ABSTRACT
Background: While the biomechanical importance of the hip capsule is well described, there remains controversy over the necessity of routine capsular closure after hip arthroscopy. Purpose: To perform a meta-analysis of clinical studies to compare pooled outcomes of complete hip capsular closure cohorts against unrepaired hip capsule cohorts. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL/EBSCO, and Scopus were queried in February 2022 for studies that directly compared clinical outcomes for hip arthroscopy patients treated with either complete capsular closure or an unrepaired capsule. Outcomes assessed were incidence of revision hip arthroscopy, incidence of subsequent conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), and improvement from baseline in modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS) activities of daily living (ADL), HOS sports specific (SS) subscale, Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) ADL, and HAGOS SS subscale. A pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) was used to compare changes in mHHS. A pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to compare changes in the ADL and SS outcomes. A pooled risk ratio (RR) was used to compare the probability of revision hip arthroscopy and conversion to THA based on capsular management. For pooled outcomes where heterogeneity was regarded as potentially unimportant, a fixed-effects model was implemented. For pooled outcomes with considerable heterogeneity, a random-effects model was implemented. Results: Of the 1896 records identified in our search, 11 studies (1897 patients) were included. A significantly higher improvement in mHHS (WMD, -3.72; 95% CI, -4.95 to -2.50; P < .00001) and ADL outcomes (SMD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.54 to -0.07; P = .01) were seen after complete capsular closure. There was a significantly lower probability of subsequent revision hip arthroscopy (RR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.45; P = .008) and conversion to THA (RR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.06 to 3.79; P = .03) after complete capsular repair. There was no difference in SS outcomes (SMD, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.13; P = .81) between the 2 groups. Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrated that routine complete capsular closure after hip arthroscopy led to superior clinical outcomes relative to unrepaired hip capsules.
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Many clinicians, trainers, and athletes do not have a true understanding of the effects of commonly used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) on performance and health. OBJECTIVE: To provide an evidence-based review of 7 commonly used pharmacological interventions for performance enhancement in athletes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Scopus databases were searched on April 8, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) assessing the performance-enhancing effects of the following interventions were included: androgenic anabolic steroids (AAS), growth hormone (GH), selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs), creatine, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors, recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO), and cannabis. STUDY DESIGN: Umbrella review of SRs and MAs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4. DATA EXTRACTION: Primary outcomes collected were (1) body mass, (2) muscle strength, (3) performance, and (4) recovery. Adverse effects were also noted. RESULTS: A total of 27 papers evaluating 5 pharmacological interventions met inclusion criteria. No studies evaluating SARMs or ACE-inhibitors were included. AAS lead to a 5% to 52% increase in strength and a 0.62 standard mean difference in lean body mass with subsequent lipid derangements. GH alters body composition, without providing a strength or performance benefit, but potential risks include soft tissue edema, fatigue, arthralgias, and carpel tunnel syndrome. Creatine use during resistance training can safely increase total and lean body mass, strength, and performance in high-intensity, short-duration, repetitive tasks. Limited evidence supports rHuEPO benefit on performance despite increases in both VO2max and maximal power output, and severe cardiovascular risks are documented. Cannabis provides no performance benefit and may even impair athletic performance. CONCLUSION: In young healthy persons and athletes, creatine can safely provide a performance-enhancing benefit when taken in controlled doses. AAS, GH, and rHuEPO are associated with severe adverse events and do not support a performance benefit, despite showing the ability to change bodily composition, strength, and/or physiologic measures. Cannabis may have an ergolytic, instead of ergogenic, effect.
ABSTRACT
Horizontal cleavage tears (HCTs) are challenging meniscal tear patterns, as they split the meniscus into inferior and superior leaflets, while also involving the central, less vascular portions of the meniscus. Circumferential compression sutures using an all-inside self-retrieving suture passing device like the Novostitch Pro (Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA) have demonstrated the ability to create stable repair constructs with uniform compression across both leaflets in the setting of HCTs. Additionally, biological augmentation of meniscal repairs using a marrow venting procedure (MVP) has demonstrated superior clinical outcomes relative to isolated meniscal repairs. Thus, the purpose of this technical note is to outline our procedure for implementing circumferential compression sutures and biologic augmentation using an MVP for repairing an HCT of the lateral meniscus.
