Adhesions After Hip Arthroscopy Are Associated With Revision But Show Poorly Defined Criteria for Diagnosis and Operative Management: A Systematic Review
Journal Articles
Overview
Research
Identity
Additional Document Info
View All
Overview
abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the current body of evidence surrounding the diagnosis, management, and clinical outcomes of adhesions that developed after hip arthroscopy (HA). METHODS: A systematic search of the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases was designed and conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. Eligible studies included patients with confirmed adhesions after HA that reported one or more of the following: (1) diagnostic procedures and criteria used; (2) indications for and details surrounding surgical management; and (3) clinical outcomes after the operative management of adhesions (e.g., patient-reported outcome measures). RESULTS: Nineteen studies involving a total of 4,145 patients (4,211 hips; 38% female sex) were included in this review. The quality of evidence was found to be fair for both comparative studies (mean, 17; range, 13-21) and noncomparative studies (mean, 10; range, 5-12) according to the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) instrument, with the level of evidence ranging from IIB to IV. Adhesions were often diagnosed intraoperatively at the time of revision surgery (10 of 19 studies, 53%), with only 3 studies specifying the criteria used to adjudicate adhesions. The most common indication for operative management (i.e., release or lysis of adhesions) was persistent pain (9 of 19, 47%), but this was often grossly stated for revision HA rather than being specific to adhesions. Patient-reported outcome measures were the most reported postoperative outcomes (9 of 19, 47%) and generally showed significant improvement from preoperative assessment across the short-term follow-up period (range, 24.5-38.1 months). There was a paucity of objective measures of clinical improvement (3 of 19, 16%) and of mid- and long-term follow-up (i.e., 5-7 years and ≥10 years, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the growing body of evidence suggesting that adhesions are highly contributory to revision HA, there is ambiguity in the diagnostic approach and indications for operative management of adhesions. Additionally, although the operative management of adhesions after HA has shown satisfactory clinical outcomes in the short term, there is a paucity of research elucidating the mid- to long-term outcomes, as well as minimal use of objective assessment of clinical improvement (e.g., biomechanics). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies.
