Integrity of the hip capsule measured with magnetic resonance imaging after capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy in hip arthroscopy

Standard

Integrity of the hip capsule measured with magnetic resonance imaging after capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy in hip arthroscopy. / Bech, Niels H.; van Dijk, Lode A.; de Waard, Sheryl et al.

In: World journal of orthopedics, Vol. 13, No. 4, 2022, p. 400-407.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

BibTeX

@article{0e3799cb9ec64e60a988067577cc8b64,

title = "Integrity of the hip capsule measured with magnetic resonance imaging after capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy in hip arthroscopy",

abstract = "BACKGROUND Current literature shows no clear answer on the question how to manage the capsule after hip arthroscopy. Regarding patient reported outcome measures there seems to be no difference between capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy. AIM To evaluate and compare the integrity of the hip capsule measured on a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan after capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy. METHODS A case series study was performed; a random sample of patients included in a trial comparing capsular repair vs unrepaired capsulotomy had a postoperative MRI scan. The presence of a capsular defect and gap size were independently evaluated on MRI. RESULTS A total of 28 patients (29 hips) were included. Patient demographics were comparable between treatment groups. There were 2 capsular defects in the capsular repair group and 7 capsular defects in the unrepaired capsulotomy group (P = 0.13). In the group of patients with a defect, median gap sizes at the acetabular side were 5.9 mm (range: 2.7-9.0) in the repaired and 8.0 mm (range: 4.5-18.0) in the unrepaired group (P = 0.462). At the muscular side gap sizes were 6.6 mm (range: 4.1-9.0) in the repaired group and 11.5 mm (range: 3.0-18.0) in the unrepaired group (P = 0.857). The calculated Odds ratio (OR) for having a capsular defect with an increasing lateral center-edge (CE) angle was 1.12 (P = 0.06). The OR for having a capsular defect is lower in the group of patients that underwent a labral repair with an OR of 0.1 (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION There is no significant difference in capsular defects between capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy. Regarding clinical characteristics our case series shows that a larger CE angle increases the likelihood of a capsular defect and the presence of a labral repair decreases the likelihood of a capsular defect.",

keywords = "Arthroscopy, Capsule, Hip, Magnetic resonance imaging, Thickness",

author = "Bech, {Niels H.} and {van Dijk}, {Lode A.} and {de Waard}, Sheryl and Gwendolyn Vuurberg and Sierevelt, {Inger N.} and Kerkhoffs, {Gino M. M. J.} and Daniēl Haverkamp",

year = "2022",

doi = "10.5312/wjo.v13.i4.400",

language = "English",

volume = "13",

pages = "400--407",

journal = "World journal of orthopedics",

issn = "2218-5836",

publisher = "di xue qian yuan bian ji bu",

number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Integrity of the hip capsule measured with magnetic resonance imaging after capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy in hip arthroscopy

AU - Bech, Niels H.

AU - van Dijk, Lode A.

AU - de Waard, Sheryl

AU - Vuurberg, Gwendolyn

AU - Sierevelt, Inger N.

AU - Kerkhoffs, Gino M. M. J.

AU - Haverkamp, Daniēl

PY - 2022

Y1 - 2022

N2 - BACKGROUND Current literature shows no clear answer on the question how to manage the capsule after hip arthroscopy. Regarding patient reported outcome measures there seems to be no difference between capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy. AIM To evaluate and compare the integrity of the hip capsule measured on a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan after capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy. METHODS A case series study was performed; a random sample of patients included in a trial comparing capsular repair vs unrepaired capsulotomy had a postoperative MRI scan. The presence of a capsular defect and gap size were independently evaluated on MRI. RESULTS A total of 28 patients (29 hips) were included. Patient demographics were comparable between treatment groups. There were 2 capsular defects in the capsular repair group and 7 capsular defects in the unrepaired capsulotomy group (P = 0.13). In the group of patients with a defect, median gap sizes at the acetabular side were 5.9 mm (range: 2.7-9.0) in the repaired and 8.0 mm (range: 4.5-18.0) in the unrepaired group (P = 0.462). At the muscular side gap sizes were 6.6 mm (range: 4.1-9.0) in the repaired group and 11.5 mm (range: 3.0-18.0) in the unrepaired group (P = 0.857). The calculated Odds ratio (OR) for having a capsular defect with an increasing lateral center-edge (CE) angle was 1.12 (P = 0.06). The OR for having a capsular defect is lower in the group of patients that underwent a labral repair with an OR of 0.1 (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION There is no significant difference in capsular defects between capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy. Regarding clinical characteristics our case series shows that a larger CE angle increases the likelihood of a capsular defect and the presence of a labral repair decreases the likelihood of a capsular defect.

AB - BACKGROUND Current literature shows no clear answer on the question how to manage the capsule after hip arthroscopy. Regarding patient reported outcome measures there seems to be no difference between capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy. AIM To evaluate and compare the integrity of the hip capsule measured on a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan after capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy. METHODS A case series study was performed; a random sample of patients included in a trial comparing capsular repair vs unrepaired capsulotomy had a postoperative MRI scan. The presence of a capsular defect and gap size were independently evaluated on MRI. RESULTS A total of 28 patients (29 hips) were included. Patient demographics were comparable between treatment groups. There were 2 capsular defects in the capsular repair group and 7 capsular defects in the unrepaired capsulotomy group (P = 0.13). In the group of patients with a defect, median gap sizes at the acetabular side were 5.9 mm (range: 2.7-9.0) in the repaired and 8.0 mm (range: 4.5-18.0) in the unrepaired group (P = 0.462). At the muscular side gap sizes were 6.6 mm (range: 4.1-9.0) in the repaired group and 11.5 mm (range: 3.0-18.0) in the unrepaired group (P = 0.857). The calculated Odds ratio (OR) for having a capsular defect with an increasing lateral center-edge (CE) angle was 1.12 (P = 0.06). The OR for having a capsular defect is lower in the group of patients that underwent a labral repair with an OR of 0.1 (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION There is no significant difference in capsular defects between capsular repair or unrepaired capsulotomy. Regarding clinical characteristics our case series shows that a larger CE angle increases the likelihood of a capsular defect and the presence of a labral repair decreases the likelihood of a capsular defect.

KW - Arthroscopy

KW - Capsule

KW - Hip

KW - Magnetic resonance imaging

KW - Thickness

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85129636388&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5312/wjo.v13.i4.400

DO - 10.5312/wjo.v13.i4.400

M3 - Article

C2 - 35582156

VL - 13

SP - 400

EP - 407

JO - World journal of orthopedics

JF - World journal of orthopedics

SN - 2218-5836

IS - 4

ER -

ID: 23556355

Generic Portal