Next Article in Journal
Risk Factors for Postoperative Major Morbidity, Anastomotic Leakage, Re-Surgery and Mortality in Patients with Colonic Perforation
Previous Article in Journal
Nitrofurantoin as an Add-On to Conventional Prophylaxis for the Treatment of Urinary Tract Infections in Kidney Recipients: A Prospective Cohort Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Distal Triceps Tendon Repair in Strength Athletes Leads to Satisfactory Return to Sports: A Retrospective Analysis of 22 Cases
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 17
10.3390/jcm13175219
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Return to Sport Following Arthroscopic Management of Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review

by
Ludovico Lucenti
1,
Nicola Maffulli
2,3,4,
Tommaso Bardazzi
5,
Raoul Saggini
6,
Michael Memminger
5,
Francesco Simeone
5 and
Filippo Migliorini
5,6,*
1
Department of Precision Medicine in Medical, Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, 90133 Palermo, Italy
2
Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Rome, Italy
3
School of Pharmacy and Bioengineering, Faculty of Medicine, Keele University, Stoke on Trent ST4 7QB, UK
4
Centre for Sports and Exercise Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Mile End Hospital, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4DG, UK
5
Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Academic Hospital of Bolzano (SABES-ASDAA), 39100 Bolzano, Italy
6
Department of Life Sciences, Health and Health Professions, Link Campus University, 00165 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(17), 5219; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13175219
Submission received: 18 August 2024 / Revised: 29 August 2024 / Accepted: 31 August 2024 / Published: 3 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Aspects of Return to Sport after Injuries)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
 Background: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is common. The present systematic review updates the current evidence on return to sport (RTS) in patients who have undergone arthroscopic surgery for FAI in any of its variants (CAM, pincer, or both). Methods: The outcomes of interest were sports-related patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and the level and time to RTS. All available clinical studies concerning the RTS following arthroscopic management of FAI were considered. In July 2024, the following databases were accessed following the PRISMA guidelines: Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed. Only studies with a minimum of six months of follow-up were eligible. Results: From 1245 initially identified articles, 43 studies (4103 patients) met the inclusion criteria, in which 32.1% (1317 of 4103 patients) were women. The mean length of follow-up was 33.7 ± 15.8 months. The mean age was 28.1 ± 7.2 years, the mean BMI was 24.7 ± 6.4 kg/m2, and 79.6% ± 27.8% of patients returned to sport at the same or higher level at a mean of 14.3 ± 9.6 months. The mean time away from sports was 8.0 ± 3.3 months. Conclusion: Arthroscopic management for FAI leads to a high rate of RTS, with approximately 80% of patients returning to their preinjury level. Future research should focus on standardised definitions of RTS, sport-specific rehabilitation protocols, and the influence of deformity and procedures on RTS.

1. Introduction

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is common, with an incidence of 30–70 per 100,000 individuals per year [1,2,3]. A mechanical conflict between the femoral head and the acetabulum causes this condition. Three main pathoanatomical morphologies characterise FAI. In cam morphology, there is a loss of sphericity of the femoral head, which is three times more common in male athletes. The pincer morphology is an overcoverage of the acetabulum and is more common in women. In mixed morphology, the most common deformity is evident in both cam and pincer morphologies [4,5]. FAI is a common finding on imaging [6,7]. FAI is often of uncertain clinical significance, asymptomatic, and reported as an occasional finding on plain radiographs. Approximately 40% of patients with hip disorders have evidence of FAI at imaging [8]. In patients with soft tissue damage, articular damage or several mechanical symptoms, FAI might become symptomatic. If left untreated, FAI might lead to labral tears and chondral damage. These patients develop groin pain, disability, limited range of motion (ROM), and mechanical symptoms such as clicking or catching in the hip [9,10]. FAI is more common in contact sports involving recurrent hip flexion and rotation, such as hockey, soccer, basketball, and martial arts [11,12]. FAI remarkably reduces physical performance in some athletes, forcing them to leave the playing field [12,13,14,15]. In selected athletes with persistent symptoms of FAI, arthroscopy might be recommended to restore bony anatomy and manage associated labral and chondral lesions. The efficacy of arthroscopy in athletes has been documented; however, the time and the level of the return to sport (RTS) after arthroscopic management remains a critical area of investigation [16,17]. Evidence on FAI is rapidly evolving, attracting broad research and innovations. The published literature is growing exponentially; however, the rate, timing, and success of RTS after hip arthroscopy for FAI in athletes are still controversial [10]. Therefore, a systematic review was conducted. The present investigation aims to update current evidence on RTS in patients who have undergone arthroscopic surgery for FAI, discussing possible influencing factors and new prospects. The outcomes of interest were sports-related patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and the level and time to RTS.

2. Methods

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

All available clinical studies concerning the arthroscopic management of FAI were considered. All types of FAI were considered in the present investigation. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals were included. According to the authors’ language capabilities, English, Spanish, French, Italian, or German articles were eligible. Only studies classified as evidence levels I to III according to the 2020 Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine [18] were considered. Editorials, opinions, reviews, and letters were excluded, as well as animal studies, computational analyses, in vitro experiments, cadaveric research, or biomechanical assessments. Studies that considered open surgery were excluded, as were studies with less than six months of follow-up. Finally, only articles focusing on RTS were included in the present review.

2.2. Search Strategy

The current systematic review followed the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement of 2020 [19]. The PRISMA 2020 checklist was used (see Supplementary Materials) [19]. There was not a systematic review registration of the present study. The following algorithm was implemented for the literature search:
  • Problem: FAI;
  • Intervention: arthroscopic management;
  • Design: clinical trial;
  • Outcome: return to sports;
  • Follow-up: minimum of 6 months.
In July 2024, the following databases were accessed: Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed, with no additional filters or time constraints. The Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) used for the database were: “femoroacetabular impingement/complications” [MeSH] OR “femoroacetabular impingement/diagnosis” [MeSH] OR “femoroacetabular impingement/etiology” [MeSH] OR “femoroacetabular impingement/physiopathology”[MeSH] OR “fibrocartilage/physiopathology” [MeSH] OR “hip” [MeSH] OR “hip/physiopathology” [MeSH] OR “hip joint/pathology” [MeSH] OR “pain” [MeSH] OR acetabulum OR cam OR cam impingement OR cam type OR FAI OR FAIS OR femoroacetabular impingement OR hip OR hip injury OR ice hockey injury OR pincer impingement OR pincer type OR sports injury) AND (“athletes” [MeSH] OR “athletic injuries/physiopathology” [MeSH] OR “athletic injuries/surgery”[MeSH] OR “dancing” [MeSH] OR “football/injuries” [MeSH] OR “hockey/injuries” [MeSH] OR “soccer/injuries” [MeSH] OR “tennis” [MeSH] OR athletes OR athletic performance OR elite athletes OR female athlete OR ice hockey player OR soccer OR soccer players OR sport type OR sports OR tennis) AND (“acetabulum/surgery” [MeSH] OR “arthralgia/surgery” [MeSH] OR “Arthroscopy” [MeSH] OR “Arthroscopy/methods” [MeSH] OR “cartilage, articular/surgery” [MeSH] OR “femoroacetabular impingement/surgery” [MeSH] OR “fibrocartilage/surgery” [MeSH] OR “hip injuries/surgery” [MeSH] OR “hip joint/surgery” [MeSH] OR “joint capsule/surgery” [MeSH] OR “joint diseases/surgery” [MeSH] OR arthroscopic surgical procedures OR arthroscopy OR hip arthroscopic surgery OR hip arthroscopy) AND (“patient reported outcome measures” [MeSH] OR “patient satisfaction” [MeSH] OR “return to sport” [MeSH] OR “return to sport/statistics & numerical data” [MeSH] OR “treatment outcome” [MeSH] OR “visual analog scale” [MeSH] OR outcomes OR return to play OR return to soccer OR return to sport OR return to sports OR return-to-running OR return-to-sport.

2.3. Selection and Data Collection

Two authors (F.S. and T.B.) performed the database search. All retrieved titles underwent manual screening, and their abstracts were accessed if deemed appropriate. Full texts were examined in cases where there was a match. Articles without accessible full texts were excluded from consideration. A cross-reference of the bibliographies of full-text articles was also conducted for potential inclusion. A third author (N.M.), who made the final decision, resolved any disagreements among authors.

2.4. Data Items

Two authors (F.S. and T.B.) performed data extraction. The following data at baseline were extracted: author, year of publication and journal, length of the follow-up, number of patients with related mean age, and BMI. Data on the following PROMs at baseline and at the last follow-up were retrieved: University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score [20], Hip Outcome Score—Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) [21], subscales function in sports and recreation and participation in physical activities of the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) [22], and Tegner Score [23]. Moreover, information on the level and time to RTS was collected. Data were extracted in Microsoft Office Excel version 16.0 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA).

2.5. Assessment of Risk of Bias

The assessment of risk of bias (RoB) followed the guidelines outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [24]. Two authors (F.S. and T.B.) independently evaluated the RoB in the extracted studies. Since only nonrandomised controlled trials (non-RCTs) were included in this review, the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool [25] was employed. This tool assesses seven domains of potential bias in non-RCTs, including domains focusing on possible confounding factors and patient selection characteristics before the comparative intervention, bias in classification during the intervention, as well as methodological quality post-intervention comparison, which involves deviations from previously intended interventions, missing data, erroneous outcome measurement, and bias in reported outcome selection. The ROBINS-I chart was generated using Robvis software (Riskofbias.info, Bristol, UK) [26].

2.6. Synthesis Method

The main author (F.M.) performed the statistical analyses following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [24]. IBM SPSS software version 25 was used. The arithmetic mean and standard deviation were used for continuous data, and the frequency (events/observations) for dichotomic variables. The mean difference effect measure and unpaired t-test were used to evaluate sports-related PROM improvement from baseline to the last follow-up. Values of p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection

Our initial search uncovered 1245 articles potentially relevant to the research question. After eliminating duplicates, we assessed the eligibility of 688 articles based on their abstracts. Overall, 397 articles failed to meet the inclusion criteria due to several factors. The primary reason for exclusion was a mismatch with the predetermined study design (n = 243). Additionally, limitations in full-text accessibility (n = 130) and language barriers (n = 24) resulted in further exclusions. Following a meticulous full-text review of the remaining 291 articles, an additional 246 were excluded. This stringent selection process yielded a final selection of 43 studies for inclusion in this systematic review. The results of the literature search are shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Risk-of-Bias Assessment

Due to the absence of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the included studies, the risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. A concerning finding emerged in the first domain, where nearly two-thirds of the studies exhibited a serious or moderate risk of bias due to confounding. This highlights a potential limitation in the overall methodological quality of the studies. Encouragingly, the risk of bias from participant selection was generally low across all studies. Furthermore, a low risk of bias was maintained in classifying interventions and adherence to the intended intervention protocol for nearly all studies. However, the domains assessing post-intervention bias revealed concerns regarding outcome measurement and missing data. The selection of reported results presented minimal concerns in almost all studies. In conclusion, the ROBINS-I assessment indicated a moderate or low overall risk of bias across the included studies, suggesting an acceptable level of methodological quality, albeit with a caveat regarding confounding (Figure 2).

3.3. Study Characteristics and Results of Individual Studies

Data from 3964 patients were retrieved. Of them, 39.4% (1276 of 3235 patients) were women. The mean length of follow-up was 34.0 ± 16.0 months. The mean age was 28.1 ± 7.3 years, and the mean BMI was 24.7 ± 6.5 kg/m2. Generalities of the included studies are shown in Table 1.

3.4. Results Synthesis

79.6 ± 27.8% of patients returned to sport at the same or higher level at a mean of 14.3 ± 9.6 months. The mean time away from sports was 8.0 ± 3.3 months. A significant improvement was found in HOS-SSS, but no difference was found in the other sports-related PROMs (Table 2).

