Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association · 2026
Periportal and Puncture Capsulotomy Techniques Have Similar Outcomes to Traditional Capsulotomies With Closure in Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 2-Year Outcomes.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Allen Brandon J, Mun Jeffrey S, Chenna Srish S, Poutre Rachel L, Dowley Kieran S, Gillinov Stephen M, Siddiq Bilal S, Cherian Nathan J, Eberlin Chris T, Martin Scott D
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate capsulotomy techniques through patient-reported outcome measures, rates of revision arthroscopy, conversion to total hip arthroplasty, and achievement of clinically meaningful outcomes.
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases were queried in June 2024 for studies that could be used to compare capsular management strategies primarily via patient-reported outcome measures at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement, minimum 2-year follow-up, and reported capsulotomy type. Based on the capsular management technique performed, groups were defined as interportal capsulotomy with closure, T-capsulotomy with complete closure, periportal capsulotomy, or puncture capsulotomy. Heterogeneity was adjusted for using metaregression models.
RESULTS: Of the 1322 unique studies identified in our search, 8 studies (1961 hips) were included. The combined puncture capsulotomy and periportal capsulotomy group (mean difference range, 21.30-32.56) performed similarly to interportal capsulotomy with closure (mean difference range, 18.33-32.00) and T-capsulotomy with complete closure (mean difference range, 20.70-23.30) groups in modified Harris Hip Score (P = .274). This continued when evaluating revision and total hip arthroplasty rates (proportion range, 0.0-0.05 and 0.0-0.01, respectively). Metaregression adjustments found baseline modified Harris Hip Score significantly influences mean differences (adjusted mean difference, -0.53 [-0.83, -0.23], P = .0006). When considering the achievement rates of minimal clinically important difference, all capsulotomy methods were similar for modified Harris Hip Score; however, minimal clinically important difference thresholds had a significant influence of -0.46 (95% confidence interval, [-0.54, -0.39], P < .0001) based on a metaregression model.
CONCLUSIONS: Periportal and puncture capsulotomy techniques did not yield statistically different outcomes compared with traditional capsulotomy techniques that use capsular closure at 2-year follow-up.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies.
METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases were queried in June 2024 for studies that could be used to compare capsular management strategies primarily via patient-reported outcome measures at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement, minimum 2-year follow-up, and reported capsulotomy type. Based on the capsular management technique performed, groups were defined as interportal capsulotomy with closure, T-capsulotomy with complete closure, periportal capsulotomy, or puncture capsulotomy. Heterogeneity was adjusted for using metaregression models.
RESULTS: Of the 1322 unique studies identified in our search, 8 studies (1961 hips) were included. The combined puncture capsulotomy and periportal capsulotomy group (mean difference range, 21.30-32.56) performed similarly to interportal capsulotomy with closure (mean difference range, 18.33-32.00) and T-capsulotomy with complete closure (mean difference range, 20.70-23.30) groups in modified Harris Hip Score (P = .274). This continued when evaluating revision and total hip arthroplasty rates (proportion range, 0.0-0.05 and 0.0-0.01, respectively). Metaregression adjustments found baseline modified Harris Hip Score significantly influences mean differences (adjusted mean difference, -0.53 [-0.83, -0.23], P = .0006). When considering the achievement rates of minimal clinically important difference, all capsulotomy methods were similar for modified Harris Hip Score; however, minimal clinically important difference thresholds had a significant influence of -0.46 (95% confidence interval, [-0.54, -0.39], P < .0001) based on a metaregression model.
CONCLUSIONS: Periportal and puncture capsulotomy techniques did not yield statistically different outcomes compared with traditional capsulotomy techniques that use capsular closure at 2-year follow-up.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies.