The Definition of Failure in Hip Arthroscopy May Include Factors Outside of Reoperation: A Systematic Review

{"title":"The Definition of Failure in Hip Arthroscopy May Include Factors Outside of Reoperation: A Systematic Review","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100962","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To perform a systematic review about the varying definitions of “failure” of hip arthroscopy (HA) in the current literature and to provide a recommendation for the standardization of defining failure of HA.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identity Level I-IV clinical studies on HA failure published between January 2016 and July 2021 according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies of patients who underwent an arthroscopic hip procedure and included a definition of failure. Studies with patients who underwent open hip procedures and non–full-text articles were excluded.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 1,290 titles, 85 (6.6%) met inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review. The most common definition of HA failure used was the need for any subsequent ipsilateral hip surgery (80/85, 94.1%). Among studies that noted reoperation as a cause for failure, conversion to total hip arthroplasty was most frequently cited (66/85, 77.6%) followed by any other reoperation on the ipsilateral hip, including repeat HA, hip resurfacing, and hip periacetabular osteotomy (65/85, 76.5%). Multiple studies used subjective patient-reported outcomes, with use of the modified Harris Hip Score being the most common (17/85, 20%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>There are numerous definitions of the term “failure” of HA used by authors in the peer-reviewed literature. A standardized definition of HA failure should be multifactorial. It may include any unplanned subsequent procedures; patient-reported outcomes with emphasis on minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and/or patient acceptable symptom state values; and the inability to return to normal function or sports.</div></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><div>Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34631,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666061X24000890","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

To perform a systematic review about the varying definitions of “failure” of hip arthroscopy (HA) in the current literature and to provide a recommendation for the standardization of defining failure of HA.

Methods

A systematic search of electronic databases was conducted to identity Level I-IV clinical studies on HA failure published between January 2016 and July 2021 according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of studies of patients who underwent an arthroscopic hip procedure and included a definition of failure. Studies with patients who underwent open hip procedures and non–full-text articles were excluded.

Results

Of 1,290 titles, 85 (6.6%) met inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this review. The most common definition of HA failure used was the need for any subsequent ipsilateral hip surgery (80/85, 94.1%). Among studies that noted reoperation as a cause for failure, conversion to total hip arthroplasty was most frequently cited (66/85, 77.6%) followed by any other reoperation on the ipsilateral hip, including repeat HA, hip resurfacing, and hip periacetabular osteotomy (65/85, 76.5%). Multiple studies used subjective patient-reported outcomes, with use of the modified Harris Hip Score being the most common (17/85, 20%).

Conclusions

There are numerous definitions of the term “failure” of HA used by authors in the peer-reviewed literature. A standardized definition of HA failure should be multifactorial. It may include any unplanned subsequent procedures; patient-reported outcomes with emphasis on minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and/or patient acceptable symptom state values; and the inability to return to normal function or sports.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
髋关节镜手术失败的定义可能包括再手术以外的因素:系统回顾
目的 对现有文献中关于髋关节镜手术(HA)"失败 "的不同定义进行系统综述,并为HA失败定义的标准化提供建议。方法 根据《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》指南,对电子数据库进行系统检索,以识别2016年1月至2021年7月间发表的关于HA失败的I-IV级临床研究。纳入标准包括对接受关节镜髋关节手术的患者进行的研究,并包含失败的定义。结果 在1290篇文章中,有85篇(6.6%)符合纳入标准,并在本综述中进行了分析。HA失败最常见的定义是需要随后进行同侧髋关节手术(80/85,94.1%)。在将再次手术作为失败原因的研究中,最常提到的是转为全髋关节置换术(66/85,77.6%),其次是同侧髋关节的任何其他再次手术,包括重复HA、髋关节置换和髋关节胫骨周围截骨术(65/85,76.5%)。多项研究使用了患者主观报告的结果,其中使用改良的 Harris 髋关节评分最为常见(17/85,20%)。HA失败的标准化定义应该是多因素的。它可能包括任何计划外的后续手术;患者报告的结果,重点是最小临床重要性差异、实质性临床获益和/或患者可接受的症状状态值;以及无法恢复正常功能或运动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
218
审稿时长
45 weeks
期刊最新文献
Continuous Meniscal Repair Technique Allows for Shorter Operative Time and Learning Curve Compared With Traditional Vertical Mattress Technique in Controlled Arthroscopic Training in Porcine Model Concomitant Popliteomeniscal Fascicles Tears Are Found in 21% of Professional Soccer Players With Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries Mini-Open Technique for Gluteus Medius Tendon Repairs Is Associated With Low Complication Rates and Sustained Improvement in Patient Reported Outcomes at 2-Year Follow-Up The Top-20 Studies About Anterior Shoulder Instability From an Altmetric Analysis Had Higher Levels of Evidence Than Those From a Traditional Bibliometric Analysis Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Augmented With a Reinforced Bioinductive Implant Is Biomechanically Similar to the Native Medial Patellofemoral Ligament at Time Zero in a Cadaveric Model
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1