Comparison of Walking Biomechanics After Physical Therapist-Led Care or Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Secondary Analysis From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is characterized by chondrolabral damage and hip pain. The specific biomechanics used by people with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome during daily activities may exacerbate their symptoms. Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome can be treated nonoperatively or surgically; however, differential treatment effects on walking biomechanics have not been examined. PURPOSE: To compare the 12-month effects of physical therapist-led care or arthroscopy on trunk, pelvis, and hip kinematics as well as hip moments during walking. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm superiority randomized controlled trial subsample; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A subsample of 43 participants from the Australian Full randomised controlled trial of Arthroscopic Surgery for Hip Impingement versus best cONventional (FASHIoN trial) underwent gait analysis and completed the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) at both baseline and 12 months after random allocation to physical therapist-led care (personalized hip therapy; n = 22; mean age 35; 41% female) or arthroscopy (n = 21; mean age 36; 48% female). Changes in trunk, pelvis, and hip biomechanics were compared between treatment groups across the gait cycle using statistical parametric mapping. Associations between changes in iHOT-33 and changes in hip kinematics across 3 planes of motion were examined. RESULTS: As compared with the arthroscopy group, the personalized hip therapy group increased its peak hip adduction moments (mean difference = 0.35 N·m/body weight·height [%] [95% CI, 0.05-0.65]; effect size = 0.72; P = .02). Hip adduction moments in the arthroscopy group were unchanged in response to treatment. No other between-group differences were detected. Improvements in iHOT-33 were not associated with changes in hip kinematics. CONCLUSION: Peak hip adduction moments were increased in the personalized hip therapy group and unchanged in the arthroscopy group. No biomechanical changes favoring arthroscopy were detected, suggesting that personalized hip therapy elicits greater changes in hip moments during walking at 12-month follow-up. Twelve-month changes in hip-related quality of life were not associated with changes in hip kinematics.

Arthroscopic hip surgery compared with personalised hip therapy in people over 16 years old with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: UK FASHIoN RCT.

BACKGROUND: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is an important cause of hip pain in young adults. It can be treated by arthroscopic hip surgery or with physiotherapist-led conservative care. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy with best conservative care. DESIGN: The UK FASHIoN (full trial of arthroscopic surgery for hip impingement compared with non-operative care) trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial that was carried out at 23 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were included if they had femoroacetabular impingement, were aged ≥ 16 years old, had hip pain with radiographic features of cam or pincer morphology (but no osteoarthritis) and were believed to be likely to benefit from hip arthroscopy. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly allocated (1 : 1) to receive hip arthroscopy followed by postoperative physiotherapy, or personalised hip therapy (i.e. an individualised physiotherapist-led programme of conservative care). Randomisation was stratified by impingement type and recruiting centre using a central telephone randomisation service. Outcome assessment and analysis were masked. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was hip-related quality of life, measured by the patient-reported International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) 12 months after randomisation, and analysed by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between July 2012 and July 2016, 648 eligible patients were identified and 348 participants were recruited. In total, 171 participants were allocated to receive hip arthroscopy and 177 participants were allocated to receive personalised hip therapy. Three further patients were excluded from the trial after randomisation because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Follow-up at the primary outcome assessment was 92% (N = 319; hip arthroscopy, n = 157; personalised hip therapy, n = 162). At 12 months, mean International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) score had improved from 39.2 (standard deviation 20.9) points to 58.8 (standard deviation 27.2) points for participants in the hip arthroscopy group, and from 35.6 (standard deviation 18.2) points to 49.7 (standard deviation 25.5) points for participants in personalised hip therapy group. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in International Hip Outcome Tool scores, adjusted for impingement type, sex, baseline International Hip Outcome Tool score and centre, was 6.8 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 12.0) points in favour of hip arthroscopy (p = 0.0093). This estimate of treatment effect exceeded the minimum clinically important difference (6.1 points). Five (83%) of six serious adverse events in the hip arthroscopy group were related to treatment and one serious adverse event in the personalised hip therapy group was not. Thirty-eight (24%) personalised hip therapy patients chose to have hip arthroscopy between 1 and 3 years after randomisation. Nineteen (12%) hip arthroscopy patients had a revision arthroscopy. Eleven (7%) personalised hip therapy patients and three (2%) hip arthroscopy patients had a hip replacement within 3 years. LIMITATIONS: Study participants and treating clinicians were not blinded to the intervention arm. Delays were encountered in participants accessing treatment, particularly surgery. Follow-up lasted for 3 years. CONCLUSION: Hip arthroscopy and personalised hip therapy both improved hip-related quality of life for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Hip arthroscopy led to a greater improvement in quality of life than personalised hip therapy, and this difference was clinically significant at 12 months. This study does not demonstrate cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy compared with personalised hip therapy within the first 12 months. Further follow-up will reveal whether or not the clinical benefits of hip arthroscopy are maintained and whether or not it is cost-effective in the long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN64081839. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

