Routine Capsular Closure With Hip Arthroscopic Surgery Results in Superior Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

Background:

In hip arthroscopic surgery, capsulotomy is performed to improve visualization and allow instrumentation of the joint. Traditionally, the defect has been left unrepaired; however, increasing evidence suggests that this may contribute to persistent pain and iatrogenic capsular instability. Nevertheless, the clinical benefit of performing routine capsular repair remains controversial.

Purpose/Hypothesis:

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of routine capsular closure on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), hypothesizing that superior PROs would be observed with routine capsular closure.

Study Design:

Meta-analysis and systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The terms “hip,”“arthroscopy,”“capsule,”“capsular,”“repair,” and “closure” were used to query Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), SPORTDiscus, and PubMed. Articles with PROs stratified by capsular management were included. Multivariate mixed-effects metaregression models were implemented with study-level random-effects and fixed-effects moderators for capsular closure versus no repair and after controlling for surgical indication and preoperative PROs. The effect of repair on both the postoperative score and the change in scores was evaluated via the Harris Hip Score (HHS)/modified HHS (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS)–Activities of Daily Living (ADL), and HOS–Sport Specific Subscale (SSS), with a supplemental analysis of additional outcomes.

Results:

Of 432 initial articles, 36 were eligible for analysis, with results for 5132 hip arthroscopic procedures. The capsule was repaired in 3427 arthroscopic procedures and unrepaired in 1705. Capsular repair was associated with significantly higher postoperative HHS/mHHS (2.011; SE, 0.743 [95% CI, 0.554-3.467]; P = .007), HOS-ADL (3.635; SE, 0.873 [95% CI, 1.923-5.346]; P < .001), and HOS-SSS (4.137; SE, 1.205 [95% CI, 1.775-6.499]; P < .001) scores as well as significantly superior improvement on the HHS/mHHS (2.571; SE, 0.878 [95% CI, 0.849-4.292]; P = .003), HOS-ADL (3.315; SE, 1.131 [95% CI, 1.099-5.531]; P = .003), and HOS-SSS (3.605; SE, 1.689 [95% CI, 0.295-6.915]; P = .033).

Conclusion:

This meta-analysis is the largest to date evaluating the effect of capsular closure on PROs and demonstrates significantly higher mean postoperative scores and significantly superior improvement with repair, while controlling for the effects of preoperative score and surgical indication. The true magnitude of the benefit of capsular repair may be clarified by large prospective randomized studies using PRO measures specifically targeted and validated for hip arthroscopic surgery/preservation.