PREPRINT
jkl keys enabled
882 views

Portal Placement for Hip Arthroscopy

Scott D. Martin, MD1, Steven D. Sartore2
1 Brigham and Women's/Mass General Health Care Center
2 Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine

Abstract

Hip arthroscopy is a well-established technique that has become a mainstay in the repair of bony and ligamentous injuries when conservative methods fail to return adequate joint mobility and function. The technique has both diagnostic and therapeutic utility and its use as a minimally invasive orthopedic surgery continues to advance. Several studies have suggested that arthroscopic surgical management has more favorable outcomes in certain circumstances when compared to hip-specific conservative measures. The approach to establishing adequate sites for portal placement is dependent upon recognizing the pertinent anatomy of the surgical site.  At the same time, the operator must be mindful of the desired views once access to the joint space has been obtained. Proper visualization of the desired joint region is critical to reducing the conversion into inherently riskier total hip arthroplasties (THAs). Additionally, the neurovascular landscape of the groin presents technical challenges with the procedural approach that requires significant skill to avoid injuring vital structures in the area. Acetabular labral tears are frequently repaired with this type of operative management as techniques and approaches become more refined. Here, we present the case of a 24-year-old female who is undergoing an arthroscopic anterior labral repair, highlighting both the anatomical landmarks and the access points for portal placement used in the procedure.

Case Overview

Background

The evolution of hip arthroscopy and its utility have coincided with the rapid advancements in technology and user competency. Specialized equipment and a more thorough comprehension of hip pathology assisted the transition from a diagnostic procedure to a viable therapeutic modality.1 Injury to the hip can cause a variety of intra-articular pathology; however, labral tears and degeneration in the context of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), dysplasia, or trauma have become the mainstay of hip arthroscopy procedures.2  Labral tears are prevalent in patients with FAI, occurring commonly in active adults of all age groups with the anterosuperior labrum being frequently involved.1,3

This patient is a 24-year-old female who is undergoing reconstruction of an anterior labral tear. As techniques have improved, hip arthroscopy has become one of the preferred modalities to repair labral injury as it is minimally invasive and effectively relieves pain symptoms compared with non-operative management.4 Understanding proper portal placement is paramount in successfully establishing both safe and adequate access to the central and peripheral compartments required for surgery. In this case, three portals were used to establish adequate repair; however, upwards of 11 portal locations can safely be established without damaging vital structures.5 Most notably in this case, the structure at greatest risk for damage with portal placement is the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve (LFCN), which passes under the inguinal ligament and then bifurcates into two branches as it crosses over the sartorius muscle, leaving it in a vulnerable position for iatrogenic complications.6 The surgeon must also exercise caution with the incisions used for portal placement, not proceeding deeper than the subcutaneous fat given that the LFCN runs rather superficially.7 Therefore, identifying the anterior superior iliac spine (ASIS), marking directly inferior and proceeding lateral to this newly created plane will minimize risk of injury to the major nervous structures in the area.5

In the sequence of portal placement for this case, the anterolateral portal is established first. To identify this access point, the surgeon palpates the top of the greater trochanter, then proceeds slightly superior to the trochanter in the cross-sectional plane where an area devoid of bone can be appreciated. The posterolateral portal placement follows a similar path but is located inferior to the trochanter. A guidewire inserted into the joint space at the anterolateral portal is visualized under fluoroscopy and confirmed with the arthroscope once the portal is established. The anterior portal access is marked 1 cm lateral and below the intersection of the ASIS sagittal plane and the cross-sectional plane of the greater trochanter. In contrast to the anterolateral portal, the anterior portal enters the inner capsule of the joint via a blind stick from the outside while being directly visualized from the joint space with the established anterolateral arthroscope. Following these anatomical boundaries creates a systematic approach to portal placement while ensuring that vital neurovascular structures remain unharmed.

Focused History of the Patient

Patients with labral tears will generally present complaining of impingement-like symptoms including pain, clicking, catching, or decreased range of motion, particularly in flexion and abduction. Two primary lesions contribute to the pain syndrome of FAI. Cam, pincer, and mixed types of impingements are caused by irregularities of the interface between the femoral head and acetabulum. Cam type lesions are bony protrusions at the anterolateral head-neck junction, leading to an erosive disruption of the chondrolabral junction. Pincer lesions are caused by an over-coverage of the femoral head within the acetabulum with a resulting breakdown of the labrum and cartilage involved in the shear forces between the proximal femur; mixed type deformities are a combination of cam and pincer deformities.2,5,8,9 These symptoms can be the result of chronic, repeated compressive forces, athletics, old age, or can be of an acute nature as found in traumatic events such as motor vehicle accidents or falls.1 A particularly interesting finding in the history and physical exam is that some patients—particularly women—may find that their labral dysfunction has negatively impacted various aspects of their lives, including sexual intercourse.3 In many cases, there may not be a specific etiology of a patient’s hip pain, but the history correlated with physical exam findings are generally adequate enough to establish a clinical diagnosis prior to confirmatory imaging.10

Physical Exam

The pain associated with labral tears and impingement syndromes usually develops in a gradual manner, occurring at night and being provoked by prolonged sitting, running, or pivoting.8 Patients with FAI and labral tears do not usually have significant deficits with simple movements such as walking, but it does significantly reduce range of motion of the hip, especially flexion. This can be provoked from maneuvers such as deep squatting or performing the FABER test during physical exam.1 Various evaluation techniques, including anterior impingement, subspine impingement, lateral impingement, and posterior impingement maneuvers may be used to reproduce the pain and symptoms responsible for the patient’s chief complaint.10 Positive physical exam findings from these provocative tests are frequently sufficient to diagnose an impingement syndrome with confirmatory imaging to follow.