4. Discussion

FAI is a common cause of groin pain, especially among young individuals and athletes [10,38,70]. The literature reports optimal results after arthroscopic management of FAI. According to the main findings of the present systematic review, most patients returned to sport after hip arthroscopy for FAI. Indeed, at a mean of 14.3 months, approximately 80% of patients returned to sport at the same or higher level. The rate of RTS after arthroscopy for FAI is high, especially compared to conservative management. Poor evidence reports that following conservative management, approximately 50% of patients did not return to their previous sport [71,72]. Therefore, given the high rate of RTS, arthroscopic management for FAI spread. In a previous systematic review of 10 studies (376 patients), Annin et al. [73] reported that 74.2% to 100% of athletes returned to the sport at the same or greater level compared with the preinjury level, and 0% to 25.8% returned to a lower level. The collective mean follow-up reported by the authors ranged from 24 to 240 months, similar to that reported in the present systematic review. A previous systematic review of 31 articles and 1911 patients found that 87.7% returned to sports [74], while another systematic review of 35 studies demonstrated a 91% RTS four to ten months after arthroscopic FAI [75]. A systematic review of 15 studies (809 patients) showed that 88.3% returned to play and 85.5% returned to play at the preinjury level after arthroscopy for FAI [76].
The present systematic review did not evidence a statistically significant improvement in PROMs from baseline to the last follow-up, except in HOS-SSS, which improved from 43.2 to 76.5. However, although not statistically significant, PROMs improved from baseline to the last follow-up. The mean UCLA Activity Score increased slightly from 7.7 to 9.4, indicating increased activity levels. Similarly, the mean Tegner Activity Scale increased from 4.5 to 5.2. The subscales of function in sports and recreation and participation in physical activities of the HAGOS score also improved from baseline to the last follow-up. PROMs are largely used in the literature to evaluate surgery outcomes [77]. Conversely, previous studies showed significant improvement in PROMs in the present investigation. Domb et al. [78] reported a significant improvement in PROMs, sports participation, and patient satisfaction in 177 athletes at a mean of 10 years of follow-up. Another clinical investigation on 4963 patients who underwent arthroscopy for FAI [79] reported a statistically significant improvement in PROMs at 12 months follow-up. The authors hypothesised that heterogeneities in sports, pathoanatomical deformities, soft tissue lesions, and management protocols might have improved data variability, leading to non-significant results. This statement is supported by the higher values of standard deviations observed in some PROMs, especially at baseline. Pathoanatomical deformities and associated lesions likely vary significantly in their impact and progression, further contributing to the complexity of the data. Heterogeneities in sports types can lead to various physical demands and activity levels, each interacting differently with specific anatomical and pathological conditions. A previous clinical investigation categorised sports in contact, noncontact pivoting, and noncontact nonpivoting on 189 young athletes [80]. A total of 81 athletes (42.9%) failed to return to preinjury sports at their preinjury level. In comparison, 108 athletes (57.1%) returned to sport at their preinjury level. These values are considerably lower than those reported in the literature, probably due to the authors’ strict definitions and categorisation of RTS. Different types and classifications of sports have been considered and compared in RTS following arthroscopy for FAI. Weber et al. [69], in a study of 49 hip arthroscopies on 39 athletes, compared cutting, contact, impingement, asymmetric/overhead, and endurance athletes, with no difference in RTS. A similar classification but with contrasting results was used in another systematic review of 29 articles (1426 hip arthroscopies) [81]. Flexibility athletes had the highest rate of RTS after hip arthroscopy (94.8%), while contact athletes had the lowest rate (88%) [81]. Endurance athletes had the faster RTS (5.4 ± 2.6 months) [81]. Other authors classified different types of sports as high-impact and low-impact [82], while others focused their research only on a single sport [83]. The heterogeneity in the types of sports may lead to variability in outcomes: athletes involved in high-impact sports such as soccer and hockey tend to have different recovery trajectories compared to those in low-impact sports such as swimming. This variability also highlights the need for sport-specific rehabilitation protocols to optimise RTS outcomes [84].
Differences in RTS among the included studies can arise from a difference in the definition of RTS [85]. Indeed, RTS can be considered a continuum of three elements: return to participation, return to sport proper, and return to performance. In return for participation, athletes may join in rehabilitation, training, or sport at a lower intensity than their RTS goal. During RTS, athletes return to specific sports without performing at their desired routine levels. Return to performance is an expansion of RTS: the athlete has gradually returned to his sport and is performing at or above his preinjury level [86].
The type of surgical intervention influences the outcomes and the RTS. Labral debridement, repair, and reconstruction are three different management modalities of FAI. Labral debridement requires cutting and levelling areas of torn or damaged labrum. In contrast, labral repair uses anchors and sutures to bundle tissue together and reattach the labrum to its anatomic position [87,88]. The damaged labrum is removed and replaced with an autologous, heterologous, or synthetic graft using various reconstruction techniques [89,90]. The type of surgical procedure influences the time and rate of RTS. Scanaliato et al. [63], in a study on labral reconstruction for FAI in 30 athletes, reported that 86.7% (26 of 30 patients) returned to the sport in a mean time of 6.6 months. Another investigation, which included 32 athletes who underwent primary arthroscopic labral reconstruction for FAI, reported an RTS of 78% at a mean follow-up of 26.4 months [91]. Mohan et al. [46] conducted a study with a mean follow-up of 34 months on 50 amateur athletes who have undergone labral repair. The authors reported a rate of RTS of 92% (46/50). In another clinical investigation [45] evaluating mid-term outcomes after hip arthroscopy and labral debridement for cam-type FAI, all 108 analysed patients returned to sport with no limitation at a mean of 2.6 months. In the present investigation, the use of these surgical techniques varied largely among studies. Debridement and repair were the most commonly used modalities (22 of 45 articles). Labral repair was performed in 13 investigations. Debridement, repair, and reconstruction were used in nine studies. Only two articles performed labral reconstruction, one reconstruction associated with repair, and one study reported data on isolated debridement.
The findings of the present review underscore the importance of considering individual patient factors, such as the type of FAI, the chosen labral procedure, the patient’s level of athletic activity, and the type of sport when planning arthroscopic management and establishing the possible RTS.
The present systematic review has limitations. We did not include languages other than English, Spanish, French, Italian, or German. Studies with levels of evidence IV and V were not included to increase the quality of recommendations. The included studies considered various types of FAI (cam, pincer, and mixed), each with peculiar anatomical and biomechanical characteristics, treatment responses, and variability in RTS and PROMs. The morphology of the FAI can influence the outcomes and RTS. Most studies did not consider the morphology of the FAI separately in terms of timing, outcomes, and results on RTS after hip arthroscopy for FAI [17]. Other limitations are evident. The predominance of retrospective investigations increases the risk of selection bias. Many included studies had varied patient populations, ranging from high-level athletes to recreational sports participants, so the level of pre-injury athletic activity, age, and BMI varied significantly across studies. All these factors can influence the results [92,93,94,95,96]. Additionally, there is variability regarding the types of sports, and the different activity levels complicate the interpretation of the overall RTS [41,97,98,99]. Given the lack of information in most studies, it was not possible to analyse the different levels of leagues separately. Physical rehabilitation and psychological factors such as an athlete’s motivation, confidence in the surgical repair, and fear of re-injury can significantly affect RTS outcomes. Future studies should overcome current limitations, evaluating individual factors, such as the type of FAI, the chosen labral procedure, the level of athletic activity, and the type of sport separately.

