Heifner John J, Keller Leah M, Grewal Gagan, Davis Ty A, Brutti Jonathan, Hommen Jan Pieter
Miami Orthopaedic Research Foundation, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.
Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, Erie, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2024 May 14;6(3):100820. doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2023.100820. eCollection 2024 Jun.
To review the recent literature to provide an updated characterization of capsule closure techniques in hip arthroscopy and to determine if the characteristics of closure impacted clinical outcomes.
In keeping with the Preferred Reporting in Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review was performed with the following eligibility criteria: patients over 18 years of age who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with reporting of patient reported outcome measures or revision/failure, and a sufficiently detailed description of capsule closure. The GRADE framework evaluated study quality, and ROBINS-I evaluated the risk of bias.
Across 18 studies (N = 3277) an interportal capsulotomy was reported in 12 studies (1972/3277) cases, and a T-type capsulotomy was reported in six studies (1305/3277) cases). Six studies reported using #2 suture. Nonabsorbable suture was reported in six studies, and absorbable suture in six studies. The rate of failure was 10.5% across five studies (N = 1133) and the rate of revision was 4.4% across 13 studies (N = 2957).
Capsule closure is commonly performed with #2 high strength suture-the T-type using two to three sutures in the vertical limb and two to three in the transverse limb, and the interportal type using two to three sutures. Compared to earlier reports, there is a trend for increased utilization of T-type capsulotomy. Although there is a growing body of investigations into the efficacy of routine capsule closure following hip arthroscopy, our results demonstrate infrequent and inconsistent reporting of capsule closure characteristics.
Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies.
回顾近期文献,以更新髋关节镜检查中关节囊闭合技术的特征,并确定闭合特征是否会影响临床结果。
按照系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,进行了一项系统评价,纳入标准如下:年龄超过18岁,接受初次髋关节镜检查且报告了患者报告的结局指标或翻修/失败情况,以及对关节囊闭合有足够详细的描述。GRADE框架评估研究质量,ROBINS-I评估偏倚风险。
在18项研究(N = 3277)中,12项研究(1972/3277例)报告了经皮关节囊切开术,6项研究(1305/3277例)报告了T型关节囊切开术。6项研究报告使用2号缝线。6项研究报告使用不可吸收缝线,6项研究报告使用可吸收缝线。五项研究(N = 1133)的失败率为10.5%,13项研究(N = 2957)的翻修率为4.4%。
关节囊闭合通常使用2号高强度缝线进行——T型在垂直臂使用两到三根缝线,在横向臂使用两到三根缝线,经皮型使用两到三根缝线。与早期报告相比,T型关节囊切开术的使用有增加的趋势。尽管对髋关节镜检查后常规关节囊闭合的疗效的研究越来越多,但我们的结果表明,关节囊闭合特征的报告很少且不一致。
IV级,对I-IV级研究的系统评价。