Abstract
To evaluate the impact of routine capsular repair on patient-reported outcomes, survivorship and achievability of clinically important improvement, minimum 5-years post-surgery.
Our prospective institutional registry was reviewed for cases undergoing primary HA for FAI, and stratified into two groups depending on whether the capsule was repaired or not. Routine repair was introduced in late 2013. The No Repair group consisted of patients undergoing HA between Jan 2010-June 2013 while the Repair group consisted of patients undergoing HA between Jan 2015-Sept 2018. Exclusion criteria consisted of >50 years, Tonnis>1, dysplasia(LCEA<25), concomitant hip pathologies. PROMs consisted of mHHS, SF36 and UCLA. Metrics of clinically important improvement was evaluated using MCID and SCB. Rates of repeat HA or THA conversion were recorded.
985 cases were included (359 No Repair; 626 Repair), 86% male, average age 27.4±6.7years. Significant improvement in all PROMs at minimum 5-years was observed for both groups (p<0.001 for all; large effect sizes for mHHS and SF36, medium effect sizes for UCLA). At 5-years post-op there was no significant difference between groups for mHHS(p=0.078) or UCLA(0.794). SF36 was significantly poorer for those cases undergoing routine repair(p<0.001) however effect size was small (0.20). Thresholds of MCID and SCB were calculated as 69% and 86% for mHHS, 64% and 77% for UCLA, 43% and 60% for SF36. Both groups achieved MCID and SCB at similar rates for mHHS and UCLA. A significantly lower proportion of cases in the repair groups achieved MCID for SF36 (53.6% vs 63.5%, p=0.034) and SCB for SF36 (37.3% vs 52.8%, p<0.001). No significant difference between groups for THA conversion (0.6% No Repair vs 0.5% Repair) or repeat HA (9.7% No Repair vs 8.1% Repair).
Routinely repairing the capsule following HA for FAI demonstrates no clinical benefit over not repairing the capsule 5 years post-surgery