5. Conclusions

The literature reports optimal results after arthroscopic management of FAI. According to the main findings of the present systematic review, most patients returned to sport after hip arthroscopy for FAI. Indeed, at a mean of 14.3 months, approximately 80% of patients returned to sport at the same or a higher level.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm13175219/s1, The PRISMA 2020 checklist.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation: T.B. and F.M.; writing: L.L., F.S., M.M., R.S. and F.M.; images: T.B.; supervision and administration: N.M. and F.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Hasegawa, M.; Morikawa, M.; Seaman, M.; Cheng, V.K.; Sudo, A. Population-based prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement in Japan. Mod. Rheumatol. 2021, 31, 899–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Kopec, J.A.; Hong, Q.; Wong, H.; Zhang, C.J.; Ratzlaff, C.; Cibere, J.; Li, L.C.; Prlic, H.; Wilson, D.R.; Forster, B.B.; et al. Prevalence of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome among Young and Middle-aged White Adults. J. Rheumatol. 2020, 47, 1440–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Hale, R.F.; Melugin, H.P.; Zhou, J.; LaPrade, M.D.; Bernard, C.; Leland, D.; Levy, B.A.; Krych, A.J. Incidence of Femoroacetabular Impingement and Surgical Management Trends Over Time. Am. J. Sports Med. 2021, 49, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Dimmick, S.; Stevens, K.J.; Brazier, D.; Anderson, S.E. Femoroacetabular impingement. Radiol. Clin. N. Am. 2013, 51, 337–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ersoy, H.; Trane, R.N.; Pomeranz, S.J. Cam and Pincer Type of Femoroacetabular Impingement. J. Surg. Orthop. Adv. 2016, 25, 244–249. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Pierannunzii, L. Femoroacetabular impingement: Question-driven review of hip joint pathophysiology from asymptomatic skeletal deformity to end-stage osteoarthritis. J. Orthop. Traumatol. 2019, 20, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Frank, J.M.; Harris, J.D.; Erickson, B.J.; Slikker, W., 3rd; Bush-Joseph, C.A.; Salata, M.J.; Nho, S.J. Prevalence of Femoroacetabular Impingement Imaging Findings in Asymptomatic Volunteers: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy 2015, 31, 1199–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rankin, A.T.; Bleakley, C.M.; Cullen, M. Hip Joint Pathology as a Leading Cause of Groin Pain in the Sporting Population: A 6-Year Review of 894 Cases. Am. J. Sports Med. 2015, 43, 1698–1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Byrd, J.W. Femoroacetabular impingement in athletes: Current concepts. Am. J. Sports Med. 2014, 42, 737–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Matar, H.E.; Rajpura, A.; Board, T.N. Femoroacetabular impingement in young adults: Assessment and management. Br. J. Hosp. Med. 2019, 80, 584–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lee, W.Y.; Kang, C.; Hwang, D.S.; Jeon, J.H.; Zheng, L. Descriptive Epidemiology of Symptomatic Femoroacetabular Impingement in Young Athlete: Single Center Study. Hip. Pelvis. 2016, 28, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bisciotti, A.; Pogliacomi, F.; Cepparulo, R.; Fiorentino, G.; Di Pietto, F.; Sconfienza, L.M.; Bisciotti, A.; Bisciotti, G.N. Femoroacetabular impingement: Correlation between imaging parameters, sport activity and chondral damage. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2022, 62, 803–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ganz, R.; Parvizi, J.; Beck, M.; Leunig, M.; Nötzli, H.; Siebenrock, K.A. Femoroacetabular impingement: A cause for osteoarthritis of the hip. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2003, 417, 112–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Agricola, R.; Heijboer, M.P.; Bierma-Zeinstra, S.M.; Verhaar, J.A.; Weinans, H.; Waarsing, J.H. Cam impingement causes osteoarthritis of the hip: A nationwide prospective cohort study (CHECK). Ann. Rheum. Dis. 2013, 72, 918–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Kowalczuk, M.; Yeung, M.; Simunovic, N.; Ayeni, O.R. Does Femoroacetabular Impingement Contribute to the Development of Hip Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review. Sports Med. Arthrosc. Rev. 2015, 23, 174–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Holling, M.J.; Miller, S.T.; Geeslin, A.G. Rehabilitation and Return to Sport After Arthroscopic Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Review of the Recent Literature and Discussion of Advanced Rehabilitation Techniques for Athletes. Arthrosc. Sports Med. Rehabil. 2022, 4, e125–e132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Migliorini, F.; Baroncini, A.; Eschweiler, J.; Knobe, M.; Tingart, M.; Maffulli, N. Return to sport after arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement. Surgeon 2023, 21, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Howick, J.C.I.; Glasziou, P.; Greenhalgh, T.; Carl Heneghan Liberati, A.; Moschetti, I.; Phillips, B.; Thornton, H.; Goddard, O.; Hodgkinson, M. The 2011 Oxford CEBM Levels of Evidence; Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine: Oxford, UK, 2011; Available online: https://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653 (accessed on 1 July 2024).
  19. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Naal, F.D.; Impellizzeri, F.M.; Leunig, M. Which is the best activity rating scale for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty? Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2009, 467, 958–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Martin, R.L.; Kelly, B.T.; Philippon, M.J. Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score. Arthroscopy 2006, 22, 1304–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Thorborg, K.; Holmich, P.; Christensen, R.; Petersen, J.; Roos, E.M. The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS): Development and validation according to the COSMIN checklist. Br. J. Sports Med. 2011, 45, 478–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Tegner, Y.; Lysholm, J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 1985, 198, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Higgins, J.P.T.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Welch, V.A. (Eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3; (Updated February 2022); Cochrane, 2022; Available online: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook (accessed on 1 July 2024).
  25. Sterne, J.A.; Hernan, M.A.; Reeves, B.C.; Savovic, J.; Berkman, N.D.; Viswanathan, M.; Henry, D.; Altman, D.G.; Ansari, M.T.; Boutron, I.; et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016, 355, i4919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. McGuinness, L.A.; Higgins, J.P.T. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res. Synth. Methods 2020, 12, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Abrahamson, J.; Lindman, I.; Sansone, M.; Öhlin, A.; Jonasson, P.; Karlsson, J.; Baranto, A. Low rate of high-level athletes maintained a return to pre-injury sports two years after arthroscopic treatment for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. J. Exp. Orthop. 2020, 7, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Botser, I.B.; Jackson, T.J.; Smith, T.W.; Leonard, J.P.; Stake, C.E.; Domb, B.G. Open surgical dislocation versus arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Am. J. Orthop. 2014, 43, 209–214. [Google Scholar]
