Abstract
Purpose
This scoping review aims to map and summarise the available literature on heterotopic ossification (HO) following hip arthroscopy, with particular focus on incidence, distribution as per Brooker classification, efficacy of prophylactic measures and factors that may influence the likelihood of production of HO.
Methods
A computer-based search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Emcare, Cinahl, ISI web of science and Scopus using the terms ‘heterotopic ossification’ and ‘hip arthroscopy’. Articles reporting heterotopic ossification following hip arthroscopy for any condition were included after two-stage title/abstract and full-text screening.
Results
Of the 663 articles retrieved, 45 studies were included. The proportion of patients with HO ranged from 0 to 44%. The majority of the cases were either Brooker grade I or II. Of the six studies investigating the effect of NSAID prophylaxis, five reported a significantly lower incidence of heterotopic ossification associated with its use. Weak evidence suggests that an outside-in arthroscopic approach, no capsular closure, male sex and mixed cam and pincer resection may be associated with an increased risk of HO.
Conclusion
Although there is a large variation in rates of HO following hip arthroscopy in the current literature, the majority of studies report a low incidence. Evidence exists advocating the administration of post-operative NSAIDs to reduce the incidence of HO following hip arthroscopy. This, combined with the low risk of complications, means there is a favourable risk–benefit ratio for prophylactic NSAID used in HA. Future research should work to identify patient clinical and demographic factors which may increase the risk of development of HO, allowing clinicians to risk stratify and select only specific patients who would benefit from receiving NSAID prophylaxis.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Hip arthroscopy (HA) has become increasingly popular over the last two decades [1, 2]. It is now used successfully in the diagnosis and treatment of a variety of soft tissue and osseous and intra- and extra-articular hip conditions such as femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS), subspinous impingement, ischiofemoral impingement, developmental dysplasia of the hip, iliopsoas impingement, deep gluteal syndrome, external snapping hip syndrome and trochanteric bursitis [3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. It is a relatively safe procedure with a relatively low risk of complications. Complications associated with traction-/pressure-related injuries, iatrogenic chondral and labral injury, fluid extravasation and instrument breakage are discussed in detail in the literature [16,17,18,19]. However, there is evidence highlighting the increased incidence of heterotopic ossification (HO) following HA and its impact. There are studies reporting rates as high as 44% in the literature [20, 21].
HO is presumed to be caused following soft tissue injury and a subsequent inflammatory cascade. The resultant inflammatory environment leads to angiogenesis, progenitor cell differentiation and ectopic bone formation from differentiated cell types [22, 23]. Whilst Brooker grades I and II HO may be asymptomatic, grades III and IV may present with stiffness, pain and reduced range of motion [24, 25]. Some evidence exists highlighting the role of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the reduction of HO following hip arthroscopy [22, 24, 26]. This effect is thought to occur through modulation of osteoprogenitor cells and interference of cell signalling pathways [27, 28]. However, the debate on routine prophylaxis for HO following HA continues.
This scoping review aims to map and summarise the available literature on HO following hip arthroscopy, with particular focus on incidence, distribution as per Brooker classification, efficacy of prophylactic measures and factors that may influence the likelihood of production of HO. By doing so, we aim to enhance the reader’s understanding of this common complication, inform clinical decision-making with regard to the use of prophylactic measures and critically identify areas for future research. We hypothesise that whilst the incidence of HO may be increasing, the overall incidence remains low and that prophylaxis may not be required for all patients.
Materials and methods
The methodological framework for scoping reviews was first outlined by Arksey and O’Malley in 2005 and more recently updated by Levac et al. and The Joanna Briggs Institute [29,30,31]. These articles outline five common steps in a scoping review, all of which are outlined below.
Identifying the research question
The following review questions were developed:
-
1)
What is the incidence of HO following hip arthroscopy?
-
2)
What prophylactic measures are reported and what is their efficacy?
-
3)
In which locations does HO occur?
-
4)
What is the distribution of severity in terms of the Brooker classification?
-
5)
What patient- and treatment-related factors are associated with the development of HO?
Identification of relevant studies
Free text and medical subject heading (MeSH) terms including ‘heterotopic ossification’, ‘hip arthroscopy’ and ‘femoroacetabular impingement’ were used, with the Boolean operators ‘and’, ‘or’ used to combine search terms as appropriate. The full search strategy is available in the Appendix. The search was initially performed in PubMed, before being adapted for and used in five other databases including, OVID Embase, OVID Emcare, Scopus, ISI Web of Science and CINAHL. All searches were computer-based and performed on 17th January 2021. Reference list checking was also performed using review articles identified by the above search process.
Study selection
Selected manuscripts were imported into Rayyan systematic reviews web application (Qatar Computing Research Institute, Doha, Qatar) for screening and selection [32]. A two-stage title/abstract and full-text screening was performed by two authors independently, using the outlined selection criteria:
-
Participants: Patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for any condition.
-
Intervention: Any form of hip arthroscopy.
-
Control: No specific control or comparison group was required for inclusion in this review.
-
Outcome: The primary outcome of interest was incidence of HO. Other outcomes of interest included: Brooker classification, location of HO, effect of prophylactic treatments and factors associated with the development of HO.
-
Study design: Original research observational studies, cohort studies and randomised control trials were included. Review articles, case reports, commentaries, letters to the editor and abstracts were excluded.
-
Date: No specific date restrictions were imposed
-
Language: English language
Studies describing treatment of heterotopic ossification were also included as were those that reported no complications following hip arthroscopy, with the assumption that no patients showed signs of HO. Studies which reported results of any hip arthroscopy procedure yet did not specifically describe the formation of HO were excluded. Studies reporting a mini-open approach or the use of both an arthroscopic and open treatment were also excluded. Non-English articles were excluded at the full-text screening stage rather than through imposing limits on the database search. This allowed the display of these potentially relevant foreign language articles in an appendix, to ensure transparency.
