Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

Capsular plication in the non-deformity hip: impact on post-operative joint stability

Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics20196:3

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40634-019-0172-x

  • Received: 14 October 2018
  • Accepted: 17 January 2019
  • Published:

Abstract

Purpose and hypothesis

The aim of this study was to evaluate the hip joint range of motion after different capsular plication. The study hypothesis proposed that capsular plication after hip arthroscopy may reduce hip external rotation and thus prevent the hip joint instability created by arthroscopic capsulotomies.

Methods

Six fresh frozen human cadavers were studied in the intact state (5 males, 1 females) for a total of 12 non-deformity hips tested. They were fixed to the operating room table using a custom-made apparatus. Three Steinman pins were inserted, the first into ASIS, a parallel pin into the distal femur proximal to inter-epicondylar axis and the third pin into the lateral epicondyle. Simulation of arthroscopic capsulotomies was done progressively with simulation of three capsular plication techniques. The first plication technique consisted of a primary plication shift of the antero-lateral capsule. The distal-medial arm of the iliofemoral ligament was shifted toward the proximal-lateral arm. The second plication technique consisted in adding a longitudinal arm to the capsulotomy, between the lateral arm and the medial arm of the iliofemoral ligament, to create a T-shaped capsulotomy. The resulting two triangular capsular flaps were overlaid onto each other by approximately 5 mm, plicated fully and tighly sutured in a double-breast manner. The third plication technique, called redrapping, consisted in excising the inferior capsular triangular flap (previously made in the second technique), and suturing the latero-anterior superior capsular flap to the medial arm of the iliofemoral ligament, superimposing the capsular edges for closure. External rotation of the hip at 0°, 15° and 30° of flexion were obtained after the capsulotomy and each capsular plication technique to quantify the increase in hip stability after plication. Data were assessed using a two-way repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVAs) and Student’s T-test when necessary to determine if the change in external rotation was significantly different.

Results

After capsulotomy, external rotation averaged 26.3°, 29.1° and 31.1° at 0°, 15° and 30° of flexion. With the primary plication shift, external rotation averaged 24.9°, 30.3° and 34.0°. With the two-triangle technique, external rotation averaged 26.1°, 31.9° and 33.3°. With the re-draping technique, external rotation averaged 25.8°, 30.9° and 32.0°. A significant relationship was found between «Plication Technique» and «Angle of flexion» factors for the measured angle of external rotation (P = 0.04).

A decomposition of the interaction showed that external rotation decreased at 0° of hip flexion and increased as the hip flexion angle increased. The only significant difference found corresponded to the two triangles technique at 15° flexion (mean difference compared to the non-repaired state = 2.8° ± 3.8° or 8.8% increase in external rotation; P = 0.03).

Conclusions

Different techniques of capsular plication result in a non-significant increase in hip external rotation when compared to unrepaired capsulotomies. Therefore, special attention should be paid at the time of capsular plication, which could be disadvantageous when done overzealously aiming to increase postoperative stability.

Keywords

  • Hip arthroscopy
  • Capsulotomy
  • Hip instability
  • Capsular plication

Introduction

Hip instability has been identified by many authors as a cause of hip pain and result of injury in both the general population (Bedi et al., 2011; Sansone et al., 2012; Taber, 2011) and in athletic patients (Austin et al., 2014). It corresponds to “micro-motion” of the femoral head relative to the acetabular center (Taber, 2011). Whether caused by repetitive trauma in abduction and external rotation, generalised ligamentous laxity, iatrogenic causes, connective tissue disorders or a combination thereof (Blakey et al., 2018; Bowman et al., 2010; Philippon, 2002), instability induces an overload of the connective tissues which leads to hip discomfort, pain, and possibly osteoarthritis. In its normal state, the hip is an inherently stable articulation due to its “ball-and-socket joint” congruency (Bowman et al., 2010; Domb et al., 2013; Slikker et al., 2012). The articulating surface of the half-spherical acetabulum is augmented by a fibrocartilage (labrum) which creates a “suction effect” by obstructing the fluid flow in and out of the joint, thus enhancing stability (Bowman et al., 2010; Crawford et al., 2007; Domb et al., 2013; Nepple et al., 2014). The stability of the hip joint is also dependent on the mechanical properties (e.g. stiffness) of the joint capsule, which is composed of three thickened ligaments, and of the surrounding muscles (Bedi et al., 2011; Flack et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2008; Philippon et al., 2014).