  29. Charles, T.; Jayankura, M. Evaluation of hip arthroscopy using a hip-specific distractor for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0246655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ferrer-Rivero, J.; Chahla, J.; Lizano-Diez, X.; Andriola, V.; López-Zabala, I.; Soler-Cano, A.; Tey-Pons, M. Hip arthroscopy is an effective treatment for high-level female athletes. J. Isakos 2024, 9, 444–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Frank, R.M.; Kunze, K.N.; Beck, E.C.; Neal, W.H.; Bush-Joseph, C.A.; Nho, S.J. Do Female Athletes Return to Sports After Hip Preservation Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome?: A Comparative Analysis. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2019, 7, 2325967119831758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Glaws, K.R.; Ellis, T.J.; Hewett, T.E.; Di Stasi, S. Return to Sport Rates in Physically Active Individuals 6 Months After Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome. J. Sport Rehabil. 2019, 28, 570–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hassebrock, J.D.; Chhabra, A.; Makovicka, J.L.; Economopoulos, K.J. Bilateral Hip Arthroscopy in High-Level Athletes: Results of a Shorter Interval Between Staged Bilateral Hip Arthroscopies. Am. J. Sports Med. 2020, 48, 654–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Hassebrock, J.D.; Makovicka, J.L.; Chhabra, A.; Anastasi, M.B.; Menzer, H.M.; Wilcox, J.G.; Economopoulos, K.J. Hip Arthroscopy in the High-Level Athlete: Does Capsular Closure Make a Difference? Am. J. Sports Med. 2020, 48, 2465–2470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Larson, C.M.; McGaver, R.S.; Collette, N.R.; Giveans, M.R.; Ross, J.R.; Bedi, A.; Nepple, J.J. Arthroscopic Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement in Skeletally Immature Athletes: Radiographic and Clinical Analysis. Arthroscopy 2019, 35, 1819–1825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Levy, D.M.; Kuhns, B.D.; Frank, R.M.; Grzybowski, J.S.; Campbell, K.A.; Brown, S.; Nho, S.J. High Rate of Return to Running for Athletes After Hip Arthroscopy for the Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement and Capsular Plication. Am. J. Sports Med. 2017, 45, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lindman, I.; Öhlin, A.; Desai, N.; Samuelsson, K.; Ayeni, O.R.; Hamrin Senorski, E.; Sansone, M. Five-Year Outcomes After Arthroscopic Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome in Elite Athletes. Am. J. Sports Med. 2020, 48, 1416–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lindman, I.; Abrahamsson, J.; Öhlin, A.; Wörner, T.; Eek, F.; Ayeni, O.R.; Senorski, E.H.; Sansone, M. Improvements After Arthroscopic Treatment for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome in High-Level Ice Hockey Players: 2-Year Outcomes by Player Position. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2021, 9, 2325967120981687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Litrenta, J.; Mu, B.H.; Ortiz-Declet, V.; Chen, A.W.; Perets, I.; Wojnowski, N.M.; Domb, B.G. Hip Arthroscopy Successfully Treats Femoroacetabular Impingement in Adolescent Athletes. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2020, 40, e156–e160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Maldonado, D.R.; Yelton, M.J.; Rosinsky, P.J.; Shapira, J.; Meghpara, M.B.; Lall, A.C.; Domb, B.G. Return to play after hip arthroscopy among tennis players: Outcomes with minimum five-year follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2020, 21, 400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Marom, N.; Olsen, R.; Burger, J.A.; Dooley, M.S.; Coleman, S.H.; Ranawat, A.S.; Kelly, B.T.; Nawabi, D.H. Majority of competitive soccer players return to soccer following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: Female and older aged players are less likely to return to soccer. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2023, 31, 2721–2729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mas Martinez, J.; Sanz-Reig, J.; Verdu Roman, C.; Bustamante Suarez de Puga, D.; Martinez Gimenez, E.; Morales Santias, M. Recreational Sports and Intra-articular Hip Injuries in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement. Arthrosc. Sports Med. Rehabil. 2020, 2, e321–e328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Martinot, P.; Trouillez, T.; Dartus, J.; Putman, S.; Girard, J.; Migaud, H. Treatment of femoroacetabular impingement by arthroscopy versus anterior mini-open approach: Case-control study of a continuous series of 91 cases at a mean 4.6 years’ follow-up. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2020, 106, 1575–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. McConkey, M.O.; Chadayammuri, V.; Garabekyan, T.; Mayer, S.W.; Kraeutler, M.J.; Mei-Dan, O. Simultaneous Bilateral Hip Arthroscopy in Adolescent Athletes With Symptomatic Femoroacetabular Impingement. J. Pediatr. Orthop. 2019, 39, 193–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Migliorini, F.; Maffulli, N.; Bell, A.; Cuozzo, F.; Hildebrand, F.; Weber, C.D. Midterm results after arthroscopic femoral neck osteoplasty combined with labral debridement for cam type femoroacetabular impingement in active adults. J. Orthop. Surg. Res. 2023, 18, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mohan, R.; Johnson, N.R.; Hevesi, M.; Gibbs, C.M.; Levy, B.A.; Krych, A.J. Return to Sport and Clinical Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopic Labral Repair in Young Amateur Athletes: Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up. Arthroscopy 2017, 33, 1679–1684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Mullins, K.; Hanlon, M.; Carton, P. Arthroscopic correction of femoroacetabular impingement improves athletic performance in male athletes. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2020, 28, 2285–2294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mullins, K.; Filan, D.; Carton, P. Arthroscopic Correction of Sports-Related Femoroacetabular Impingement in Competitive Athletes: 2-Year Clinical Outcome and Predictors for Achieving Minimal Clinically Important Difference. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2021, 9, 2325967121989675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nho, S.J.; Magennis, E.M.; Singh, C.K.; Kelly, B.T. Outcomes after the arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement in a mixed group of high-level athletes. Am. J. Sports Med. 2011, 39, 14s–19s. