36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Arthroscopic hip surgery compared with physiotherapy and activity modification for the treatment of symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement: multicentre randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To compare arthroscopic hip surgery with physiotherapy and activity modification for improving patient reported outcome measures in patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).

          Design

          Two group parallel, assessor blinded, pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

          Setting

          Secondary and tertiary care centres across seven NHS England sites.

          Participants

          222 participants aged 18 to 60 years with symptomatic FAI confirmed clinically and with imaging (radiography or magnetic resonance imaging) were randomised (1:1) to receive arthroscopic hip surgery (n=112) or a programme of physiotherapy and activity modification (n=110). Exclusion criteria included previous surgery, completion of a physiotherapy programme targeting FAI within the preceding 12 months, established osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥2), and hip dysplasia (centre-edge angle <20 degrees).

          Interventions

          Participants in the physiotherapy group received a goal based programme tailored to individual patient needs, with emphasis on improving core stability and movement control. A maximum of eight physiotherapy sessions were delivered over five months. Participants in the arthroscopic surgery group received surgery to excise the bone that impinged during hip movements, followed by routine postoperative care.

          Main outcome measures

          The primary outcome measure was the hip outcome score activities of daily living subscale (HOS ADL) at eight months post-randomisation, with a minimum clinically important difference between groups of 9 points. Secondary outcome measures included additional patient reported outcome measures and clinical assessment.

          Results

          At eight months post-randomisation, data were available for 100 patients in the arthroscopic hip surgery group (89%) and 88 patients in the physiotherapy programme group (80%). Mean HOS ADL was 78.4 (95% confidence interval 74.4 to 82.3) for patients randomised to arthroscopic hip surgery and 69.2 (65.2 to 73.3) for patients randomised to the physiotherapy programme. After adjusting for baseline HOS ADL, age, sex, and study site, the mean HOS ADL was 10.0 points higher (6.4 to 13.6) in the arthroscopic hip surgery group compared with the physiotherapy programme group (P<0.001)). No serious adverse events were reported in either group.

          Conclusions

          Patients with symptomatic FAI referred to secondary or tertiary care achieve superior outcomes with arthroscopic hip surgery than with physiotherapy and activity modification.

          Trial registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01893034.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus sham surgery for a degenerative meniscal tear.

          Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is one of the most common orthopedic procedures, yet rigorous evidence of its efficacy is lacking. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial in 146 patients 35 to 65 years of age who had knee symptoms consistent with a degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomly assigned to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy or sham surgery. The primary outcomes were changes in the Lysholm and Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) scores (each ranging from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating more severe symptoms) and in knee pain after exercise (rated on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 denoting no pain) at 12 months after the procedure. In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant between-group differences in the change from baseline to 12 months in any primary outcome. The mean changes (improvements) in the primary outcome measures were as follows: Lysholm score, 21.7 points in the partial-meniscectomy group as compared with 23.3 points in the sham-surgery group (between-group difference, -1.6 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -7.2 to 4.0); WOMET score, 24.6 and 27.1 points, respectively (between-group difference, -2.5 points; 95% CI, -9.2 to 4.1); and score for knee pain after exercise, 3.1 and 3.3 points, respectively (between-group difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.9 to 0.7). There were no significant differences between groups in the number of patients who required subsequent knee surgery (two in the partial-meniscectomy group and five in the sham-surgery group) or serious adverse events (one and zero, respectively). In this trial involving patients without knee osteoarthritis but with symptoms of a degenerative medial meniscus tear, the outcomes after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy were no better than those after a sham surgical procedure. (Funded by the Sigrid Juselius Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00549172.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The etiology of osteoarthritis of the hip: an integrated mechanical concept.

            The etiology of osteoarthritis of the hip has long been considered secondary (eg, to congenital or developmental deformities) or primary (presuming some underlying abnormality of articular cartilage). Recent information supports a hypothesis that so-called primary osteoarthritis is also secondary to subtle developmental abnormalities and the mechanism in these cases is femoroacetabular impingement rather than excessive contact stress. The most frequent location for femoroacetabular impingement is the anterosuperior rim area and the most critical motion is internal rotation of the hip in 90 degrees flexion. Two types of femoroacetabular impingement have been identified. Cam-type femoroacetabular impingement, more prevalent in young male patients, is caused by an offset pathomorphology between head and neck and produces an outside-in delamination of the acetabulum. Pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement, more prevalent in middle-aged women, is produced by a more linear impact between a local (retroversion of the acetabulum) or general overcoverage (coxa profunda/protrusio) of the acetabulum. The damage pattern is more restricted to the rim and the process of joint degeneration is slower. Most hips, however, show a mixed femoroacetabular impingement pattern with cam predominance. Surgical attempts to restore normal anatomy to avoid femoroacetabular impingement should be performed in the early stage before major cartilage damage is present. Level V, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial

              Summary Background Arthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression. Methods We did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011. Findings Between Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference −1·3 points (95% CI −3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5–5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8–6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group). Interpretation Surgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process. Funding Arthritis Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Royal College of Surgeons (England).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: NIHR academic clinical lecturer in trauma and orthopaedics
                Role: trial manager
                Role: DPhil student and clinical research fellow
                Role: medical statistician
                Role: lead medical statistician
                Role: consultant musculoskeletal radiologist
                Role: senior sports physiotherapist
                Role: consultant orthopaedic surgeon
                Role: consultant orthopaedic surgeon
                Role: professor of orthopaedic surgery and head of department
                Role: professor of physiotherapy
                Role: consultant orthopaedic surgeon
                Role: Nuffield professor of orthopaedic surgery and head of department
                Role: professor of musculoskeletal and surgical science and co-director of surgical intervention trials unit
                Role: professor of orthopaedic surgery
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2019
                07 February 2019
                : 364
                : l185
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, Botnar Research Centre, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK
                [2 ]Centre for Statistics in Medicine, NDORMS, University of Oxford, UK
                [3 ]Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK
                [4 ]Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
                [5 ]Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust, Reading, UK
                [6 ]Division of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Cambridge, UK
                [7 ]Royal College of Surgeons Surgical Intervention Trials Unit, NDORMS, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: A J R Palmer antony.palmer@ 123456ndorms.ox.ac.uk (or @ajrpalmer on Twitter)
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4616-7482
                Article
                pala043530
                10.1136/bmj.l185
                6365841
                30733197
                d4e642f7-4029-457e-9c03-49d5dcf591ce
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 07 January 2019
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article