Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A.
Steadman Clinic, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A.; Steadman Philippon Research Institute, Vail, Colorado, U.S.A..
Arthroscopy. 2019 Mar;35(3):778-786. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.10.110. Epub 2019 Feb 4.
To compare the clinical outcomes between 2 groups of patients who underwent arthroscopic hip capsular reconstruction with the same surgical technique with an iliotibial band (ITB) allograft versus dermal allograft tissue.
From March 2013 to October 2015, patients who were 18 years of age or older and who underwent revision arthroscopic hip surgery with capsular reconstruction by the senior author were identified. Patients who were younger than 18 years old, had a lateral center-edge angle <20° or Tonnis osteoarthritis grade 2 or 3, or refused to participate were excluded. Patients were assigned to 2 groups based on whether an ITB (ITB group) or a dermal allograft (dermal group) was used to reconstruct the capsule. The ITB graft was used initially, then the dermal graft was used when it was available. The dimensions were based on the intraoperative measurement of the capsular defect, and the thickness was 3 mm. Other treatments included labral debridement, repair, or reconstruction; treatment of residual femoroacetabular impingement; and treatment of cartilage damage. Clinical outcome scores including the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activity of Daily Living scale (primary outcome measure), modified Harris Hip Score, HOS-Sports scale, SF-12, and Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were compared between the groups in addition to the failure rate (conversion to total hip arthroplasty, revision hip arthroscopy) and patient satisfaction rate with the outcome (range, 1-10).
Thirty-six patients (9 men and 27 women) met the inclusion criteria. Each group consisted of 18 patients (18 hips) with a mean age of 30.9 ± 9.4 years in the ITB group and a mean age of 29.8 ± 9.4 years in the dermal group (P = .718). There were no differences in patient demographics, physical examination findings, or imaging characteristics. The procedure failed for 8 patients (4 in the ITB group and 4 in the dermal group), and another surgery was required (P = 1.0). Additional surgeries included 3 total hip arthroplasties, 1 periarticular osteotomy, and 4 revision arthroscopies. The mean follow-up time was 25 months (range, 18-38 months) in both groups (P = .881). At follow-up, the HOS-Activity of Daily Living scale, SF-12, modified Harris Hip Score, and HOS-Sports scale measures were significantly higher in the ITB group than in the dermal group (P < .05). A greater percentage of patients reached minimum clinically important difference in the ITB group for Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and HOS scales with the minimum clinically important difference for HOS-Sports scale being significantly higher in the ITB group (P = .04). Patient satisfaction scores were 8 and 6 in the ITB and dermal groups, respectively.
At a mean follow-up time of 25 months, hip capsular reconstruction with an ITB allograft results in improved clinical outcomes compared with the dermal allograft. A similar failure rate was noted in both groups, but a greater percentage of patients in the ITB group achieved clinical improvement.
比较两组接受同种手术技术的关节镜下髋关节囊重建患者的临床结果,使用阔筋膜张肌(ITB)移植物与真皮移植物组织。
从 2013 年 3 月至 2015 年 10 月,确定了由高级作者进行关节镜下髋关节翻修手术和囊重建的 18 岁或以上的患者。年龄小于 18 岁、外侧中心边缘角<20°或 Tonnis 骨关节炎 2 或 3 级或拒绝参与的患者被排除在外。根据是否使用 ITB(ITB 组)或真皮移植物(真皮组)来重建囊,将患者分为两组。最初使用 ITB 移植物,然后在有货时使用真皮移植物。尺寸基于囊缺损的术中测量,厚度为 3mm。其他治疗包括盂唇清创、修复或重建;残余股骨髋臼撞击症的治疗;以及软骨损伤的治疗。除失败率(转换为全髋关节置换术、髋关节镜翻修术)和患者对结果的满意度(范围为 1-10)外,还比较了两组之间的临床结果评分,包括髋关节评分(HOS)-日常生活活动量表(主要测量指标)、改良 Harris 髋关节评分、HOS-运动量表、SF-12 和西部安大略省和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数。
36 名患者(9 名男性和 27 名女性)符合纳入标准。每组各有 18 名患者(18 髋),ITB 组的平均年龄为 30.9±9.4 岁,真皮组的平均年龄为 29.8±9.4 岁(P=0.718)。患者的人口统计学、体格检查结果或影像学特征无差异。8 名患者(ITB 组 4 名,真皮组 4 名)手术失败,需要进行另一次手术(P=1.0)。其他手术包括 3 例全髋关节置换术、1 例关节周围截骨术和 4 例关节镜翻修术。两组的平均随访时间均为 25 个月(18-38 个月)(P=0.881)。随访时,ITB 组的 HOS-日常生活活动量表、SF-12、改良 Harris 髋关节评分和 HOS-运动量表评分均明显高于真皮组(P<0.05)。在 ITB 组中,有更多的患者达到了 Western Ontario & McMaster 大学骨关节炎指数和 HOS 量表的最小临床重要差异,而 HOS-运动量表的最小临床重要差异在 ITB 组中明显更高(P=0.04)。ITB 组和真皮组的患者满意度评分分别为 8 分和 6 分。
在平均 25 个月的随访中,使用 ITB 同种异体移植物进行髋关节囊重建可改善临床结果,优于真皮移植物。两组的失败率相似,但 ITB 组有更多的患者达到临床改善。