Hip instability has been documented as a consequence of surgical intervention by several studies (Ranawat et al., 2009; Sansone et al., 2012; Wylie et al., 2016; Yeung et al., 2016) (Table 1). Based on evidence implying that any capsular opening will lead to some degree of joint instability or pain if not properly closed after surgery, most studies have argued for the potential advantages of performing capsular repair after hip arthroscopy (Austin et al., 2014; Bayne et al., 2014; Bedi et al., 2011; Domb et al., 2013; Harris et al., 2013a; Slikker et al., 2012). Hip instability, or micro-instability as termed by others is an ill-defined pathology. In the absence of dysplasic bone morphology, its diagnosis remains a significant clinical challenge (Bedi et al., 2011; Taber, 2011) and the need for capsular plication in such cases is still debated (Hebert1 et al., 2014; Chile et al., 2013). For better assessment of this problem, the effects of different capsular plication techniques (Bedi et al., 2011; Domb et al., 2013; Smith & Sekiya, 2010) on the mobility of the hip joint in a clinically relevant setting needs to be addressed.
Table 1

Studies on ranges of motion associated with hip capsular laxity from arthroscopy and imaging technique for diagnosis

Study

Diagnosis criteria for capsular laxity

Technique used

Sample size

Follow up

Assessment type

Time to follow up

M. Belemmi et al. 2014 (Chile et al., 2013)

Capsulotomy for FAIa

No closure

Not mentioned in abstract

Modified Harris Hip score

Vail score

WOMAC score

3 & 6 months

total closure (capsulorrhaphy)

J. Wylie et al. 2013 (Wylie et al., 2013)

Capsulotomy for FAIa

(patients chosen because of symptoms of instability after FAI surgery)

No closure

13 patients, 14 hips (from 324 patients)

Modified Harris Hip score

Hip outcome score

Minimum follow up of 6 months

Arthroscopic capsular repair

C.T. Hebert et al. 2014 (Hebert et al., 2014)

Capsulotomy in cadaveric hips

No closure (intraportal capsulotomy)

10 hips, 5 left, 5 right (range: 28–82 years old)

Rotational force while flexed (90 degrees) and while extended (full)

(before & after surgery)

None

Capsulorrhaphy:

(intraportal capsulotomy)

Capsulorrhaphy:

(T capsulotomy)

Bayne et al. 2014

Capsulotomy in cadaveric hips

Intact capsule

13 hips

External rotation torque while in neutral flexion & maximal flexion

None

Transverse capsulotomy

Magerkurth et al. 2013 (Magerkurth et al., 2013)

Retrospective assessment of imaging after laxity diagnosis at surgery

Magnetic resonance imaging

27 patients, 17 positive, 10 negative for hip joint laxity

Measurements of capsular & zona orbicularis thickness

None

Blakey et al. 2010 (Blakey et al., 2018)

Excessive external rotation at rest + pain

Dynamic MRI

11 hips (10 patients, averaged 31 years old, range 21–47)

Physical exam (FABER test, FADIR test, recoil test…)

Beighton hypermobility score

None

afemoroacetabular impingement

This study aims to assess the ranges of motion associated with different hip joint capsular plications. More specifically, our research question concerned whether hip capsular plication would have an effect on limiting external rotation of the hip in extension when compared to leaving a mini-capsulotomy performed during hip arthroscopy untouched. We hypothesised that hip external rotation would be reduced with capsular plication and that the extent of this limitation would translate into a proportional impact on hip joint stability.

Materials and methods

Cadaver preparation

Six cadavers (5 men, 1 women) with an average age of 67 years (range, 56–74 years), all fresh frozen and stored at − 5 °C, were selected for the study. Previously unprepared consecutive cadaveric specimens were chosen in order to maintain the effect of all surrounding tissues around the hip while testing. C-arm fluoroscopy was used to excluded cadavers with pistol grip or cam deformity, acetabular retroversion (ischial spine sign and cross-over sign), acetabular dysplasia (center edge angle < 20°), Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease, slipped capital femoral epiphysis and history of hip fracture or surgery on plain radiographs.

