Multicentre study on capsular closure versus non-capsular closure during hip arthroscopy in Danish patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Christian Dippmann, Otto Kraemer, Bent Lund, Michael Krogsgaard, Per Hölmich, Martin Lind, Karen Briggs, Marc Philippon, Bjarne Mygind-Klavsen, Christian Dippmann, Otto Kraemer, Bent Lund, Michael Krogsgaard, Per Hölmich, Martin Lind, Karen Briggs, Marc Philippon, Bjarne Mygind-Klavsen

Abstract

Introduction: Hip arthroscopy has become a standard procedure in the treatment of hip joint pain not related to osteoarthritis or dysplasia in the young and active patient. There has been increasing focus on the contribution of the hip capsule to function and on stability following hip arthroscopy. It has been suggested that capsular closure after hip arthroscopy may prevent microinstability and macroinstability of the hip joint and reduce revision rate. However, it remains unknown whether capsular closure should be performed as a standard procedure when performing hip arthroscopies, especially in patients without additional risk factors for instability such as hypermobility or dysplasia of the hip. We hypothesised that capsular closure will lead to a superior outcome in hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) compared with non-capsular closure.

Methods and analysis: In this randomised controlled, multicentre trial, 200 patients scheduled for hip arthroscopy for FAIS will be cluster randomised into one of two groups (group I: hip arthroscopy without capsular closure, group II: hip arthroscopy combined with capsular closure). Inclusion criteria are: age between 18 years and 50 years and FAIS according to the Warwick agreement. Exclusion criteria are: previous hip surgery in either hip, previous conditions of Legg-Calvé-Perthes or slipped capital femoral epiphysis, malignant disease, recent hip or pelvic fractures, arthritis, Ehlers-Danlos or Marfan disease, recent (within 6 weeks) application of intra-articular corticosteroids, language problems of any kind, and radiological signs of osteoarthritis, acetabular dysplasia or acetabular retroversion. Surgery will be performed in Denmark at four centres by four surgeons, all performing an interportal capsulotomy and closure with at least two absorbable sutures. Patients in both groups, who are blinded for the intervention, will receive the same standardised rehabilitation programme. As primary outcome scores, HAGOS (sport) will be used with HAGOS (symptoms, pain, function in daily living, participation in physical activities and hip and/or groin-related quality of life), Hip Sports Activity Scale, short validated version of the International Hip Outcome Tool, EQ-5D, Visual Analogue Scale for pain, complications and reoperation rate as secondary outcome tools. Using HAGOS (sport) as primary outcome parameter the power analysis required a minimum of 84 individuals per group. Together with a clinical examination performed by the patient's surgeon 1 year after surgery, patient reported outcome measures will be completed preoperatively, as well as at 3 months, 1 year, 2 years and 5 years postoperatively. In addition, adverse effects will be recorded.

Ethics and dissemination: The study is approved by the Central Denmark Region Committee on Biomedical research ethics. The results of this study will be presented at national and international congresses and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Trial registration number: NCT03158454; Pre-results.

Keywords: capsular closure; femoroacetabular impingement; hip arthroscopy; hip instability.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