Imaging

Imaging studies in the context of hip pathology are especially useful in assessing the structural abnormalities leading to positive physical exam findings. The two most used modalities are an anteroposterior (AP) pelvis X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). AP pelvis radiographs allow visualization of any dysplasia and evaluation of the pathognomonic “crossover sign” seen in FAI.8,10  This finding is then corroborated with a soft-tissue focused imaging modality such as MRI, which focuses on the chondral lesions created by the bony pathology assessed in the preliminary pelvis radiograph. 

MRI has a relatively high efficacy in diagnosing labral pathology, having a sensitivity of 66–87% and specificity of 64–79% when a direct MRI or conventional MRI is used.11 Once a diagnosis has been established from the clinical picture created by the patient’s history, physical exam, and imaging, the decision must be made of whether conservative, non-operative management or surgical intervention should take place.

Options for Treatment

Hip arthroscopy is considered a second-line treatment in the initial management of labral pathology. Currently, the standard of practice is aimed at first using non-invasive measures, including rest, stretches, strengthening, and targeted physiotherapy at the abnormal movement patterns that tend to be present in patients with FAI.4 When symptoms or continued loss of function persist after an extended, multiple-month course of non-operative measures, surgical intervention is indicated.10

Rationale for Treatment

Arthroscopic management revolves around two main objectives: labral debridement or repair. Debridement is amenable to those patients who have failed to improve with nonoperative modalities and are also not candidates for repair.10 This technique is accomplished through removal of loose bodies or other obstructions within the capsule of the hip joint, thereby eliminating the impingement and improving range of motion. However, outcomes using only debridement have been shown to be inferior to repair and reconstruction.10 One proposed mechanism highlights that debridement alone has a tendency to compromise the negative pressure interaction between the labrum and acetabulum, thereby reducing the inherent stability of the ball and socket joint.8 Recent literature supports a superior treatment response in patients receiving labral repair and reconstruction over simple debridement.10,12 Indications for labral repair also include symptoms that have failed with non-operative measures but contain a full-thickness tear at the labral-chondral junction. Labral repair and reconstruction maintain the integrity of the labral-acetabular junction while eliminating the impeding agent. Thus, debridement is less recommended for many conditions as repair proves to be better in the long term. 

The literature supports the escalation of care to arthroscopy after conservative measures fail to improve symptoms. 1,2,4,8 In comparison to non-operative management, surgical treatment has shown statistically significant improvement in outcomes over a 10-year period.4 There is currently a lack of longitudinal follow-up studies examining if these trends continue in the long term, but as technique and technology improve, research into their efficacy for longer time periods will likely follow.

Special Considerations

As previously mentioned, those who experience chronic pain from various hip pathology leading to impingement or pain syndromes involving the hip joint are favorable candidates for hip arthroscopy. These indications must be weighed with other pre-existing conditions that may make operative management more complicated and less likely to succeed. Such contraindications include advanced osteoarthritis, congenital dysplasia due to slipped capital femoral epiphysis or Perthes deformities, and other dysplastic features that indicate a larger structural instability that are not amenable to arthroscopy.2 Through careful selection and open discussion with patients about their clinical prognosis, the clinician is able to mitigate complications that may arise during the procedure. Modifying risk factors in the preoperative setting reduces the chance of needing to intraoperatively convert to open hip arthroplasty, which tends to carry worse results.13 Most of the complications arising from hip arthroscopy are related to the traction used to create space in the joint, and patients with conditions or ill-suited body habitus who are not amenable to hip traction for long durations would have to undergo special consideration of whether the procedure may cause more harm than benefit.14 Proper patient selection continues to be an important predictor for operative success, and the criteria for suitable arthroscopy candidates evolve in parallel with surgical advancements.

Discussion

Hip arthroscopy presents several technical challenges that require great familiarity with relevant anatomy and the equipment for the procedure. Inherent to a rapidly evolving field is the technical acumen that can only be acquired through direct experience and not merely gleaned from observation. As noted in this case, the instruments in hip arthroscopy are generally longer and more flexible than traditional arthroscopic equipment, which can better accommodate the curvature of the ball and socket joint of the hip. The specialized nature of the equipment and joint geometry of this procedure presents a steep learning curve for budding surgeons. To compound the pressure, the poor outcomes associated with surgeon inexperience adds to the emphasis of obtaining numerous training opportunities. Alluded to in this case, a surgeon’s initial attempts at portal placement and operating through arthroscopy are not entirely intuitive, where the angles of visualization do not perfectly correspond to a two-dimensional plane. The instruments used in a common arthroscopic surgical kit are vastly different than that used in a standard orthopedic surgical kit, and the proper maneuvering of the devices requires extensive repetition to become competent with their use in surgery. 

It is evident that to ensure the highest number of positive outcomes, the surgeon must go through numerous procedural repetitions under the guidance of other physicians well-versed in the procedure. It is difficult to quantify the point at which a physician should become proficient with a surgical technique, but there are studies that have investigated the topic. A literature review found that once a surgeon had reached 30 cases of performing hip arthroscopy, there was a significant reduction in operative time and postoperative complications.15 This number should be considered cautiously as multiple, uncontrollable factors play a role in skill acquisition, but it reiterates the importance of repetition in one’s training. With fewer opportunities to operate on live patients without formal training, it can be difficult to find an entry point for a newly-licensed surgeon to learn the necessary skills and nuances of hip arthroscopy and portal placement.  In order to allow a greater exposure to the procedure without the incumbent risks of surgery, simulators and cadaveric models may be utilized in future training endeavors. Several studies have found that these simulations can increase performance and familiarity with arthroscopy while improving the user’s skills without the need for live patients in the initial phase of the learning curve.16 However, once these obstacles have been overcome and the operator gains a relative acquaintance with the procedure, the benefits of hip arthroscopy outlined in this article can be readily achieved in a safe manner that can afford patients an improved quality of life. 

Equipment

A standard Arthrex hip arthroscopic repair and reconstruction kit with nitinol guidewire provides the necessary basics to perform hip arthroscopy, but additional supplies may be necessary depending on the patient’s needs and the surgeon’s preferences.

Disclosures

Nothing to disclose. 

Statement of Consent

The patient referred to in this video article has given their informed consent to be filmed and is aware that information and images will be published online.

Notes

The article is written by Steven D. Sartore and under review by Scott D. Martin, MD.

This article is the companion to the JoMI article "Diagnostic Hip Arthroscopy" by Scott D. Martin, MD.

Citations

  1. Griffiths EJ, Khanduja V. Hip arthroscopy: evolution, current practice and future developments. Int Orthop. 2012;36(6):1115-1121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-011-1459-4
  2. Ross JR, Larson CM, Bedi A. Indications for Hip Arthroscopy. Sports Health. 2017;9(5):402-413. https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738117712675
  3. Raut S, Daivajna S, Nakano N, Khanduja V. ISHA-Richard Villar Best Clinical Paper Award: Acetabular labral tears in sexually active women: an evaluation of patient satisfaction following hip arthroscopy. J Hip Preserv Surg. 2018;5(4):357-361. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hny046
  4. Griffin DR, Dickenson EJ, Wall PDH, et al. Hip arthroscopy versus best conservative care for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (UK FASHIoN): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10136):2225-2235. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31202-9
  5. Robertson WJ, Kelly BT. The safe zone for hip arthroscopy: a cadaveric assessment of central, peripheral, and lateral compartment portal placement. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(9):1019-1026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2008.05.008
  6. Grothaus MC, Holt M, Mekhail AO, Ebraheim NA, Yeasting RA. Lateral femoral cutaneous nerve: an anatomic study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005;(437):164-168. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000164526.08610.97
  7. Nakano N, Khanduja V. Complications in Hip Arthroscopy. Muscles Ligaments Tendons J. 2016;6(3):402-409. https://doi.org/10.11138/mltj/2016.6.3.402
  8. Su T, Chen GX, Yang L. Diagnosis and treatment of labral tear. Chin Med J (Engl). 2019;132(2):211-219. https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000000020
  9. Robertson WJ, Kelly BT. The safe zone for hip arthroscopy: a cadaveric assessment of central, peripheral, and lateral compartment portal placement. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(9):1019-1026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2008.05.008
  10. Harris JD. Hip labral repair: options and outcomes. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2016;9(4):361-367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-016-9360-9
  11. Saied AM, Redant C, El-Batouty M, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance studies in the detection of chondral and labral lesions in femoroacetabular impingement: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):83.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1443-2
  12. Krych AJ, Thompson M, Knutson Z, Scoon J, Coleman SH. Arthroscopic labral repair versus selective labral debridement in female patients with femoroacetabular impingement: a prospective randomized study. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(1):46-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.07.011
  13. Byrd JW, Jones KS. Prospective analysis of hip arthroscopy with 10-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(3):741-746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0841-7
  14. Jamil M, Dandachli W, Noordin S, Witt J. Hip arthroscopy: Indications, outcomes and complications. Int J Surg. 2018;54(Pt B):341-344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.08.557
  15. Hoppe DJ, de Sa D, Simunovic N, et al. The learning curve for hip arthroscopy: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(3):389-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2013.11.012
  16. Bartlett JD, Lawrence JE, Yan M, et al. The learning curves of a validated virtual reality hip arthroscopy simulator. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020;140(6):761-767.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03352-3