Experimental protocol

Following a thawing protocol at room temperature for 48 h, cadavers were kept at 4 °C for 36 h before manipulations. Every hip joint was examined for limitations in free range of motion in flexion, internal and external rotation prior to testing. Fluoroscopic frontal pelvic view evaluations were performed for every cadaver.

Upon beginning the surgical procedure, the whole cadaver was fixed to the operating room table using a custom made apparatus stabilized with four clamps. A 5 mm Steinman pin was inserted into each iliac wing and attached to the apparatus by means of connectors and 10 mm carbon rods from an external fixator. We then proceeded with the insertion of one 5 mm Steinman pin vertically (perpendicular to the leveled table) in the anterior superior iliac spine (pin set as reference for rotation) and a second pin, parallel to the first pin from anterior to posterior, in the supracondylar metaphysis of the distal femur (reading pin) 2 cm proximal to the femoral inter-epicondylar axis. These pins were vertically aligned to allow the measurement of the external rotation of the hip during manipulations. Another 5 mm Steinman pin was subsequently inserted laterally in the distal femur at 10 cm proximal to the lateral femoral epicondyle to serve as a lever to induce external rotation in the hip (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Photograph of the experimental apparatus with the camera used for data acquisition at the foot of the bed. Yellow arrow = ASIS reference pin; white arrow = reading pin in femur; * = lever pin

In our study design, three capsular plication techniques were successively performed on each hip. For the intact hip and every subsequent plication, rotational torque was applied manually until a firm end-feel was felt on the previously described lever pin by a single operator (ELB). The operators were not blinded to the plication technique used due to the increasingly invasive order of these techniques. They thus logically had to be performed in the same order in every hip. With each plication technique, maximal external rotation of the hip was measured at 0°, 15° and 30° of hip flexion, as positionned with a goniometer. For every condition, 3 consecutive mesurements were made at each flexion angles before the next plication technique was applied.

Surgical techniques

A standard antero-lateral approach to the hip (Bertin & R ttinger, 2004) in the interval between tensor fascia lata and gluteus minimus, was performed on all hips with a special attention to protect the abductor muscles during the dissection. Special care was directed at preserving the capsule fibers and ligaments. The reflected head of the rectus was carefully elevated to allow for full surgical access to the anterior capsule. A 3 cm transverse (horizontal) capsulotomy was performed 1 cm distal from the origin of the capsule fibers on the antero-lateral acetabulum as to simulate the anterior to lateral, portal-to-portal, arthrotomy commonly used during hip arthroscopy (Fig. 2a and b) (Bedi et al., 2011; Domb et al., 2015; Harris et al., 2013b; Slikker et al., 2012).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2

a and b shows the extent of the interportal capsulotomy performed initially. c demonstrates the primary plication technique with a slight shift of the distal limb from medial to lateral. d represents the end product of capsular closure which was completed with 3 sutures

The first plication technique consisted of a primary plication shift of the antero-lateral capsule. The distal-medial arm of the iliofemoral ligament was shifted toward the proximal-lateral arm to have a translation shift of approximately 5 mm and tightened using 1–0 resorbable sutures (Domb et al., 2013) so to strengthen the anterior capsule (Fig. 2c and d). The result was a slight shift of the distal limb from medial to lateral. No further capsular incision was made and the sutures were removed after measurements. The second plication technique consisted in adding a longitudinal arm to the capsulotomy, between the lateral arm and the medial arm of the iliofemoral ligament, to create a T-shaped capsulotomy (Fig. 3a and b). The resulting two triangular capsular flaps were overlaid onto each other by approximately 5 mm, plicated fully and tighly sutured (Bedi et al., 2011; Smith & Sekiya, 2010) with three 1–0 sutures in a double-breast manner (Fig. 3c and d). Again, once external rotation measurements were obtained, the sutures were removed. The third plication technique, called redrapping, consisted in excising the inferior capsular triangular flap (previously made in the second technique), and suturing the latero-anterior superior capsular flap to the medial arm of the iliofemoral ligament with three 1–0 sutures, superimposing the capsular edges for closure (see Fig. 4).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3

a and b demonstrate the extended limb of the capsulotomy as in a “T” with the division of the iliofemoral ligament between its medial and lateral arm. c represents the second plication with an attempt at imbricating both arms of the iliofemoral ligament before closing the interportal portion of the capsulotomy. d represents the end product of capsular closure which was completed with 3 sutures

