Use of continuous passive motion device after arthroscopic hip surgery decreases post-operative pain: A randomized controlled trial.

backgroundWe sought to determine whether continuous passive motion (CPM) usage improves outcomes following arthroscopic hip surgery involving acetabular labral repair. Our hypothesis is that CPM usage reduces pain and pain medication use and improves quality of life in individuals who undergo hip arthroscopy.

methodsWe created a randomized controlled trial consisting of 54 patients who underwent arthroscopic acetabular labral repair. Patients were randomized to two groups, one with CPM use post-operatively and one without. Primary outcomes measured were pain level, patient satisfaction, and quality of life. Parameters used to measure these outcomes were self-reported pain scores on Likert scale, frequency of analgesic medication use, and self-reported scores on Hip Outcome Score Activity of Daily Living (HOS ADL). These parameters were compared between the two randomized groups using

resultsThere was no statistical difference between the treatment and control groups in terms of patient characteristics. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of HOS ADL scores, although the patients in the control group demonstrated a trend toward higher HOS ADL scores. The patients in the CPM group had a statistically significant decrease in pain levels after surgery compared to patients in the control group. The total morphine equivalent dose consumed in the first two post-operative weeks was higher in the control group compared to the CPM group, although this difference was not statistically significant.

conclusionsUse of CPM resulted in lower pain level scores in patients after hip arthroscopy. Although there is no statistical difference in quality of life or quantity of analgesics consumed post-operatively, patients who used CPM tended to have lower HOS ADL scores (which is desirable) and less consumption of pain medication. A study with a larger sample of patients might elucidate more differences between the two groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, therapeutic.