RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of periportal capsulotomy versus interportal capsulotomy with closure using a standard clinical algorithm at a minimum of 2 years after hip arthroscopy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients treated from July 2015 to October 2017 was conducted to determine the effects of 2 capsular management approaches on clinical outcomes. When patient pathology limited adequate exposure via periportal capsulotomy, an interportal capsulotomy was performed. The capsular management approaches were correlated with the following patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 2 years: Hip Outcome Score (HOS), 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool, visual analog scale for pain, and patient satisfaction. Preoperative comparisons between the 2 groups were analyzed using t tests or the Fisher exact test, depending on the category of data. Two-tailed independent t tests were performed to evaluate whether preoperative and follow-up outcome scores were significantly different between patients treated with a periportal capsulotomy and those treated with an interportal capsulotomy. RESULTS: Overall, patients in both groups experienced significant improvements in all PROs on postoperative comparisons at 2-year follow-up (P < .001). The mean changes in the PROs were as follows: HOS-Activities of Daily Living, 24.7 in the periportal group and 23.5 in the interportal group (P = .484); HOS-Sport-Specific Subscale, 30.2 and 31.3, respectively (P = .895); 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool score, 41.9 and 40.2, respectively (P = .564); and visual analog scale pain score, -40.9 mm and -34.5 mm, respectively (P = .791). Additionally, no statistically significant difference in patient satisfaction at 2-year follow-up was found between patients who underwent interportal capsulotomy and those who underwent periportal capsulotomy (P = .604). CONCLUSIONS: At 2-year follow-up, patients who underwent a periportal capsulotomy reported statistically and clinically significant improvements in PROs and satisfaction with the surgical intervention. This study confirms that the use of a simple clinical algorithm for selection of periportal capsulotomy or interportal capsulotomy with closure results in acceptable management decisions as defined by 2-year PROs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.