In some people, the ball and the socket of the hip joint develop so that they do not fit together properly. This is called hip impingement, and is an important cause of hip and groin pain in young and middle-aged adults. Treatments include physiotherapy and surgery. Physiotherapy typically involves a programme of 6­10 outpatient consultations that aim to strengthen the muscles around the hip: we called this personalised hip therapy. Surgery can be carried out by a keyhole operation, called a hip arthroscopy, which aims to reshape the hip to prevent impingement. Surgery is normally followed by some physiotherapy. We performed a research study to compare the results of hip arthroscopy and personalised hip therapy in people with hip impingement. A total of 348 people with painful hip impingement in 23 hospitals in the UK agreed to take part. About half were treated with hip arthroscopy and half with personalised hip therapy. We used questionnaires to ask participants about pain in the hip and their ability to do everyday things at 6 months and 1 year after entering the study. At 2 and 3 years, we asked if patients required any additional treatments. We found that both groups improved, but those treated with hip arthroscopy improved a moderate amount more than those treated with personalised hip therapy. However, these improvements were not cost-effective compared with personalised hip therapy at 1 year. We need to see whether or not this difference continues after several years, but the results, so far, suggest that if a person has painful hip impingement, then hip arthroscopy offers greater improvements than personalised hip therapy.

Open reduction and internal fixation versus nonoperative treatment for closed, displaced, intra-articular fractures of the calcaneus: long-term follow-up from the HeFT randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: We report the long-term outcomes of the UK Heel Fracture Trial (HeFT), a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: HeFT recruited 151 patients aged over 16 years with closed displaced, intra-articular fractures of the calcaneus. Patients with significant deformity causing fibular impingement, peripheral vascular disease, or other significant limb injuries were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) or nonoperative treatment. We report Kerr-Atkins scores, self-reported difficulty walking and fitting shoes, and additional surgical procedures at 36, 48, and 60 months. RESULTS: Overall, 60-month outcome data were available for 118 patients (78%; 52 ORIF, 66 nonoperative). After 60 months, mean Kerr-Atkins scores were 79.2 (SD 21.5) for ORIF and 76.4 (SD 22.5) for nonoperative. Mixed effects regression analysis gave an estimated effect size of -0.14 points (95% confidence interval -8.87 to 8.59; p = 0.975) in favour of ORIF. There were no between group differences in difficulty walking (p = 0.175), or on the type of shoes worn (p = 0.432) at 60 months. Additional surgical procedures were conducted on ten participants allocated ORIF, compared to four in the nonoperative group (p = 0.043). CONCLUSION: ORIF of displaced intra-articular calcaneal fractures, not causing fibular impingement, showed no difference in outcomes at 60 months compared to nonoperative treatment, but with an increased risk of additional surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1040-1046.

Trunk, pelvis and lower limb walking biomechanics are similarly altered in those with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome regardless of cam morphology size.

BACKGROUND: Studies of walking in those with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome have found altered pelvis and hip biomechanics. But a whole body, time-contiuous, assessment of biomechanical parameters has not been reported. Additionally, larger cam morphology has been associated with more pain, faster progression to end-stage osteoarthritis and increased cartilage damage but differences in walking biomechanics between large compared to small cam morphologies have not been assessed. RESEARCH QUESTION: Are trunk, pelvis and lower limb biomechanics different between healthy pain-free controls and individuals with FAI syndrome and are those biomechanics different between those with larger, compared to smaller, cam morphologies? METHODS: Twenty four pain-free controls were compared against 41 participants with FAI syndrome who were stratified into two groups according to their maximum alpha angle. Participants underwent three-dimensional motion capture during walking. Trunk, pelvis, and lower limb biomechanics were compared between groups using statistical parametric mapping corrected for walking speed and pain. RESULTS: Compared to pain-free controls, participants with FAI syndrome walked with more trunk anterior tilt (mean difference 7.6°, p < 0.001) as well as less pelvic rise (3°, p < 0.001), hip abduction (-4.6°, p < 0.05) and external rotation (-6.5°, p < 0.05). They also had lower hip flexion (-0.06Nm⋅kg-1, p < 0.05), abduction (-0.07Nm⋅kg-1, p < 0.05) and ankle plantarflexion moments (-0.19Nm⋅kg-1, p < 0.001). These biomechanical differences occurred throughout the gait cycle. There were no differences in walking biomechanics according to cam morphology size. SIGNIFICANCE: Results do not support the hypothesis that larger cam morphology is associated with larger differences in walking biomechanics but did demonstrate general differences in trunk, pelvis and lower limb biomechanics between those with FAI sydrome and pain-free controls. Altered external biomechanics are likely the result of complex sensory-motor strategy resulting from pain inhibition or impingement avoidance. Future studies should examine internal loading in those with FAI sydnrome.

