These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Achievement of Meaningful Clinical Outcomes Is Unaffected by Capsulotomy Type During Arthroscopic Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: Results From the Multicenter Arthroscopic Study of the Hip (MASH) Study Group.
    Author: Parvaresh K, Rasio JP, Martin RL, Kivlan BR, Carreira D, Christoforetti JJ, Harris JD, Matsuda DK, Salvo J, Wolff AB, Nho SJ.
    Journal: Am J Sports Med; 2021 Mar; 49(3):713-720. PubMed ID: 33560868.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Capsule management has emerged as an important topic in the field of hip arthroscopy. The 2 most popular techniques are interportal capsulotomy and T-type capsulotomy, but few studies have compared outcomes between these 2 techniques. PURPOSE: To compare 2-year (±2 months) patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between patients who underwent interportal versus T-type capsulotomy during arthroscopic labral repair for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A retrospective review of a large multicenter registry of patients undergoing arthroscopic hip preservation surgery for FAIS was performed. Data from 9 surgeons across 9 sites between January 2014 and February 2018 were included in the study. Baseline demographic data, preoperative PROs, and minimum 2-year postoperative PROs including Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), HOS-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score, and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) were recorded. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on whether interportal or T-type capsulotomy was performed according to the senior surgeon's preference and training, and all capsulotomies were then routinely repaired. The 2 groups were matched 1:1 by age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) was compared for the HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, and iHOT-12 between the 2 groups. RESULTS: The final analysis included 658 of 1483 eligible patients with a mean ± SD age of 32.6 ± 11.6 years and BMI of 24.0 ± 3.7; of these, 329 patients were treated via interportal capsulotomy, and 329 patients were treated via T-type capsulotomy. Female patients comprised 66.3% of the study population. Capsulotomy type was not a predictor of 2-year postoperative PROs on multivariate linear regression analysis when adjusted for covariates. Chi-square analysis showed no statistical difference in achievement of MCID, PASS, and SCB between the interportal and T-type groups for HOS-ADL (80.3%, 75.8%, 52.7% and 77.1%, 71.7%, 53.6%, respectively; P > .01 for all), HOS-SS (83.6%, 72.5%, 51.5% and 81.7%, 68.4%, 49.2%, respectively; P > .01 for all), and iHOT-12 (87.5%, 72.0%, 50.5% and 80.0%, 64.7%, 45.6%, respectively; P > .01 for all). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic management of FAIS resulted in significant clinical improvement that was independent of capsulotomy type when the capsulotomy included repair.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]