References

    1. Nwachukwu BU, Rebolledo BJ, McCormick F, et al. . Arthroscopic versus open treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review of medium- to long-term outcomes. Am J Sports Med 2016;44:1062–8. 10.1177/0363546515587719
    1. Kuhns BD, Frank RM, Pulido L. Open and arthroscopic surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Front Surg 2015;2:63 10.3389/fsurg.2015.00063
    1. Smith MV, Panchal HB, Ruberte Thiele RA, et al. . Effect of acetabular labrum tears on hip stability and labral strain in a joint compression model. Am J Sports Med 2011;39:103–10. 10.1177/0363546511400981
    1. Nepple JJ, Philippon MJ, Campbell KJ, et al. . The hip fluid seal--Part II: the effect of an acetabular labral tear, repair, resection, and reconstruction on hip stability to distraction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014;22:730–6. 10.1007/s00167-014-2875-y
    1. Myers CA, Register BC, Lertwanich P, et al. . Role of the acetabular labrum and the iliofemoral ligament in hip stability: an in vitro biplane fluoroscopy study. Am J Sports Med 2011;39 Suppl:85S–91. 10.1177/0363546511412161
    1. Bsat S, Frei H, Beaulé PE. The acetabular labrum: a review of its function. Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:730–5. 10.1302/0301-620X.98B6.37099
    1. Wuerz TH, Song SH, Grzybowski JS, et al. . Capsulotomy size affects hip joint kinematic stability. Arthroscopy 2016;32:1571–80. 10.1016/j.arthro.2016.01.049
    1. Hewitt JD, Glisson RR, Guilak F, et al. . The mechanical properties of the human hip capsule ligaments. J Arthroplasty 2002;17:82–9. 10.1054/arth.2002.27674
    1. Bayne CO, Stanley R, Simon P, et al. . Effect of capsulotomy on hip stability-a consideration during hip arthroscopy. Am J Orthop 2014;43:160–5.
    1. Duplantier NL, McCulloch PC, Nho SJ, et al. . Hip dislocation or subluxation after hip arthroscopy: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 2016;32:1428–34. 10.1016/j.arthro.2016.01.056
    1. Wylie JD, Beckmann JT, Maak TG, et al. . Arthroscopic capsular repair for symptomatic hip instability after previous hip arthroscopic surgery. Am J Sports Med 2016;44:39–45. 10.1177/0363546515608162
    1. McCormick F, Slikker W, Harris JD, et al. . Evidence of capsular defect following hip arthroscopy. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014;22:902–5. 10.1007/s00167-013-2591-z
    1. Kuhns BD, Weber AE, Levy DM, et al. . Capsular management in hip arthroscopy: an anatomic, biomechanical, and technical review. Front Surg 2016;3 10.3389/fsurg.2016.00013
    1. Larson CM, Ross JR, Stone RM, et al. . Arthroscopic management of dysplastic hip deformities: predictors of success and failures with comparison to an arthroscopic FAI cohort. Am J Sports Med 2016;44:447–53. 10.1177/0363546515613068
    1. Domb BG, Stake CE, Lindner D, et al. . Arthroscopic capsular plication and labral preservation in borderline hip dysplasia: two-year clinical outcomes of a surgical approach to a challenging problem. Am J Sports Med 2013;41:2591–8. 10.1177/0363546513499154
    1. Domb BG, Stake CE, Finley ZJ, et al. . Influence of capsular repair versus unrepaired capsulotomy on 2-year clinical outcomes after arthroscopic hip preservation surgery. Arthroscopy 2015;31:643–50. 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.10.014
    1. Frank RM, Lee S, Bush-Joseph CA, et al. . Improved outcomes after hip arthroscopic surgery in patients undergoing T-capsulotomy with complete repair versus partial repair for femoroacetabular impingement: a comparative matched-pair analysis. Am J Sports Med 2014;42:2634–42. 10.1177/0363546514548017
    1. Chahla J, Mikula JD, Schon JM, et al. . Hip capsular closure: a biomechanical analysis of failure torque. Am J Sports Med 2017;45:434–9. 10.1177/0363546516666353
    1. Gupta A, Suarez-Ahedo C, Redmond JM, et al. . Best Practices During Hip Arthroscopy: Aggregate Recommendations of High-Volume Surgeons. Arthroscopy 2015;31:1722–7. 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.03.023
    1. Lund B, Mygind-Klavsen B, Grønbech Nielsen T, et al. . Danish Hip Arthroscopy Registry (DHAR): the outcome of patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). J Hip Preserv Surg 2017;4:170–7. 10.1093/jhps/hnx009
    1. Mygind-Klavsen B, Winge S, Lund B, et al. . Danish hip arthroscopy registry: capsular closing in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI): results of a matched-cohort controlled study. J Hip Preserv Surg 2016;3:hnw030.017 10.1093/jhps/hnw030.017
    1. Domb BG, Philippon MJ, Giordano BD, et al. . Arthroscopic capsulotomy, capsular repair, and capsular plication of the hip: relation to atraumatic instability. Arthroscopy 2013;29:162–73. 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.04.057
    1. Harris JD, Slikker W, Gupta AK, et al. . Routine complete capsular closure during hip arthroscopy. Arthrosc Tech 2013;2:e89–e94. 10.1016/j.eats.2012.11.007
    1. Kemp JL, Collins NJ, Roos EM, et al. . Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for hip arthroscopic surgery. Am J Sports Med 2013;41:2065–73. 10.1177/0363546513494173
    1. Griffin DR, Dickenson EJ, O’Donnell J, et al. . The Warwick Agreement on femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAI syndrome): an international consensus statement. Br J Sports Med 2016;50:1169–76. 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096743
    1. Tannast M, Siebenrock KA, Anderson SE. Femoroacetabular impingement: radiographic diagnosis--what the radiologist should know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:1540–52. 10.2214/AJR.06.0921
    1. Ogata S, Moriya H, Tsuchiya K, et al. . Acetabular cover in congenital dislocation of the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1990;72:190–6.
    1. Ratzlaff C, Simatovic J, Wong H, et al. . Reliability of hip examination tests for femoroacetabular impingement. Arthritis Care Res 2013;65:1690–6. 10.1002/acr.22036
    1. Khan W, Khan M, Alradwan H, et al. . Utility of Intra-articular Hip Injections for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review. Orthop J Sports Med 2015;3:232596711560103 10.1177/2325967115601030
    1. Ayeni OR, Farrokhyar F, Crouch S, et al. . Pre-operative intra-articular hip injection as a predictor of short-term outcome following arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014;22:801–5. 10.1007/s00167-014-2883-y
    1. Thorborg K, Hölmich P, Christensen R, et al. . The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS): development and validation according to the COSMIN checklist. Br J Sports Med 2011;45:478–91. 10.1136/bjsm.2010.080937
    1. Thorborg K, Tijssen M, Habets B, et al. . Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) questionnaires for young to middle-aged adults with hip and groin disability: a systematic review of the clinimetric evidence. Br J Sports Med 2015;49:812 10.1136/bjsports-2014-094224
    1. Griffin DR, Parsons N, Mohtadi NG, et al. . A short version of the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) for use in routine clinical practice. Arthroscopy 2012;28:611–8. 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.02.027
    1. Zampelis V, Ornstein E, Franzén H, et al. . A simple visual analog scale for pain is as responsive as the WOMAC, the SF-36, and the EQ-5D in measuring outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2014;85:128–32. 10.3109/17453674.2014.887951
    1. Naal FD, Miozzari HH, Kelly BT, et al. . The Hip Sports Activity Scale (HSAS) for patients with femoroacetabular impingement. Hip Int 2013;23:204–11. 10.5301/hipint.5000006
    1. Rego PR, Mascarenhas V, Oliveira FS, et al. . Morphologic and angular planning for cam resection in femoro-acetabular impingement: value of the omega angle. Int Orthop 2016;40:2011–7. 10.1007/s00264-015-3053-7
    1. Menge TJ, Chahla J, Soares E, et al. . The Quebec City slider: a technique for capsular closure and plication in hip arthroscopy. Arthrosc Tech 2016;5:e971–4. 10.1016/j.eats.2016.04.024
    1. Weber AE, Harris JD, Nho SJ. Complications in Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Strategies for Prevention. Sports Med Arthrosc 2015;23:187–93. 10.1097/JSA.0000000000000084

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다