EP3.28 A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Hip Arthroscopy Approaches and Capsular Management Among ISHA Members

Clicks: 10
ID: 330921
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Star

Ranked #257 of 444 articles by views in Journal of hip preservation surgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 444 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Hip arthroscopy is a minimally invasive surgical procedure used to treat hip pathologies. Methods of accessing the hip joint include t-capsulotomy, interportal capsulotomy, and periportal (also known as puncture) capsulotomy. The purpose of this study is to quantify hip capsular management practices among ISHA members and evaluate operative metrics and outcomes. Methods A survey generator, Qualtrics, was used to generate a 36-question survey. The survey was emailed to ISHA members. The survey was active for 5 weeks, with two reminder emails at weeks 3 and 4. Chi-square and ANOVA were used for statistical analysis. Results The survey had a 25.13% response rate. Capsular management techniques utilized were interportal 40.8%, t-capsulotomy 31.3%, and periportal 20.4% (p < .001). The USA had 19.7% interportal, 17.0% t-capsulotomy, and 2.0% report using periportal (p < .001). Compared to international responses with 21.1% interportal, 14.3% t-capsulotomy, and 18.4% periportal (p < .001). Technique transitions were reported by several surgeons: 68.18% switched to periportal, 22.73% to t-capsulotomy, and 9.09% to interportal (p < .001). Of the 66% of surgeons performing capsular closure, 51.5% utilize interportal, 39.2% t-capsulotomy, and 2.1% periportal (p < .001). Mean hip capsule closure time was 13.02 ± 6.26 minutes. Permanent sutures were utilized 76.3% (p < .001). Mean number of sutures was 3.67 ± 1.34. Among the 34% surgeons not performing capsular closure, 56.0% utilize periportal, 20.0% interportal, and 16.0% t-capsulotomy (p < .001). A total of 24 dislocations following hip arthroscopy were reported by 18 respondents: 11 with t-capsulotomy, 8 with interportal, 3 with periportal, and 2 unsure of technique (p < .001). Discussion This study highlights substantial international and domestic variability in capsular management techniques for hip arthroscopy. Significant differences in hip dislocation rates were observed between the capsular management techniques (p < .001). Future research is needed to identify the optimal hip arthroscopy approach and capsular management.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220357703 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Nathan Ochsner, Orthopedic Surgeon Nathan Skelley
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Journal of hip preservation surgery
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jhps/hnag043.313
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnag043.313
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.