RESUMO
PURPOSE: To systematically review studies comparing outcomes of allograft versus autograft for hip labral reconstruction. METHODS: A systematic review following guidelines established by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) was performed in 3 databases using the terms "labrum," "hip," "acetabulum," "reconstruction," "augmentation," "allograft," and "autograft." Data on study characteristics, patient demographic characteristics, follow-up time, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), rates of revision surgery, and rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were collected. RESULTS: Three studies were included, with Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) scores ranging from 17 to 23. Among 92 patients receiving allografts, the mean ages ranged from 30.6 to 34.8 years; mean follow-up times, from 34.6 to 66.1 months; revision rates, from 0% to 23.6%; and conversion-to-THA rates, from 0% to 20%. Among 185 patients receiving autografts, the mean ages ranged from 34.6 to 35.9 years; mean follow-up times, from 32.7 to 80.8 months; revision rates, from 0% to 7.3%; and conversion-to-THA rates, from 0% to 6.7%. One study reported significantly higher revision rates in the allograft group. All studies reported no statistically significant differences in postoperative PROs, and all postoperative PROs significantly improved compared with preoperative PROs. Rates of achievement of the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state, reported by 1 study, were statistically similar between the 2 groups and ranged from 55.6% to 100% for the allograft group and from 53.8% to 84.6% for the autograft group. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between allograft and autograft patients in terms of postoperative PROs; however, all PRO measures were slightly higher in allograft patients. Both revision and conversion-to-THA rates were higher in allograft patients in 2 studies, with the level of significance being reached in terms of revision in 1 study. The third study reported zero revisions and conversions to THA in allograft and autograft patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To systematically review clinical and functional outcomes of endoscopic repairs of hip abductor tendon tears. METHODS: A search following guidelines established by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases using variations of the terms "endoscopy," "gluteus medius," "hip abductor," "outcome," "success," and "failure." Data for patient demographics, tear severity and location, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), clinical benefit, and rates of retears and revision surgery were collected and tabulated. Forest plots depicting preoperative versus postoperative PROs were generated. Quality assessment was performed using the modified Coleman Methodology Score. RESULTS: In total, 13 studies, 3 Level III and 10 Level IV, were included in this review, with a total of 272 patients whose ages ranged from 46.0 to 66.9 years and follow-up times from 16.4 to 46.7 months. Most tears were isolated to the gluteus medius, with the number of partial- versus full-thickness tears being similar. Trendelenburg gait, reported by 4 studies, persisted in 0% to 13.6% of patients after repair. Of 9 studies reporting both preoperative and postoperative PROs at latest follow-up, 8 reported significant improvements in all PROs (P < .05). In 5 studies, rates of achieving minimal clinically important difference and patient-acceptable symptomatic state ranged from 50.0% to 93.3% and 40.7% to 75.0%, respectively. Surgical complication rates were 0% in 11 studies and 4.3% and 18.2% in 2 studies. Retear rates were 0% in 10 studies and ranged from 6.7% to 33.3% in 3 studies. Rates of revision due to retear, reported by 12 studies, were 0% in 8 studies and ranged from 2.2% to 13.0% in 4studies. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic repairs of both partial- and full-thickness hip abductor tendon tears have good-to-excellent PROs and low complication, retear, and revision rates. However, rates of minimal clinically important difference and patient-acceptable symptomatic state achievement rates are highly variable and less than favorable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, a systematic review of Level III and IV studies.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To systematically review outcomes of joint preservation procedures for chondral lesions of the hip through analysis of survival rates and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS: A literature search from 2018 to May 2023 was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines in 3 databases: PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar. Studies were included if they reported on outcomes of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for the treatment of chondral lesions of the hip joint and if there were quantifiable postoperative outcome measures. Quality assessment was completed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included, with 20 noncomparative and 7 comparative studies. Microfracture (MFx) was the most common procedure, reported in 17 studies. Other procedures include autologous chondrocyte transplantation (ACT) (5 studies), autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) (3 studies), and MFx in conjunction with CarGel (3 studies). Seven other novel procedures were reported in individual separate studies. Survival rates, defined by no revision surgery or conversion to total hip arthroscopy (THA) at latest follow-up, for MFx (14 studies), AMIC (3 studies), and MFx in conjunction with CarGel (3 studies) ranged from 59.1% to 100%, 92.9% to 100%, and 94.4% to 95.7%, respectively. Survival rates of ACT, biological reconstruction, debridement and abrasion, microfragmented autologous adipose tissue transplantation, and ChondroFiller gel were all reported once in separate studies with rates of 100%, 100%, 85.4%, 100%, and 92.3%, respectively. All studies included PROs, most reporting statistically significant improvements (P < .05) at the latest follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated MFx remained the most commonly performed technique, but with lower survival and higher conversion to THA rates than in studies before 2018. Novel techniques that were performed in conjunction with MFx or that avoided MFx altogether had higher overall survival rates despite being minimally performed. Most patients across all techniques demonstrated significant improvements in PROs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.
RESUMO
Intra-articular injections prior to hip arthroscopy are often used to diagnose and conservatively manage hip pathologies, such as femoroacetabular impingement, labral tears, and chondral lesions. As a diagnostic tool, the relief of hip pain following an intra-articular injection helps pinpoint the primary source of pain and assists surgeons in recommending arthroscopic intervention for underlying intra-articular pathologies. However, when injections are not sufficiently spaced apart in time prior to hip arthroscopy, there is an elevated risk of postoperative infection. This systematic review aims to assess whether preoperative intra-articular injections prior to hip arthroscopy are associated with an increased risk of postoperative infection and to determine the safety timeframe for administering such injections prior to the procedure. A comprehensive search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies examining the relationship between preoperative intra-articular injections and postoperative infection following hip arthroscopy. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the risk of infection between patients who received injections prior to hip arthroscopy at varying intervals and those who did not receive any preoperative injections. Five studies were included (four level III and one level IV), which consisted of 58,576 patients (58.4% female). Injections administered anytime prior to hip arthroscopy posed a significantly higher risk of infection compared to no history of prior injections (risk ratio: 1.45, 95% confidence interval: 1.14-1.85, P = 0.003). However, upon subanalysis, the risk of infection was significantly higher among patients who received injections within three months prior to hip arthroscopy compared to those who did not receive injections (risk ratio: 1.55, 95% confidence interval: 1.19-2.01, P = 0.001). Additionally, no significant difference in infection risk was observed when injections were administered more than three months before hip arthroscopy compared to no injections (risk ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 0.56-1.99, P = 0.87). The findings suggest that patients undergoing hip arthroscopy who have previously received intra-articular injections may face a statistically higher risk of postoperative infection, particularly when the injection is administered within three months prior to hip arthroscopy. Consequently, surgeons should exercise caution and avoid administering intra-articular injections to patients scheduled for hip arthroscopy within the subsequent three months to mitigate the increased risk of infection.
RESUMO
Recent studies have shown that low preoperative resilience may lead to inferior outcomes following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate whether preoperative patient resilience is associated with outcome measures, including patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) and sleep quality, following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. To perform the review, a literature search was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the PubMed and Embase databases to gather studies related to the influence of preoperative resilience on postoperative outcomes of rotator cuff repair. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS). Seven studies with 584 patients were included. Of 36 total reported postoperative outcomes, including PROMs and sleep quality, 14 had a significant positive correlation with higher preoperative resilience. One study reported that higher resilience was significantly correlated with worse sleep quality at a two-week follow-up but not at further follow-ups of up to 24 weeks. Significant differences in outcomes between patients with varying levels of resilience were assessed in five studies, all of which found that patients with higher resilience had significantly better outcomes or no significant differences in outcomes between patients with varying levels of preoperative resilience. In no study was it reported that patients with low resilience had better outcomes. Overall, approximately half of all reported postoperative outcome data was found to be significantly associated with preoperative resilience. Therefore, clinicians should preemptively identify those with low resilience and administer psychological interventions to limit inferior outcomes following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.
RESUMO
There exists a considerable amount of evidence regarding short-term outcomes of shoulder arthroscopy in athletes; however, mid- to long-term data are limited. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to evaluate studies assessing mid- to long-term outcomes and rates of return to sport in athletes undergoing primary shoulder arthroscopy. A search for the systematic review was performed in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase on 14 March 2023. Study parameters, as well as their respective outcomes, were described in detail and compiled into diagrams. Five studies were included, which contained data on a total of 307 shoulders in patients with mean ages ranging from 20.3 to 26.9 years and mean follow-up times ranging from 6.3 to 14 years. The arthroscopic Bankart repair was the primary surgical intervention performed in all five studies. The overall rate of return to sport was 84% (range, 70-100%) across the studies. The rate of return to sport at pre-injury level was 65.2% (range, 40-82.6%) across four studies. The overall rate of recurrent instability was 17.3%, with redislocation specifically occurring in 13.7% of patients across all studies. The overall rate of revision surgery was 11.1%. Athletes who underwent primary shoulder arthroscopy demonstrated favorable outcomes and a high rate of RTS at a minimum follow-up of 5 years. However, rates of recurrent instability, redislocation, and revision surgery occurred at less than favorable numbers, which emphasizes the importance of proper patient selection when considering candidates for arthroscopic versus open repairs.