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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |