Cargando…

A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of repaired versus unrepaired interportal capsulotomy in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appearance of the hip capsule in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) undergoing hip arthroscopy with capsular repair versus non-repair. A multicenter clinical trial was performed with 31 patients (49 hips) un...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kraeutler, Matthew J, Strickland, Colin D, Brick, Matthew J, Garabekyan, Tigran, Woon, Jason T K, Chadayammuri, Vivek, Mei-Dan, Omer
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6328748/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30647924
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hny045
_version_ 1783386704094167040
author Kraeutler, Matthew J
Strickland, Colin D
Brick, Matthew J
Garabekyan, Tigran
Woon, Jason T K
Chadayammuri, Vivek
Mei-Dan, Omer
author_facet Kraeutler, Matthew J
Strickland, Colin D
Brick, Matthew J
Garabekyan, Tigran
Woon, Jason T K
Chadayammuri, Vivek
Mei-Dan, Omer
author_sort Kraeutler, Matthew J
collection PubMed
description The purpose of this study was to evaluate the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appearance of the hip capsule in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) undergoing hip arthroscopy with capsular repair versus non-repair. A multicenter clinical trial was performed with 31 patients (49 hips) undergoing hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAI. A small- to moderate-sized interportal capsulotomy was performed. Each hip was randomized to capsular repair versus non-repair of the interportal capsulotomy. MRI was performed at 6 and 24 weeks postoperatively and was analyzed by two musculoskeletal radiologists. Patients and the radiologists were blinded to the treatment applied. Capsular defect size and capsule thickness were recorded on each scan. Mean patient age was 31.4 years. Capsular repair was performed in 23 (46.9%) hips. Mean capsulotomy length was 35 mm at Center X and 23 mm at Center Y. At 6 weeks postoperatively, a healed hip capsule (with no apparent capsulotomy defect) was observed in 10 (43.4%) hips that underwent capsular repair and 4 (15.4%) hips that did not undergo capsular repair (P = 0.13). At 24 weeks postoperatively, 25/30 hips (83.3%) achieved complete closure of the capsulotomy defect, with no significant difference between treatment groups. Repair of an interportal capsulotomy following hip arthroscopy for FAI results in a non-significantly higher percentage of healed hip capsules at 6 weeks postoperatively compared with leaving the capsule unrepaired, though the difference normalizes by 24-week follow-up. Repair of a small- to moderate-sized interportal capsulotomy does not provide a radiographic advantage following hip arthroscopy for FAI.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6328748
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63287482019-01-15 A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of repaired versus unrepaired interportal capsulotomy in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement Kraeutler, Matthew J Strickland, Colin D Brick, Matthew J Garabekyan, Tigran Woon, Jason T K Chadayammuri, Vivek Mei-Dan, Omer J Hip Preserv Surg Research Articles The purpose of this study was to evaluate the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appearance of the hip capsule in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) undergoing hip arthroscopy with capsular repair versus non-repair. A multicenter clinical trial was performed with 31 patients (49 hips) undergoing hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAI. A small- to moderate-sized interportal capsulotomy was performed. Each hip was randomized to capsular repair versus non-repair of the interportal capsulotomy. MRI was performed at 6 and 24 weeks postoperatively and was analyzed by two musculoskeletal radiologists. Patients and the radiologists were blinded to the treatment applied. Capsular defect size and capsule thickness were recorded on each scan. Mean patient age was 31.4 years. Capsular repair was performed in 23 (46.9%) hips. Mean capsulotomy length was 35 mm at Center X and 23 mm at Center Y. At 6 weeks postoperatively, a healed hip capsule (with no apparent capsulotomy defect) was observed in 10 (43.4%) hips that underwent capsular repair and 4 (15.4%) hips that did not undergo capsular repair (P = 0.13). At 24 weeks postoperatively, 25/30 hips (83.3%) achieved complete closure of the capsulotomy defect, with no significant difference between treatment groups. Repair of an interportal capsulotomy following hip arthroscopy for FAI results in a non-significantly higher percentage of healed hip capsules at 6 weeks postoperatively compared with leaving the capsule unrepaired, though the difference normalizes by 24-week follow-up. Repair of a small- to moderate-sized interportal capsulotomy does not provide a radiographic advantage following hip arthroscopy for FAI. Oxford University Press 2018-11-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6328748/ /pubmed/30647924 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hny045 Text en © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Research Articles
Kraeutler, Matthew J
Strickland, Colin D
Brick, Matthew J
Garabekyan, Tigran
Woon, Jason T K
Chadayammuri, Vivek
Mei-Dan, Omer
A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of repaired versus unrepaired interportal capsulotomy in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement
title A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of repaired versus unrepaired interportal capsulotomy in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement
title_full A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of repaired versus unrepaired interportal capsulotomy in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement
title_fullStr A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of repaired versus unrepaired interportal capsulotomy in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement
title_full_unstemmed A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of repaired versus unrepaired interportal capsulotomy in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement
title_short A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of repaired versus unrepaired interportal capsulotomy in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement
title_sort multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of repaired versus unrepaired interportal capsulotomy in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6328748/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30647924
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hny045
work_keys_str_mv AT kraeutlermatthewj amulticenterdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingmagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofrepairedversusunrepairedinterportalcapsulotomyinpatientsundergoinghiparthroscopyforfemoroacetabularimpingement
AT stricklandcolind amulticenterdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingmagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofrepairedversusunrepairedinterportalcapsulotomyinpatientsundergoinghiparthroscopyforfemoroacetabularimpingement
AT brickmatthewj amulticenterdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingmagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofrepairedversusunrepairedinterportalcapsulotomyinpatientsundergoinghiparthroscopyforfemoroacetabularimpingement
AT garabekyantigran amulticenterdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingmagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofrepairedversusunrepairedinterportalcapsulotomyinpatientsundergoinghiparthroscopyforfemoroacetabularimpingement
AT woonjasontk amulticenterdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingmagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofrepairedversusunrepairedinterportalcapsulotomyinpatientsundergoinghiparthroscopyforfemoroacetabularimpingement
AT chadayammurivivek amulticenterdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingmagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofrepairedversusunrepairedinterportalcapsulotomyinpatientsundergoinghiparthroscopyforfemoroacetabularimpingement
AT meidanomer amulticenterdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingmagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofrepairedversusunrepairedinterportalcapsulotomyinpatientsundergoinghiparthroscopyforfemoroacetabularimpingement
AT kraeutlermatthewj multicenterdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingmagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofrepairedversusunrepairedinterportalcapsulotomyinpatientsundergoinghiparthroscopyforfemoroacetabularimpingement
AT stricklandcolind multicenterdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingmagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofrepairedversusunrepairedinterportalcapsulotomyinpatientsundergoinghiparthroscopyforfemoroacetabularimpingement
AT brickmatthewj multicenterdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingmagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofrepairedversusunrepairedinterportalcapsulotomyinpatientsundergoinghiparthroscopyforfemoroacetabularimpingement
AT garabekyantigran multicenterdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingmagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofrepairedversusunrepairedinterportalcapsulotomyinpatientsundergoinghiparthroscopyforfemoroacetabularimpingement
AT woonjasontk multicenterdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingmagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofrepairedversusunrepairedinterportalcapsulotomyinpatientsundergoinghiparthroscopyforfemoroacetabularimpingement
AT chadayammurivivek multicenterdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingmagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofrepairedversusunrepairedinterportalcapsulotomyinpatientsundergoinghiparthroscopyforfemoroacetabularimpingement
AT meidanomer multicenterdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrialcomparingmagneticresonanceimagingevaluationofrepairedversusunrepairedinterportalcapsulotomyinpatientsundergoinghiparthroscopyforfemoroacetabularimpingement