A Systematic Review of Arthroscopic Versus Open Tenotomy of Iliopsoas Tendonitis After Total Hip Replacement.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review of the literature comparing patient outcomes following arthroscopic and open operative management of iliopsoas tendonitis (IPT) following total hip replacement (THR). METHODS: This review study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Inclusion criteria were as follows outcome studies following open or arthroscopic iliopsoas tendon release after THR with at least 6 months of follow-up, English language, and human studies. The exclusion criteria included case reports, articles evaluating nonsurgical management or cup revision, and articles without a specific diagnosis of IPT or in which results between open and arthroscopic treatment were reported in conjunction. RESULTS: A total of 131 studies were initially retrieved, with 7 satisfying all inclusion criteria (4 studies on arthroscopic tenotomy and 3 studies on open tenotomy). The review included a total of 88 patients with IPT-61 patients treated arthroscopically and 27 patients treated with open tenotomy. In total, 77 of the 88 patients demonstrated successful outcomes following surgery. In the group treated with arthroscopy, 91.8% (56/61) of patients had successful outcomes, whereas in those treated with open tenotomy, 77.8% (21/27) of patients had successful outcomes. Of patients with signs of mechanical impingement from acetabular component overhang, those who underwent open tenotomy had complete pain relief in 6/8 patients (75%) compared to arthroscopic tenotomy in which there was relief in 40/43 patients (93%). CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic iliopsoas release for management of IPT is suggested to be an effective minimally invasive operative technique that may also yield a lower complication rate in comparison to open tenotomy. Tenotomy, both arthroscopic and open, are successful treatment options for IPT, including those with signs of mechanical impingement, and are recommended prior to cup revision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV, systematic review of level IV studies.