Acuña Alexander J, Samuel Linsen T, Roth Alexander, Emara Ahmed K, Kamath Atul F
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
J Orthop. 2020 Feb 4;19:237-243. doi: 10.1016/j.jor.2020.02.002. eCollection 2020 May-Jun.
To objectively evaluate the effect different management strategies have on the following post-surgical outcomes.
The PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library databases were reviewed for articles published between January 1st, 2000 to September 18, 2019 that reported on studies comparing techniques for handling the capsule during hip arthroscopy. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, our final analysis included 10 studies. In total, these articles included 1556 hips. The following capsular management strategies were implemented: complete repair (n = 444; 28.53%), partial repair (n = 32; 2.06%), plication (n = 223; 14.33%) and release/no-repair (n = 857; 55.08%). A meta-analysis was performed on outcomes presented in three or more studies using sufficient pooled statistical analysis data.
Our meta-analysis demonstrated an improvement in the HOS-SS with capsular repair without being statistically significant (95%CI [-6.71, 8.21], = 0.06). However, a significant improvement in the mHHS was detected with capsular repair (95%CI [-1.37, 9.39], = 0.03). Of the Four studies evaluating HOS-ADL, two reported improved outcomes with capsular repair ( < 0.05 for both) while the other two reported no significant difference. While mixed results were demonstrated for reoperation rates, no difference was found across capsular management strategies regarding radiological outcomes, NAHS (all -values >0.05) pain ( > 0.05), flexion ( > 0.05), and patient satisfaction ( > 0.05).
Capsular repair has the potential to improve patient reported outcomes after hip arthroscopy. While there was no consensus in literature, studies consistently reported similar or superior outcomes in the capsular repair cohorts compared to capsular release. Further randomized controlled studies need to be conducted for better evaluation of outcomes.
客观评估不同管理策略对以下术后结果的影响。
检索PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库,查找2000年1月1日至2019年9月18日期间发表的报告髋关节镜检查时处理关节囊技术比较研究的文章。应用纳入和排除标准后,我们的最终分析纳入了10项研究。这些文章总共纳入了1556例髋关节。实施了以下关节囊管理策略:完全修复(n = 444;28.53%)、部分修复(n = 32;2.06%)、折叠术(n = 223;14.33%)和松解/不修复(n = 857;55.08%)。对三项或更多研究中使用充分合并统计分析数据呈现的结果进行荟萃分析。
我们的荟萃分析表明,关节囊修复后髋关节特殊外科医院短期评分(HOS-SS)有所改善,但无统计学意义(95%CI[-6.71, 8.21],P = 0.06)。然而,关节囊修复后改良Harris髋关节评分(mHHS)有显著改善(95%CI[-1.37, 9.39],P = 0.03)。在四项评估髋关节特殊外科医院日常生活活动评分(HOS-ADL)的研究中,两项报告关节囊修复后结果改善(两者P均<0.05),而另外两项报告无显著差异。虽然再次手术率结果不一,但在放射学结果、北美髋关节学会(NAHS)评分(所有P值>0.05)、疼痛(P>0.05)、屈曲(P>0.05)和患者满意度(P>0.05)方面,各关节囊管理策略之间未发现差异。
关节囊修复有可能改善髋关节镜检查后患者报告的结果。虽然文献中没有共识,但与关节囊松解相比,研究一致报告关节囊修复组的结果相似或更好。需要进行进一步的随机对照研究以更好地评估结果。