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

a and b demonstrates removal of the most inferior triangular flap of capsule. c represents the third plication technique, which brings the superior triangular portion of capsule down and towards the most medio-inferior portion of the interportal capsulotomy. d represents the end product of capsular closure which was completed with 3 sutures

Angular measurements

Using a 14′ stainless steel goniometer (Fabrication Enterprises Inc., White Plains, NY, USA), markers were positioned on the operating room table to mark the cadaveric leg position in the neutral position 0°, at 15° and at 30° of hip flexion. For each surgical plication technique, the measurements of the external rotation of the hip at 0°, 15° and 30° of flexion were obtained. The angle of external rotation was defined as the angle between the reference pin and the reading pin as seen in the transverse plane. The first dataset acquired on each hips represented the non-repaired state of the capsule after simulating the hip arthroscopy portal-to-portal capsulotomy. This measure served as the baseline external rotation for further comparison.

To standardize data acquisition, three measurements were made for each hip position and results were averaged. The measurement of the external rotation angle was carried out using a tripod mounted digital camera positioned perpendicular to the transverse plane. Each photograph was labelled according to surgical technique, hip position and trial number. Using an image processing and analysis software (ImageJ, https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/, 1997–2014), external rotation was measured from the digital photographs and compiled for each surgical technique and hip flexion angle.

Statistical analysis

Two analyses were performed: one to evaluate whether each plication technique affects the degree of external rotation measured at the hip; and another to evaluate whether the impact of plication differed depending on hip flexion. External rotation data were initially analyzed by repeated measures two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and, when necessary, a Student’s T-test was conducted for each variation in external rotation angle (post plication – pre plication) to determine if change in external rotation was significantly different from 0. Statistical significance was set at an α value of 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using STATISTICA 10.0 (StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA).

Results

Six fresh frozen undisected cadavers were studied (5 men, 1 women) for a total of 12 hips tested. In the non repaired state, external rotation averaged 26.3° ± 7.5°at 0° of flexion, 29.1° ± 5.8 at 15° of flexion and 31.1° ± 7.9 at 30° of flexion. With the first plication technique (primary plication shift), external rotation averaged 24.9° ± 7.9°at 0° of flexion, 30.3° ± 6.8 at 15° of flexion and 34.0° ± 8.9 at 30° of flexion. With the second plication technique (two triangle technique), external rotation averaged 26.1° ± 8.4°at 0° of flexion, 31.9° ± 8.2 at 15° of flexion and 33.3° ± 9.5 at 30° of flexion.With the third plication technique (redrapping), external rotation averaged 25.8° ± 8.6°at 0° of flexion, 30.9° ± 7.3 at 15° of flexion and 32.0° ± 9.1 at 30° of flexion.

A significant relationship was found between Plication Technique and Angle of flexion factors for the measured angle of external rotation (P = 0.04; Fig. 5) (suggesting that either the technique used, the flexion angle or both these factors had an effect on external rotation.). A decomposition of the interaction showed that the general tendency for external rotation was to be reduced while at 0° of hip flexion and to be increased at every other flexion angle for every different plication. The only significant difference found corresponds to the second technique (two triangles) at 15° of hip flexion (mean difference compared with the non repaired state = 2.8° ± 3.8° or 8.8% increase in external rotation; P = 0.03; Table 2).
Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Mean external rotation of the hip for each surgical technique. Vertical bars denote 95% confidence intervals

Table 2

Mean variation in angle of external rotation (post plication – pre-plication)

 

TECHNIQUE USED

FIRST TECHNIQUE

Primary plication

SECOND TECHNIQUE

Two triangles

THIRD TECHNIQUE

Re-draping

Hip flexion angle (°)

Hip flexion angle (°)

Hip flexion angle (°)

