| Literature DB >> 33044706 |
A Zimmerer1,2, M Hauschild3, R Nietschke3, M M Schneider3,4, G Wassilew5, C Sobau3, W Miehlke3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A cause of groin pain after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is mechanical irritation or impingement of the iliopsoas tendon. The incidence is about 4%. If conservative therapy fails, an arthroscopic release of the iliopsoas tendon can be performed. The aim of the study was to assess the mid-term clinical outcome after arthroscopic release. We hypothesize that good results can be achieved by a minimally invasive endoscopic procedure.Entities:
Keywords: Complication; Hip prosthesis; Iliopsoas tendon; Outcome; Revision hip surgery; Total hip replacement
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33044706 PMCID: PMC8783918 DOI: 10.1007/s00402-020-03623-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg ISSN: 0936-8051 Impact factor: 3.067
Fig. 1Axial CT scan of a right hip, red arrow: prominent acetabular cup; yellow circle: iliopsoas tendon irritated by acetabular cup prominence
Fig. 2Left: arthroscopic view onto a left hip prosthesis, the iliopsoas tendon is irritated by the acetabular component; right: situation after arthroscopic tenotomy using a radiofrequency device. T tendon, C capsule, AC acetabular component
Clinical outcome: values are shown as mean ± SD (range)
| Variable | Preoperative | Follow-up | Difference preop follow-up | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| mHHS | 31.2 ± 9.8 (17.6–47.3) | 82 ± 9.8 (46.2–100) | 50.8 ± 23.8 (26.4–69.3) | < 0.0001 |
| Pain VAS | 8.5 ± 1.2 (7–10) | 2.5 ± 1.8 (0–6) | 6.0 ± 1.2 (4–8) | < 0.0001 |
| UCLA score | 4 ± 2.7 (0–7) | 6.5 ± 1.8 (3–9) | 2.5 ± 2–0 (0–7) | 0.09 |
mHHS modified Harris Hip Score, pain VAS nvisual analogue scale
Overview of existing literature after arthroscopic/endoscopic iliopsoas tenotomy
| Study | Sample size (patients) | Mean age (years) | % Female | F/U (years) | Mean time from prev. index surgery (years) (range) | Index arthroplasty | Pain relief (%) | PROM | PROM preop | PROM F/U | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bajwa et al. [ | 5 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 1 THA, 3 R, 1 PR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Van Riet et al. [ | 9 | 51 (24–81) | NR | 0.9 | 0.5 | 4 THA, 4 R | NR | HOOS | 41 (11–53) | 58 (32.5–100) | N.S. |
| Pattyn et al. [ | 3 | 55.3 (53–57) | 66 | NSE | 1.25 | 3 THA | NSE | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Dallari et al. [ | 7 | NSE | NSE | NSE | NSE | NSE | 86 | NSE | NSE | NSE | NSE |
| Lahner et al. [ | 2 | 55.5 (61–60) | 50 | NSE | 0.9 | 2 THA | 100 | HOS ADL | 57.85 | 87.45 | NR |
| Gédouin et al. [ | 10 | 58 (45–80) | 50 | 1.7 | NR | 9 THA, 1 R | 80 | WOMAC | 34 (24–46) | 84 (60–95) | NR |
| Lindner et al. [ | 1 | 51 | 100 | 0.25 | NR | 1 THA (collared femoral stem) | 100 | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Mei-Dan et al. [ | 17 | NSE | NSE | NSE | NSE | 17 R | NSE | WOMAC | NSE | NSE | NR |
| Filanti et al. [ | 7 | 54.9 (29–77) | NSE | NSE | 0.9 | 6 THA, 1 R | NSE | HHS | 46.4 (32–56) | 83.3 (61–91) | NR |
| Jerosch et al. [ | 35 | NR (58–82) | NR | 3.6 | NR | 23 THA, 12 R | 94 | NR | NR | NR | NR |
| Jerosch et al. [ | 68 | 63 (45–77) | 62 | 6.5 | 0.75 | 53 THA, 15 R | 96 | HHS | 42.1 (33–55) | 85.2 (63–95) | NR |
| Guicherd et al. [ | 64 | 56.3 (33–78) | 63 | 0.67 | 3.36 (0.33–12) | 64 THA | 92 | OHS | 21.8 | 40 | < 0.001 |
| Williams et al. [ | 13 | 52.8 (29.1–82.7) | 85 | 2.9 (0.4–10.1) | 13 THA | 62 | NR | NR | NR | NR | |
| Moreta et al. [ | 12 | 59.1 (40–72) | 50 | 3.75 (2–8) | 1.67 (0.67–2.17) | 12 THA | 91.7 | mHHS | 58.8 (37–76) | 86.1 (59–98) | 0.001 |
F/U follow-up, NR not recorded, NSE not specially evaluated, N.S. not significant, THA total hip arthroplasty, R resurfacing, PR partial resurfacing, PRO patient relates outcome measurement, HOOS Hip Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, HOS ADL Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living, WOMAC Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, HHS Harris Hip Score, OHS Oxford Hip Score
aResults are part of a subgroup analysis