Hip Range of Motion Is Increased After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: To investigate the impact of arthroscopic correction of symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement on postoperative hip range of motion (ROM), as an objectively measured postoperative clinically reported outcome. Methods: A systematic review of the current literature was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, OVID/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were queried in November 2020. Studies not reporting pre- to postoperative ROM measurements were excluded. Methodologic quality was assessed using the MINORS assessment, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Effect size using standardized mean differences assessed magnitude of change between pre- and postoperative ROM. Results: In total, 23 studies were included evaluating 2,332 patients. Mean age ranged from 18 to 44.2 years. Flexion, internal rotation (IR), and external rotation (ER) were the predominantly measured ROMs reported in 91%, 100% and 65% of studies, respectively. Observed change following hip arthroscopy was considered significant in 57.1% (flexion), 74% (IR), and 20% (ER). Effect size of change in significantly improved ROMs were weak (16.7% flexion, 33.3% ER), moderate (58.3% flexion, 29.4% IR), and large (25% flexion, 64.7% IR, 66.7% ER). For goniometric assessment mean observed changes ranged as follows: flexion: 0.1° to 12.2°; IR: 3.6° to 21.9°; ER: -2.6° to 12.8°. For computed tomography-simulated assessment, the mean observed change ranged as follows: flexion: 3.0° to 8.0°; IR 9.3° to 14.0°. Conclusions: Outcome studies demonstrate overall increased range of flexion and IR post-hip arthroscopy, with a moderate and large effect respectively. Change in ER is less impacted following hip arthroscopy. Certainty of evidence to support this observation is low. Current research evaluating changes in this functional ability is limited by a lack of prospective studies and non-standardized measurement evaluation techniques. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.