized for statistical analysis.   Results: 8 papers were included in the meta-analysis of Brake Reaction Time (BRT). Meta-analysis of all Knee BRTs showed times slower-than or equal-to-baseline BRTs through 5 weeks, with a trend of improving BRT from 6 to 10 weeks (only weeks 8 and 10 were significant P < 0.05). Of all Hip BRTs, week 2 showed slower-than-baseline BRTs, but after week 4 demonstrated a trend toward faster BRTs through week 8 (only week 8 was significant P < 0.05).   Conclusion: BRTs met baseline/control values and continued to improve after 6 weeks following knee arthroscopy and after 4 weeks following hip arthroscopy. Based on these results it would be safe to recommend return to driving at 6 weeks after knee arthroscopy and 4 weeks after hip arthroscopic procedures.   

Complications following hip arthroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 1669-1675 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Kowalczuk ◽  
M. Bhandari ◽  
F. Farrokhyar ◽  
I. Wong ◽  
M. Chahal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis

Repaired or unrepaired capsulotomy after hip arthroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 256-266 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yipeng Lin ◽  
Tao Li ◽  
Xinghao Deng ◽  
Xihao Huang ◽  
KaiBo Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Narrative Analysis ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Surgical Techniques ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Outcome Score ◽  
Published Evidence

Purpose: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the surgical techniques, clinical outcomes, rates of revision and conversion to arthroplasty and complications between a repaired and unrepaired capsulotomy after hip arthroscopy. Methods: A search of the PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar databases was performed to identify comparative articles published prior to 10 July 2019 that reported the capsule management strategy and clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy. A narrative analysis and meta-analysis were performed to integrate and compare the results of the 2 groups. Results: 12 comparative studies ( n = 1185 hips) with an average (methodological index for non-randomized studies) MINORS score of 17.45 ± 2.02 were identified for analysis, of which 5 were included in the meta-analysis. The pre- to postoperative improvements in the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score–Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SS), and Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) revealed no significant differences between the repaired and unrepaired groups ( p = 0.40, 0.26 and 0.61, respectively). The risk ratio of the revision rate for the 2 groups was 0.66 ( p = 0.21). Evaluation of the MRI scans and the rate of heterotopic ossification also showed no significant differences. The most preferred capsulotomy techniques were interportal and T-shape. No postoperative hip instability was reported in any of the 12 studies. Conclusion: The currently published evidence is still not strong enough to confirm the superiority of repairing the capsule after hip arthroscopy; hence, routine repair of the capsule during surgery cannot be suggested.

Cutting, Impingement, Contact, Endurance, Flexibility, and Asymmetric/Overhead Sports: Is There a Difference in Return-to-Sport Rate After Arthroscopic Femoroacetabular Impingement Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 036354652095044
Author(s):  
Ioanna K. Bolia ◽  
Hansel Ihn ◽  
Hyunwoo P. Kang ◽  
Cory K. Mayfield ◽  
Karen K. Briggs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Rate Of Return ◽  
Intraoperative Procedures ◽  
Overhead Athletes ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Difference

Background: Previous studies have established a classification of sports based on hip mechanics: cutting, impingement, contact, endurance, flexibility, and asymmetric/overhead. No previous review has compared the outcomes of hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) using this classification. Purpose: To determine whether the rate of return to sport differs among cutting, impingement, contact, endurance, flexibility, and asymmetric/overhead athletes who undergo hip arthroscopy for FAIS. We also aimed to identify differences in patient characteristics, intraoperative procedures performed, and time to return to play among the 6 sport categories. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Three electronic databases were searched for eligible articles. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstract, and full-text articles using prespecified criteria. Eligible articles were those that reported the rate of return to sport (defined by the number of hips) after hip arthroscopy for FAIS in athletes of all levels. Data collected were patient age, sex, body mass index, type of sport, rate and time to return to sport, and intraoperative procedures performed. A mixed effects model was used for meta-analysis. Results: A total of 29 articles and 1426 hip arthroscopy cases were analyzed with 185 cutting, 258 impingement, 304 contact, 207 endurance, 116 flexibility, and 356 asymmetric/overhead athletes. The mean age was similar among the 6 subgroups ( P = .532), but the proportion of female athletes was significantly higher in flexibility, endurance, and asymmetric/overhead sports as compared with impingement and contact athletes. Flexibility athletes had the highest rate of return to sport after hip arthroscopy for FAIS (94.8%), whereas contact athletes had the lowest rate (88%). The longest mean ± SD time (8.5 ± 1.9 months) to return to sport was reported in cutting sports, while endurance athletes returned faster than the rest (5.4 ± 2.6 months). The difference in rate and time to return to sport, as well as the intraoperative procedure performed, did not reach statistical significance among the 6 subgroups. There was evidence of publication bias and study heterogeneity, and the mean Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies score was 13 ± 2.6. Conclusion: Flexibility athletes had the highest rate of return to sport after hip arthroscopy for FAIS, while endurance athletes returned the fastest. The difference in rate and time to return to sport and intraoperative procedures performed did not reach statistical significance among the 6 subgroups. These results are limited by the evidence of publication bias and should be interpreted with caution. Laboratory-based studies are necessary to validate the classification of sports based on hip mechanics.

Can We Identify Why Athletes Fail to Return to Sport After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 036354652095629
Author(s):  
Alexander E. Weber ◽  
Ioanna K. Bolia ◽  
Cory K. Mayfield ◽  
Hansel Ihn ◽  
Hyunwoo P. Kang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Improve Patient Care ◽  
Hip Pain ◽  
Impingement Syndrome ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome ◽  
High Level

Background: No previous systematic review has focused on the athletes who fail to return to sport after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Purpose: To review the literature on the athletes who fail to return to sport after hip arthroscopy for FAIS to determine the rate of nonreturning athletes and explore the reasons for their inability to return to sport after arthroscopic FAI surgery. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: Three electronic databases were searched for eligible articles. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles using prespecified criteria. Eligible articles were those that clearly stated the rate of athletes who did not return to sport after hip arthroscopy for FAIS. Data collected were the rate of patients who did not return to sport, the level of competition (high level, recreational, or mixed), the type of sport, comments on patients who did not return to sport, the rate of subsequent hip surgeries (total hip replacement or revision hip arthroscopy) in nonreturning athletes, and the reported reason for not returning to sport. A random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Results: Twenty studies were eligible for inclusion, and 1093 athletes were analyzed. The weighted rate of athletes who did not return to sport after hip arthroscopy for FAIS was 12.1% (95% CI, 7.7-17.4). Only 2 studies (2/20;10%) reported the age of the athletes who did not return, while sex was reported in 3 studies (3/20;15%). The estimated proportion of athletes who did not return to sport because of hip-related issues was significantly greater than the percentage of athletes who did not return for reasons unrelated to their hip (74.3% vs 22.3%; P < .0001). Persistent hip pain was the most commonly reported factor (52/110 patients; 47.2%) associated with failure to return to sport. Whether the nonreturning athletes underwent any subsequent hip procedure after hip arthroscopy for FAIS was reported in only 4 out of 20 studies (20%). There was evidence of publication bias and study heterogeneity. Conclusion: The estimated rate of athletes who did not return to sport after hip arthroscopy for FAIS was 12%, with the majority of athletes being unable to return because of persistent hip pain. There is a severe lack of evidence on the athlete characteristics and clinical course of the nonreturning athletes, and the rate of subsequent hip procedures is unknown. The outcomes and reasons for athletes not returning to sport should be reported in detail to improve patient care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document