Hip arthroscopy versus best conservative care for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (UK FASHIoN): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is an important cause of hip pain in young adults. It can be treated by arthroscopic hip surgery, including reshaping the hip, or with physiotherapist-led conservative care. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of hip arthroscopy with best conservative care. METHODS: UK FASHIoN is a pragmatic, multicentre, assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial, done at 23 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. We enrolled patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome who presented at these hospitals. Eligible patients were at least 16 years old, had hip pain with radiographic features of cam or pincer morphology but no osteoarthritis, and were believed to be likely to benefit from hip arthroscopy. Patients with bilateral femoroacetabular impingement syndrome were eligible; only the most symptomatic hip was randomly assigned to treatment and followed-up. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive hip arthroscopy or personalised hip therapy (an individualised, supervised, and progressive physiotherapist-led programme of conservative care). Randomisation was stratified by impingement type and recruiting centre and was done by research staff at each hospital, using a central telephone randomisation service. Patients and treating clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation, but researchers who collected the outcome assessments and analysed the results were masked. The primary outcome was hip-related quality of life, as measured by the patient-reported International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) 12 months after randomisation, and analysed in all eligible participants who were allocated to treatment (the intention-to-treat population). This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN64081839, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between July 20, 2012, and July 15, 2016, we identified 648 eligible patients and recruited 348 participants: 171 participants were allocated to receive hip arthroscopy and 177 to receive personalised hip therapy. Three further patients were excluded from the trial after randomisation because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Follow-up at the primary outcome assessment was 92% (319 of 348 participants). At 12 months after randomisation, mean iHOT-33 scores had improved from 39·2 (SD 20·9) to 58·8 (27·2) for participants in the hip arthroscopy group, and from 35·6 (18·2) to 49·7 (25·5) in the personalised hip therapy group. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in iHOT-33 scores, adjusted for impingement type, sex, baseline iHOT-33 score, and centre, was 6·8 (95% CI 1·7-12·0) in favour of hip arthroscopy (p=0·0093). This estimate of treatment effect exceeded the minimum clinically important difference (6·1 points). There were 147 patient-reported adverse events (in 100 [72%] of 138 patients) in the hip arthroscopy group) versus 102 events (in 88 [60%] of 146 patients) in the personalised hip therapy group, with muscle soreness being the most common of these (58 [42%] vs 69 [47%]). There were seven serious adverse events reported by participating hospitals. Five (83%) of six serious adverse events in the hip arthroscopy group were related to treatment, and the one in the personalised hip therapy group was not. There were no treatment-related deaths, but one patient in the hip arthroscopy group developed a hip joint infection after surgery. INTERPRETATION: Hip arthroscopy and personalised hip therapy both improved hip-related quality of life for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Hip arthroscopy led to a greater improvement than did personalised hip therapy, and this difference was clinically significant. Further follow-up will reveal whether the clinical benefits of hip arthroscopy are maintained and whether it is cost effective in the long term. FUNDING: The Health Technology Assessment Programme of the National Institute of Health Research.

Personalised Hip Therapy: development of a non-operative protocol to treat femoroacetabular impingement syndrome in the FASHIoN randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome is increasingly recognised as a cause of hip pain. As part of the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of arthroscopic surgery for FAI syndrome, we developed a protocol for non-operative care and evaluated its feasibility. METHODS: In phase one, we developed a protocol for non-operative care for FAI in the UK National Health Service (NHS), through a process of systematic review and consensus gathering. In phase two, the protocol was tested in an internal pilot RCT for protocol adherence and adverse events. RESULTS: The final protocol, called Personalised Hip Therapy (PHT), consists of four core components led by physiotherapists: detailed patient assessment, education and advice, help with pain relief and an exercise-based programme that is individualised, supervised and progressed over time. PHT is delivered over 12-26 weeks in 6-10 physiotherapist-patient contacts, supplemented by a home exercise programme. In the pilot RCT, 42 patients were recruited and 21 randomised to PHT. Review of treatment case report forms, completed by physiotherapists, showed that 13 patients (62%) received treatment that had closely followed the PHT protocol. 13 patients reported some muscle soreness at 6 weeks, but there were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: PHT provides a structure for the non-operative care of FAI and offers guidance to clinicians and researchers in an evolving area with limited evidence. PHT was deliverable within the National Health Service, is safe, and now forms the comparator to arthroscopic surgery in the UK FASHIoN trial (ISRCTN64081839). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 09754699.