SAMPLES

0.0

15.0

30.0

0.0

15.0

30.0

0.0

15.0

30.0

A

−4.1

3.8

11.3

−1.0

5.1

12.9

1.3

6.5

12.7

B

1.3

2.7

20.4

2.9

10.8

23.0

3.4

3.2

14.5

C

0.6

0.3

−3.7

−2.6

0.2

−3.3

−4.5

−0.9

−6.9

D

−2.4

1.9

−6.0

5.5

5.4

− 3.5

2.4

2.6

− 0.1

E

−4.4

−5.7

− 0.4

−3.2

0.8

−2.2

−6.5

− 0.4

− 2.4

F

−7.0

−3.0

−0.4

−3.7

−1.9

− 3.2

− 5.2

3.3

− 4.7

G

0.5

5.0

4.3

1.1

1.8

−1.3

2.2

6.0

1.6

H

0.6

2.2

1.5

0.1

3.4

−0.1

3.2

1.2

−4.0

I

0.6

1.9

2.9

−0.4

2.2

0.3

−2.3

0.3

−3.3

J

−1.9

− 2.0

1.2

− 3.6

− 3.4

− 1.0

− 2.4

−4.1

0.4

K

− 1.0

1.8

3.7

−0.2

3.4

6.5

−0.2

0.0

4.1

L

0.1

5.4

−0.2

1.6

5.8

−3.0

1.8

3.9

−1.3

MEAN

−1.4

1.2

2.9

−0.3

2.8

2.1

−0.6

1.8

0.9

STANDARD DEVIATION

2.6

3.3

7.0

2.8

3.8

8.2

3.5

3.1

6.7

P value (compared with no variation)

0.08

0.23

0.18

0.72

0.03

0.39

0.59

0.07

0.66

Discussion

Results of the current study, even if not statistically significant, showed that capsular plication tended to increase external rotation for different hip flexion angles. Quite the opposite of what was previously proposed (Austin et al., 2014; Bayne et al., 2014; Bedi et al., 2011; Domb et al., 2013; Harris et al., 2013a; Slikker et al., 2012), this suggests that capsular plication may be somewhat counterproductive or at best, have a neutral effect when trying to increase stability in the hip joint post-operatively and thus, that it should be completed with an adjusted level of expectation.

Some studies examining hip range of motion in cadaveric specimens deemed it pertinent to standardize the rotational forces applied on the hips by having an apparatus apply a constant force for each trial (Abrams et al., 2015; Bayne et al., 2014; Hebert1 et al., 2014). However, authors commonly disagree on the proper amount of force to be applied in order to reproduce in vivo conditions. Forces ranging from 0.588 NM (Bayne et al., 2014) to 10 NM have been tested. Despite this, some authors conclude that capsular plication would be beneficial in restoring pre-operative ranges of motion (Bayne et al., 2014) or at the very least, that capsulotomy increases ranges of motion compared to the normal hip and that judicious capsular management is indicated during arthroscopic procedures (Abrams et al., 2015). Other studies still debate the benefits of capsular repairs in treating hip instability (Hebert1 et al., 2014; Chile et al., 2013). Similarly to the current study, the previously stated studies used external rotation of the hip as a way to measure hip instability. On the other hand, these same studies have worked on heavily dissected specimen, leaving only bone, capsule and ligaments. Removal of soft tissue surrounding the hip joint, which are key factors in dynamic and passive hip stability in the living individual (Dwyer et al., 2014), may in fact diminish the clinical relevance of these studies by rendering the hip more vulnerable at extreme ranges of motion. Whereas a cadaveric capsular plication model may not represent a perfect clinical application, it represents the first step necessary to demonstrate a change in hip external rotation limitation. Further biomechanical investigations will continue to elucidate this concept.

This study has some limitations. The study was conducted on cadavers using surgical knives and not a diathermy probe as happens in arthroscopy. This is a study limitation because the use of the diathermy probe to open the capsule causes a shrinkage of the capsulotomy edges. In turn this will lead to a tighter closure. As a result, a limited range of motion might occur. Another study limitation is the location of arthroscopic capsulotomy that might differ a few millimetres from open capsulotomy. A small sample size may have limited our ability to reach statistical significance should it truly exist. It is possible that a larger sample size may have been able to show a more clinically significant difference between capsular plication techniques. However, care was taken to ensure reproducibility and accuracy of results with triplicate and digital testing. Furthermore, there are always limitations in cadaveric studies as the dynamic soft tissue envelope (muscles) and its contributions are not captured (Dwyer et al., 2014). Despite this, in this study, care was taken to preserve all muscle attachments to mimic an in vivo setting as best as possible. The torque applied in external rotation onto the lever pin was not standardized, although it was done by the same operator, but it was through manipulation. Although a few hip flexion positions were tested, these angles enabled ease of cadaveric preparation, testing, and measurements. Further, they were chosen as they are representative of common everyday hip positions while standing and walking (Anderson & Pandy, 2001; Lewis et al., 2010). More comprehensive flexion angle testing would require a more sophisticated methodology but may also provide a more global understanding of the role of capsular plication.

The study design made it difficult to solely assess the effect of one capsular closure technique without having potential remnant effects from the prior techniques. Alternative sequence of execution of the different techniques may have represented a better methodological design but this was not possible due to the incisions to the native capsule required to complete each technique. Thus, they were performed in an increasingly invasive order. Finally, our surgical model and the results of testing may not be generalizable to patients with hip deformity, hyperlaxity, hypermobility syndromes or connective tissue disorders or in cases of micro-instability (Bedi et al., 2011; Bowman et al., 2010; Harris et al., 2013b; Taber, 2011). It is possible that using the plication techniques in already hyperlax joint capsules may lead to more significant results from capsular plication. Therefore, further work on the development of a distended capsular model is warranted.

Conclusions

We found that every plication technique used in our study tended to show a non significant increase in external rotation, compared to the unrepaired capsulotomy state. This result therefore suggests that capsular plication of the hip may not be the only factor to address when treating instability of the non deformity hip joint.

Notes

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The Authors wish to thank Antoine Caron for help with clinical data collection and Maged Shahin MD for manuscript preparation.

Funding

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

EB was responsible for conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology,validation,visualisation, writing original draft, writing review& editing. MH was resposible for methodology, investigation, data curation, writing original Draft, writing review& editing. NJ was resposible for investigation, data curation, validation,visualisation, writing original draft. BL was resposible for Investigation. YD was resposible for investigation, data curation, validation,visualisation. OA was resposible for conceptualization, methodology, writing review& editing. PC was resposible for conceptualization, data curation, methodology, validation, writing original draft, writing review& editing.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
CHU de Quebec-Université Laval, 11 cote du Palais, Quebec city, QC, Canada
(2)
Department of Surgery, Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, 1401 18e rue, Quebec city, QC, G1J 1Z4, Canada
(3)
Department of Kinesiology, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec city, QC, Canada
(4)
Unité de recherche sur le vieillissement, Centre de recherche FRSQ du CHA universitaire de Québec, Quebec city, QC, Canada
(5)
Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