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Ortiz-Declet, V.; Yuen, L.C.; Schwarzman, G.R.; Chen, A.W.; Perets, I.; Domb, B.G. Return to Play in Amateur Soccer Players Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy: Short- to Mid-Term Follow-Up. Arthroscopy 2020, 36, 442–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Owens, J.S.; Jimenez, A.E.; Lee, M.S.; Maldonado, D.R.; Lall, A.C.; Domb, B.G. Outcomes and Return-to-Sport Rates for Elite Athletes With Femoral Retroversion Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy: A Propensity-Matched Analysis With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2022, 10, 23259671221099840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Owens, J.S.; Lee, M.S.; Jimenez, A.E.; Maldonado, D.R.; Paraschos, O.A.; Domb, B.G. Sex-Based Differences in Athletes Undergoing Primary Hip Arthroscopy With Labral Reconstruction: A Propensity-Matched Analysis With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2022, 10, 23259671221100861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Palmer, D.H.; Ganesh, V.; Comfort, T.; Tatman, P. Midterm outcomes in patients with cam femoroacetabular impingement treated arthroscopically. Arthroscopy 2012, 28, 1671–1681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Parvaresh, K.C.; Wichman, D.M.; Alter, T.D.; Clapp, I.M.; Nho, S.J. High rate of return to tennis after hip arthroscopy for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Phys. Ther. Sport 2021, 51, 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Perets, I.; Hartigan, D.E.; Chaharbakhshi, E.O.; Ashberg, L.; Mu, B.; Domb, B.G. Clinical Outcomes and Return to Sport in Competitive Athletes Undergoing Arthroscopic Iliopsoas Fractional Lengthening Compared With a Matched Control Group Without Iliopsoas Fractional Lengthening. Arthroscopy 2018, 34, 456–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Philippon, M.; Schenker, M.; Briggs, K.; Kuppersmith, D. Femoroacetabular impingement in 45 professional athletes: Associated pathologies and return to sport following arthroscopic decompression. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2007, 15, 908–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Philippon, M.J.; Weiss, D.R.; Kuppersmith, D.A.; Briggs, K.K.; Hay, C.J. Arthroscopic labral repair and treatment of femoroacetabular impingement in professional hockey players. Am. J. Sports Med. 2010, 38, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Polesello, G.C.; Lima, F.R.; Guimaraes, R.P.; Ricioli, W.; Queiroz, M.C. Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: Minimum five-year follow-up. Hip. Int. 2014, 24, 381–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ramos, N.; Youssefzadeh, K.; Gerhardt, M.; Banffy, M. Results of hip arthroscopy in elite level water polo players with femoroacetabular impingement: Return to play and patient satisfaction. J. Hip. Preserv. Surg. 2020, 7, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Rosinsky, P.J.; Kyin, C.; Lall, A.C.; Shapira, J.; Maldonado, D.R.; Domb, B.G. Rate of Return to Sport and Functional Outcomes After Bilateral Hip Arthroscopy in High-Level Athletes. Am. J. Sports Med. 2019, 47, 3444–3454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Saito, M.; Utsunomiya, H.; Hatakeyama, A.; Nakashima, H.; Nishimura, H.; Matsuda, D.K.; Sakai, A.; Uchida, S. Hip Arthroscopic Management Can Improve Osteitis Pubis and Bone Marrow Edema in Competitive Soccer Players With Femoroacetabular Impingement. Am. J. Sports Med. 2019, 47, 408–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sansone, M.; Ahlden, M.; Jonasson, P.; Thomee, C.; Sward, L.; Baranto, A.; Karlsson, J.; Thomee, R. Good Results After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement in Top-Level Athletes. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2015, 3, 2325967115569691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Scanaliato, J.P.; Chasteen, J.; Polmear, M.M.; Salfiti, C.; Wolff, A.B. Primary and Revision Circumferential Labral Reconstruction for Femoroacetabular Impingement in Athletes: Return to Sport and Technique. Arthroscopy 2020, 36, 2598–2610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Singh, P.J.; O’Donnell, J.M. The outcome of hip arthroscopy in Australian football league players: A review of 27 hips. Arthroscopy 2010, 26, 743–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Snaebjörnsson, T.; Anari, S.S.; Lindman, I.; Desai, N.; Stålman, A.; Ayeni, O.R.; Öhlin, A. Most Elite Athletes Who Underwent Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome Did Not Return to the Same Level of Sport, but the Majority Were Satisfied With the Outcome of Surgery. Arthrosc. Sports Med. Rehabil. 2022, 4, e899–e906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tjong, V.K.; Cogan, C.J.; Riederman, B.D.; Terry, M.A. A Qualitative Assessment of Return to Sport After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2016, 4, 2325967116671940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Tran, P.; Pritchard, M.; O’Donnell, J. Outcome of arthroscopic treatment for cam type femoroacetabular impingement in adolescents. ANZ J. Surg. 2013, 83, 382–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ukwuani, G.C.; Waterman, B.R.; Nwachukwu, B.U.; Beck, E.C.; Kunze, K.N.; Harris, J.D.; Nho, S.J. Return to Dance and Predictors of Outcome After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome. Arthroscopy 2019, 35, 1101–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Weber, A.E.; Nakata, H.; Mayer, E.N.; Bolia, I.K.; Philippon, M.J.; Snibbe, J.; Romano, R.; Tibone, J.E.; Gamradt, S.C. Return to Sport After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome in NCAA Division I Athletes: Experience at a Single Institution. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2020, 8, 2325967120918383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Trigg, S.D.; Schroeder, J.D.; Hulsopple, C. Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome. Curr. Sports Med. Rep. 2020, 19, 360–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Pennock, A.T.; Bomar, J.D.; Johnson, K.P.; Randich, K.; Upasani, V.V. Nonoperative Management of Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Prospective Study. Am. J. Sports Med. 2018, 46, 3415–3422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pasculli, R.M.; Callahan, E.A.; Wu, J.; Edralin, N.; Berrigan, W.A. Non-operative Management and Outcomes of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome. Curr. Rev. Musculoskelet. Med. 2023, 16, 501–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Annin, S.; Lall, A.C.; Yelton, M.J.; Shapira, J.; Rosinsky, P.J.; Meghpara, M.B.; Maldonado, D.R.; Ankem, H.; Domb, B.G. Patient-Reported Outcomes in Athletes Following Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement With Subanalysis on Return to Sport and Performance Level: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy 2021, 37, 2657–2676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Minkara, A.A.; Westermann, R.W.; Rosneck, J.; Lynch, T.S. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy in Femoroacetabular Impingement. Am. J. Sports Med. 2019, 47, 488–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Reiman, M.P.; Peters, S.; Sylvain, J.; Hagymasi, S.; Mather, R.C.; Goode, A.P. Femoroacetabular impingement surgery allows 74% of athletes to return to the same competitive level of sports participation but their level of performance remains unreported: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2018, 52, 972–981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Lovett-Carter, D.; Jawanda, A.S.; Hannigan, A. Meta-Analysis of the Surgical and Rehabilitative Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy in Athletes With Femoroacetabular Impingement. Clin. J. Sport Med. 2020, 30, 404–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Lindman, I.; Nikou, S.; Öhlin, A.; Senorski, E.H.; Ayeni, O.; Karlsson, J.; Sansone, M. Evaluation of outcome reporting trends for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome- a systematic review. J. Exp. Orthop. 2021, 8, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Domb, B.G.; Annin, S.; Monahan, P.F.; Lee, M.S.; Jimenez, A.E.; Maldonado, D.R. Ten-Year Survivorship, Outcomes, and Sports Participation in Athletes After Primary Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome. Am. J. Sports Med. 2023, 51, 2383–2395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Holleyman, R.; Sohatee, M.A.; Lyman, S.; Malviya, A.; Khanduja, V. Hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement is associated with significant improvement in early patient reported outcomes: Analysis of 4963 cases from the UK non-arthroplasty registry (NAHR) dataset. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 2023, 31, 58–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ishøi, L.; Thorborg, K.; Kraemer, O.; Hölmich, P. Return to Sport and Performance After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement in 18- to 30-Year-Old Athletes: A Cross-sectional Cohort Study of 189 Athletes. Am. J. Sports Med. 2018, 46, 2578–2587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Bolia, I.K.; Ihn, H.; Kang, H.P.; Mayfield, C.K.; Briggs, K.K.; Bedi, A.; Jay Nho, S.; Philippon, M.J.; Weber, A.E. Cutting, Impingement, Contact, Endurance, Flexibility, and Asymmetric/Overhead Sports: Is There a Difference in Return-to-Sport Rate After Arthroscopic Femoroacetabular Impingement Surgery? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am. J. Sports Med. 2021, 49, 1363–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Robinson, J.; Casartelli, N.C.; Leunig, M. Editorial Commentary: Return to Sport: An Ill-Defined Parameter. Arthroscopy 2020, 36, 450–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lindman, I.; Löfskog, M.; Öhlin, A.; Abrahamsson, J.; Hamrin Senorski, E.; Karlsson, J.; Ayeni, O.R.; Sansone, M. Return to Sport for Professional and Subelite Ice Hockey Players After Arthroscopic Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2022, 10, 23259671221089984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Terrell, S.L.; Olson, G.E.; Lynch, J. Therapeutic Exercise Approaches to Nonoperative and Postoperative Management of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome. J. Athl. Train 2021, 56, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wörner, T.; Thorborg, K.; Stålman, A.; Webster, K.E.; Momatz Olsson, H.; Eek, F. High or low return to sport rates following hip arthroscopy is a matter of definition? Br. J. Sports Med. 2018, 52, 1475–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Ardern, C.L.; Glasgow, P.; Schneiders, A.; Witvrouw, E.; Clarsen, B.; Cools, A.; Gojanovic, B.; Griffin, S.; Khan, K.M.; Moksnes, H.; et al. 2016 Consensus statement on return to sport from the First World Congress in Sports Physical Therapy, Bern. Br. J. Sports Med. 2016, 50, 853–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kucharik, M.P.; Abraham, P.F.; Nazal, M.R.; Varady, N.H.; Eberlin, C.T.; Meek, W.M.; Martin, S.D. Arthroscopic Acetabular Labral Repair Versus Labral Debridement: Long-term Survivorship and Functional Outcomes. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2022, 10, 23259671221109012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wu, Z.X.; Ren, W.X.; Ren, Y.M.; Tian, M.Q. Arthroscopic labral debridement versus labral repair for patients with femoroacetabular impingement: A meta-analysis. Medicine 2020, 99, e20141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Su, T.; Chen, G.X.; Yang, L. Diagnosis and treatment of labral tear. Chin. Med. J. 2019, 132, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Harris, J.D.; Brand, J.C.; Rossi, M.J.; Lubowitz, J.H. Irreparable Hip Labral Tears and Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: Labral Reconstruction Incorporating the Transverse Acetabular Ligament May Restore the Suction Seal. Arthroscopy 2020, 36, 2573–2577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Maldonado, D.R.; Chen, S.L.; Yelton, M.J.; Rosinsky, P.J.; Walker-Santiago, R.; Shapira, J.; Lall, A.C.; Domb, B.G. Return to Sport and Athletic Function in an Active Population After Primary Arthroscopic Labral Reconstruction of the Hip. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2020, 8, 2325967119900767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Alradwan, H.; Philippon, M.J.; Farrokhyar, F.; Chu, R.; Whelan, D.; Bhandari, M.; Ayeni, O.R. Return to preinjury activity levels after surgical management of femoroacetabular impingement in athletes. Arthroscopy 2012, 28, 1567–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Jimenez, A.E.; Monahan, P.F.; Owens, J.S.; Maldonado, D.R.; Saks, B.R.; Ankem, H.K.; Sabetian, P.W.; Lall, A.C.; Domb, B.G. Clinical Outcomes and Reoperation Rates After Hip Arthroscopy in Female Athletes With Low Versus Normal Body Mass Index: A Propensity-Matched Comparison With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up. Am. J. Sports Med. 2022, 50, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Jimenez, A.E.; Fox, J.D.; Monahan, P.F.; Lee, M.S.; George, T.; Maldonado, D.R.; Saks, B.R.; Lall, A.C.; Domb, B.G. High Body Mass Index Does Not Adversely Affect Outcomes in High-Level Athletes Undergoing Primary Hip Arthroscopy: A Propensity-Matched Comparison With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up. Am. J. Sports Med. 2022, 50, 507–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Clapp, I.M.; Nwachukwu, B.U.; Beck, E.C.; Jan, K.; Gowd, A.K.; Nho, S.J. Comparing Outcomes of Competitive Athletes Versus Nonathletes Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome. Am. J. Sports Med. 2020, 48, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Przybyl, M.; Walenczak, K.; Domzalski, M.E. Athletes do better after FAI arthroscopic treatment in male population. J. Orthop. Surg. 2018, 26, 2309499018760111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Chen, A.W.; Craig, M.J.; Mu, B.H.; Go, C.C.; Ortiz-Declet, V.; Maldonado, D.R.; Domb, B.G. Return to Basketball After Hip Arthroscopy: Minimum 2-Year Follow-up. Arthroscopy 2019, 35, 2834–2844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Degen, R.M.; Fields, K.G.; Wentzel, C.S.; Bartscherer, B.; Ranawat, A.S.; Coleman, S.H.; Kelly, B.T. Return-to-play rates following arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement in competitive baseball players. Phys. Sports Med. 2016, 44, 385–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Locks, R.; Utsunomiya, H.; Briggs, K.K.; McNamara, S.; Chahla, J.; Philippon, M.J. Return to Play After Hip Arthroscopic Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement in Professional Soccer Players. Am. J. Sports Med. 2018, 46, 273–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 13 05219 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart of the literature search.
Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart of the literature search.
Jcm 13 05219 g001
Jcm 13 05219 g002
Figure 2. ROBINS-I levels of non-RCTs.
Figure 2. ROBINS-I levels of non-RCTs.
Jcm 13 05219 g002
Table 1. Generalities of the included studies.
Table 1. Generalities of the included studies.
Author and YearCountryJournalDesignFollow-Up (months)Labral ProcedurePatients (n)Women (n)Mean AgeMean BMI
Abrahamson et al., 2020 [27]SwedenJ Exp OrthopProspective23.4Debridement13512730.0
416
Botser et al., 2014 [28]USAAm J OrthopProspective14.3Repair182320.1
Charles et al., 2021 [29]BelgiumPLoS OneRetrospective53.0Debridement and
Repair		542535.0
Ferrer-Rivero et al., 2024 [30]SpainJ ISAKOSRetrospective32.4 111132.021.7
2222
Frank et al., 2019 [31]USAOrthop J Sports MedRetrospective31.2Repair979736.023.8
979737.827.4
Glaws et al., 2019 [32]USAJ Sport RehabilProspective6.0Repair16723.424.2
12827.425.4
Hassebrock et al., 2020 [33]USAAm J Sports MedRetrospective26.0Repair22622.026.7
281219.025.4
Hassebrock et al. 1, 2020 [34]USAAm J Sports MedRetrospective24.0Repair491719.423.2
621818.624.6
Larson et al., 2019 [35]USAArthroscopyRetrospective39.8Repair28715.9
Levy et al., 2016 [36]USAAm J Sports MedRetrospective24.0Debridement and
Repair		512926.323.7
Lindman et al., 2020 [37]SwedenAm J Sports MedProspective60.0Debridement and
Repair		641224.023.7
Lindman et al., 2021 [38]SwedenOrthop J Sports MedProspective24.0 172328.025.6
Litrenta et al., 2020 [39]USAJ Pediatr OrthopRetrospective45.2Debridement and
Repair and
Reconstruction		69 15.921.4
Maldonado et al., 2020 [40]USABMC Musculoskelet DisordRetrospective66.8Debridement and
Repair and
Reconstruction		251441.425.1
Marom et al., 2023 [41]USAKnee Surg Sports Traumatol ArthroscRetrospective72.0Debridement and
Repair		1195121.623.7
Martinez et al., 2020 [42]SpainArthrosc Sports Med RehabilRetrospective24.0 762238.829.0
50233.74.0
362236.161.2
18336.816.7
Martinot et al., 2020 [43]FranceOrthop Traumatol Surg ResRetrospective55.2Debridement and
Repair		551432.324.7
McConkey et al., 2019 [44]USAJ Pediatr OrthopProspective24.0 12515.720.3
12516.521.5
Migliorini et al., 2023 [45]ItalyJ Orthop Surg Res 72.8Debridement1084641.527.0
Mohan et al., 2017 [46]USAArthroscopyRetrospective34.0Debridement and
Repair and
Reconstruction		503317.823.1
Mullins et al., 2019 [47]IrelandKnee Surg Sports Traumatol ArthroscProspective12.0Repair47 24.6
32 24.3
Mullins et al., 2021 [48]IrelandOrthop J Sports MedProspective27.1Repair7605026.3
Nho et al., 2011 [49]USAAm J Sports MedRetrospective27.0Debridement and
Repair		471322.8
471322.8
Ortiz-Declet et al., 2019 [50]USAArthroscopyRetrospective47.4Debridement and
Repair and
Reconstruction		341920.822.8
Owens et al., 2022 [51]USAOrthop J Sports MedProspective36.1Debridement and
Repair and
Reconstruction		301629.425.9
34.5603327.524.8
Owens et al., 2022 [52]USAOrthop J Sports MedRetrospective30.2Reconstruction29 40.327.8
27.6292940.527.1
Palmer et al., 2012 [53]USAArthroscopyRetrospective46.0Repair18510240.2
Parvaresh et al., 2021 [54]USAPhys Ther SportRetrospective24.0Repair231436.222.8
Perets et al., 2018 [55]USAArthroscopyRetrospective49.1Debridement and
Repair and
Reconstruction		604619.522.4
Philippon et al., 2007 [56]USAKnee Surg Sports Traumatol ArthroscRetrospective19.2Debridement and
Repair and
Reconstruction		45331.0
Philippon et al., 2010 [57]USAAm J Sports MedRetrospective24.0Repair28 27.0
Polesello et al., 2014 [58]BrazilHip IntRetrospective73.2Debridement and
Repair		24334.6
Ramos et al., 2020 [59]USAJ Hip Preserv SurgRetrospective19.2Repair10 45.0
Rosinsky et al., 2019 [60]USAAm J Sports MedRetrospective35.0Debridement and
Repair and
Reconstruction		441917.323.3
3830 23.7
Saito et al., 2019 [61]JapanAm J Sports MedRetrospective24.0Repair and
Reconstruction		25 17.522.2
22.022.4
18.522.0
17.022.4
Sansone et al., 2015 [62]SwedenOrthop J Sports MedRetrospective12.3Debridement and
Repair		852125.0
Scanaliato et al., 2020 [63]USAArthroscopyRetrospective24.3Reconstruction301730.423.4
Singh et al., 2010 [64]AustraliaArthroscopyProspective22.0Repair24 22.024.0
Snaebjörnsson et al., 2022 [65]SwedenArthroscopyProspective24.0Debridement and
Repair		841719.8
Tjong et al., 2016 [66]USAOrthop J Sports MedRetrospective24.0 13744.0
10843.7
Tran et al., 2013 [67]AustraliaANZ J SurgRetrospective14.0Debridement and
Repair		34515.7
Ukwuani et al., 2018 [68]USAArthroscopyRetrospective23.0Debridement and
Repair		216219.921.9
43 23.323.2
Weber et al., 2020 [69]USAOrthop J Sports MedRetrospective Debridement and
Repair		1219.5
152
81
6
96
Table 2. Results of PROMs (MD: mean difference; FU: follow-up; PROMs: patient-reported outcome measures; UCLA: University of California, Los Angeles; HOS-SSS: Hip Outcome Score—Sport-Specific Subscale; HAGOS: Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score).
Table 2. Results of PROMs (MD: mean difference; FU: follow-up; PROMs: patient-reported outcome measures; UCLA: University of California, Los Angeles; HOS-SSS: Hip Outcome Score—Sport-Specific Subscale; HAGOS: Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score).
PROMsAt BaselineAt Last FUMDp
UCLA activity score7.7 ± 3.99.4 ± 0.71.70.4
HOS-SSS43.2 ± 21.876.5 ± 23.833.2<0.01
Tegner score4.5 ± 2.05.2 ± 2.40.70.1
HAGOS Function in sports and recreation64.8 ± 23.772.8 ± 8.38.10.09
HAGOS Participation in physical activities59.7 ± 20.166.4 ± 12.96.70.08
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lucenti, L.; Maffulli, N.; Bardazzi, T.; Saggini, R.; Memminger, M.; Simeone, F.; Migliorini, F. Return to Sport Following Arthroscopic Management of Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 5219. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13175219

AMA Style

Lucenti L, Maffulli N, Bardazzi T, Saggini R, Memminger M, Simeone F, Migliorini F. Return to Sport Following Arthroscopic Management of Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(17):5219. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13175219

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lucenti, Ludovico, Nicola Maffulli, Tommaso Bardazzi, Raoul Saggini, Michael Memminger, Francesco Simeone, and Filippo Migliorini. 2024. "Return to Sport Following Arthroscopic Management of Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 17: 5219. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13175219

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop