Flemig Alison Dittmer
St. Paul, Minnesota.
Arthroscopy. 2025 Jul;41(7):2392-2393. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2025.01.002. Epub 2025 Jan 6.
The combination of hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) has been proven safe and effective for addressing symptoms in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip. As not every patient with dysplasia will require a hip arthroscopy to obtain desired clinical improvement in the setting of PAO, a challenge is identifying which patients require adjacent procedures (either via arthroscopic or open) to fully treat their hip pathology. Even though labral repair is the most reported arthroscopic procedure in cases of hip dysplasia, I would suggest that labral treatment is the least likely helpful component of hip arthroscopy in these cases. Not all patients with hip dysplasia will have restoration of their suction seal after arthroscopic repair or debridement of the labrum. On the basis of numerous studies demonstrating the effectiveness of PAO for hip dysplasia, labral pathology has unknown importance for either mechanical stability or for the long-term survivorship of the dysplastic hip and thus must be examined instead as a significant pain generator. Reorientation of the labrum out of the zone of injury, and/or desensitization of the labrum during labral stabilization, may alleviate pain generated from labral pathology in the setting of PAO for dysplasia. I find hip arthroscopy to be most helpful as a tool to assess articular cartilage and address femoroacetabular impingement in the most common forms of subspine or true femoral cam morphology, when present. One may argue that the best evaluation of femoroacetabular impingement only exists after PAO correction is achieved. In cases in which I am concerned about iatrogenic impingement from reorientation, particularly in the subspine area, I have intentionally delayed capsule closure to be able to assess and address residual impingement after PAO. Despite the fact that combining hip arthroscopy and PAO in a single stage is safe, we should approach hip arthroscopy and capsulotomy with trepidation, as capsular adhesions, iatrogenic articular cartilage damage, and disruption of capsular integrity are all risks best avoided if capsule violation is not necessary. Clearer definitions for labral pathology and indications for repair or debridement are required.
髋关节镜检查与髋臼周围截骨术(PAO)相结合已被证明在治疗发育性髋关节发育不良患者的症状方面是安全有效的。由于并非每个发育不良的患者在进行PAO时都需要髋关节镜检查才能获得理想的临床改善,因此一个挑战是确定哪些患者需要进行相邻手术(通过关节镜或开放手术)来全面治疗其髋关节病变。尽管在髋关节发育不良的病例中,盂唇修复是最常报道的关节镜手术,但我认为在这些病例中,盂唇治疗是髋关节镜检查中最不可能有帮助的组成部分。并非所有髋关节发育不良的患者在关节镜下修复或清理盂唇后都能恢复其吸持密封。基于大量证明PAO对髋关节发育不良有效的研究,盂唇病变对于发育不良髋关节的机械稳定性或长期存活的重要性尚不清楚,因此必须将其视为一个重要的疼痛产生源进行检查。在PAO治疗发育不良的情况下,将盂唇重新定位到损伤区域之外和/或在盂唇稳定过程中使其脱敏,可能会减轻盂唇病变产生的疼痛。我发现髋关节镜检查作为一种工具,在评估关节软骨以及处理最常见的脊柱下或真正股骨凸轮形态的股骨髋臼撞击症(如果存在)时最有帮助。有人可能会说,只有在实现PAO矫正后,才能对股骨髋臼撞击症进行最佳评估。在我担心重新定位导致医源性撞击的情况下,特别是在脊柱下区域,我会故意延迟关闭关节囊,以便能够评估和处理PAO后的残余撞击。尽管在同一阶段将髋关节镜检查和PAO结合起来是安全的,但我们应该谨慎对待髋关节镜检查和关节囊切开术,因为如果不必要侵犯关节囊,那么关节囊粘连、医源性关节软骨损伤以及关节囊完整性破坏都是最好避免的风险。需要对盂唇病变以及修复或清理的指征进行更明确的定义。