References

  1. Abrams GD, Hart MA, Takami K, Bayne CO, Kelly BT, Espinoza Orías AA, Nho SJ (2015) Biomechanical evaluation of capsulotomy, Capsulectomy, and capsular repair on hip rotation. Arthroscopy 31:1511–1517View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson FC, Pandy MG (2001) Dynamic Optimization of Human Walking. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 123:381–390.Google Scholar
  3. Austin DC, Horneff JG III, Kelly JD IV (2014) Anterior Hip Dislocation 5 Months After Hip Arthroscopy. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery 30:1380–1382.Google Scholar
  4. Bayne CO, Stanley R, Simon P, Espinoza-Orias A, Salata MJ, Bush-Joseph CA, Inoue N, Nho SJ (2014) Effect of capsulotomy on hip stability-a consideration during hip arthroscopy. The American Journal of Orthopedics 43:160–165PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bedi A, Galano G, Walsh C, Kelly BT (2011) Capsular management during hip arthroscopy: from Femoroacetabular impingement to instability. Arthroscopy 27:1720–1731View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertin KC, R ttinger H (2004) Anterolateral mini-incision hip replacement surgery. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 429:248–255View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Blakey CM, Field MH, Singh PJ, Tayar R, Field RE (2018) Secondary capsular laxity of the hip. Hip International 20:497–504View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowman KF, Fox J, Sekiya JK (2010) A clinically relevant review of hip biomechanics. Arthroscopy 26:1118–1129View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Chile MB, Chile AG, Chile AS, Chile TB, Chile JMA (2013) Functional evaluation of T shape capsulotomy vs Capsulorrhaphy in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy 29:e216Google Scholar
  10. Crawford MJ, Dy CJ, Alexander JW, Thompson M, Schroder SJ, Vega CE, Patel RV, Miller AR, McCarthy JC, Lowe WR, Noble PC (2007) The 2007 frank Stinchfield award. The biomechanics of the hip labrum and the stability of the hip. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 465:16–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Domb BG, Philippon MJ, Giordano BD (2013) Arthroscopic capsulotomy, capsular repair, and capsular plication of the hip: relation to atraumatic instability. Arthroscopy 29:162–173View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Domb BG, Stake CE, Finley ZJ, Chen T, Giordano BD (2015) Influence of capsular repair versus unrepaired capsulotomy on 2-year clinical outcomes after arthroscopic hip preservation surgery. Arthroscopy 31:643–650View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Dwyer MK, Jones HL, Field RE, McCarthy JC, Noble PC (2014) Femoroacetabular impingement negates the acetabular labral seal during pivoting maneuvers but not gait. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 473:602–607View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Flack NAMS, Nicholson HD, Woodley SJ (2011) A review of the anatomy of the hip abductor muscles, gluteus medius, gluteus minimus, and tensor fascia lata. Clinical Anatomy 25:697–708View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris JD, McCormick FM, Abrams GD, Gupta AK, Ellis TJ, Bach BR Jr, Bush-Joseph CA, Nho SJ (2013a) Complications and reoperations during and after hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of 92 studies and more than 6,000 patients. Arthroscopy 29:589–595View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Harris JD, Slikker W III, Gupta AK, McCormick FM, Nho SJ (2013b) Routine complete capsular closure during hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy Techniques 2:e89–e94View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Hebert CT, Woodard EL, Bills CC et al (2014) Biomechanical effects of different hip arthroscopic capsulotomy techniques. ORS:1–4Google Scholar
  18. Lewis CL, Sahrmann SA, Moran DW (2010) Effect of hip angle on anterior hip joint force during gait. Gait & Posture 32:603–607View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Magerkurth O, Jacobson JA, Morag Y, Caoili E, Fessell D, Sekiya JK (2013) Capsular laxity of the hip: findings at magnetic resonance arthrography. Arthroscopy 29:1615–1622View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Martin HD, Savage A, Braly BA, Palmer IJ, Beall DP, Kelly B (2008) The function of the hip capsular ligaments: a quantitative report. Arthroscopy 24:188–195View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Nepple JJ, Philippon MJ, Campbell KJ, Dornan GJ, Jansson KS, LaPrade RF, Wijdicks CA (2014) The hip fluid seal—part II: the effect of an acetabular labral tear, repair, resection, and reconstruction on hip stability to distraction. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 22:730–736View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Philippon MJ (2002) Debridement of acetabular labral tears with associated thermal capsulorrhaphy. Operative Techniques in Sports Medicine 10:215–218View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Philippon MJ, Michalski MP, Campbell KJ, Rasmussen MT, Goldsmith MT, Devitt BM, Wijdicks CA, LaPrade RF (2014) A quantitative analysis of hip capsular thickness. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 23:2548–2553View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Ranawat AS, McClincy M, Sekiya JK (2009) Anterior dislocation of the hip after arthroscopy in a patient with capsular laxity of the hip. A case report. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 91:192–197View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Sansone M, Ahldén M, Jónasson P, Swärd L, Eriksson T, Karlsson J (2012) Total dislocation of the hip joint after arthroscopy and ileopsoas tenotomy. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 21:420–423View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Slikker W, Van Thiel GS, Chahal J, Nho SJ (2012) Hip instability and arthroscopic techniques for complete capsular closure and capsular plication. Operative Techniques Sports Medicine 20:301–309View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith MV, Sekiya JK (2010) Hip instability. Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review 18:108–112View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Taber CD (2011) Arthroscopic approach to capsular laxity of the hip. Operative Techniques Sports Medicine 19:103–107View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Wylie JD, Beckmann JT, Maak TG, Aoki SK (2013) Capsular repair for instability following hip arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular impingement: preliminary outcomes and description of surgical technique. Arthroscopy 29:e206–e207View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Wylie JD, Beckmann JT, Maak TG, Aoki SK (2016) Arthroscopic capsular repair for symptomatic hip instability after previous hip arthroscopic surgery. The American Journal of Sports Medicine 44(1):39–45View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Yeung M, Memon M, Simunovic N, Belzile E, Philippon MJ, Ayeni OR (2016) Gross instability after hip arthroscopy: an analysis of case reports evaluating surgical and patient factors. Arthroscopy 32:1196–1204.e1View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2019

Advertisement