Differences in opinion regarding the inclusion or exclusion of articles were first resolved by discussion between the two authors and, failing this, by consultation with a third author.
Charting the data
A data extraction form was created in Microsoft Excel, with the following column headings used to extract data from all included studies:
-
Author
-
Year
-
Type of study
-
Number of hips and number of patients
-
Patients mean age
-
Patient-sex ratio
-
Indication for arthroscopy
-
Prophylactic measures used
-
Incidence of HO
-
Brooker classification
-
Location of HO
-
Effect of any prophylactic measures used
-
Treatment of HO
-
Factors associated with the development of HO
-
Follow-up mean and range
Collating, summarising and reporting results
The number of studies retrieved and removed following each screening stage are shown in the PRISMSA flow diagram (Fig. 1) [33]. Study characteristics, including first author, type of study, number of hips and patients, patient age and sex and follow-up period are shown in Table 1. Forest plots generated using R studio are used to display the incidence of HO in included studies (Fig. 2). The distribution of severity of HO according to the Brooker classification is displayed in Table 2. A qualitative thematic approach was used throughout, with results reported according to the key themes described, including incidence of HO, Brooker classification, prophylactic measure used and their effects and factors associated with the development of HO. This approach is commonly used in scoping reviews and aids in the identification and mapping of key themes within a broad topic [31, 34].
Quality assessment and risk of bias
Although the assessment of quality of the studies and risk of bias forms a key part of systematic reviews, these steps are not required in a scoping review [29,30,31].
Results
The search strategy outlined, resulted in the identification of 663 unique articles, of which 45 (6.8%) were finally included.
Most articles (33/45, 73.3%) were level IV evidence, whilst ten level III studies (22.2%) and two level I randomised control trials (4.4%) were also included (Table 1). The total number of hips was 12,613 (12,538 patients) and the mean pooled age was 34.4 years. A forest plot displaying the overall incidence of HO is shown (Fig. 2). Rates of HO vary widely from 0 to 44%. Of the included studies, 14 (31.1%) report an incidence of HO of 1% or less, whilst a total of 30 (66.7%) studies report an incidence of under 5% and 36 (80%) studies less than 10%. Unfortunately, it was not possible to pool individual study results to derive an overall incidence due to low level of evidence included and inherent risk of bias and heterogeneity associated with such study designs [77, 78].
Of the included studies, 19 reported a severity stratification of HO cases in terms of the Brooker classification (Table 2). All included studies, except for Gedouin et al. and Hufeland et al. report the majority of HO cases were Brooker Grade 1, whilst only one study describes a case of Brooker grade 4 HO [24, 49, 79]. It was not considered appropriate to pool data on the distribution of Brooker grade across studies due to the low level of evidence included.
Prophylactic measures
A total of 16 included studies (34.8%) reported on the prophylactic use of NSAIDs (naproxen, celecoxib, indomethacin or aspirin). Six studies directly compared the development of HO in those receiving NSAID prophylaxis to controls receiving no prophylaxis. A summary of these studies is shown in Table 3. Of these, five reported a significantly reduced incidence of HO in those receiving NSAIDs compared to those receiving no treatment. Two studies, Bedi et al. (2012) and Randelli et al. (2010), compare the efficacy of two different NSAID regimens [24, 61].
Arthroscopic approach
Three studies directly compared the incidence of HO following different arthroscopic approaches/techniques. Amar et al. (2015) found no significant difference in the incidence of HO between patients receiving capsular closure (14/50, 28%) and those not receiving any capsular closure (22/50,44%) p = 0.144 [35]. Similarly, Rhee et al. (2016) found a 0% incidence of heterotopic ossification production in patients where knot tying and knotless suture anchor techniques were utilised [65]. Sandoval et al.(2016) report a significantly higher (p = 0.017) incidence of HO with the use of an ‘outside in’ arthroscopic approach (12/53, 22.6%) in comparison to a standard arthroscopic approach (4/48, 8.3%) [69].
Factors influencing the development of heterotopic ossification
A total of six studies described other factors which may influence the development of HO. A description of these factors is provided in Table 4.
Location of heterotopic ossification
Three studies, describing 77 cases of HO also report the location of its development [24, 36, 76]. Beckmann et al. (2014) report all 34 cases of Ho developed anterior to the hip, whilst Bedi et al. (2012) describe 14 anterior and 15 lateral cases, and Zheng et al. (2020) find 13 central cases and one posterior case. Of these cases, 54 (70.1%) occurred anterior to the hip joint, 15 (19.5%) laterally, eight cases (10.4%) anterolaterally and one (1.3%) posteriorly to the hip.
Treatment of heterotopic ossification
Revision arthroscopy for excision of HO was required in 9/34 (26.5%) of patients who developed HO in the series of Beckmann et al. (2014) [36]. Revision surgery was also reported by other authors: 7/29 (24.1%) of patients in Bedi et al. (2012), 4/14 (28.6%) in Gupta et al. (2016) (2), 3/8 (37.5%) in Ong et al.(2013), 9/92 (9.8%) in Dow et al.(2020) and 2/14 (14.3%) in Zheng et al.(2020) [24, 36, 42, 47, 57, 76].
Revision excision of HO shows encouraging results, with Redmond et al.(2017) reporting statistically significant post-operative increases in terms of mHHS, HOS-ADL, HOS-SS and NAHS scores, along with a statistically significant reduction in VAS values [63]. Similarly, Zheng et al.(2020) report a post-operative increase when assessing mHHS and HOS-ADL values [76].
Discussion
Our study found that the overall incidence of HO after arthroscopy of the hip is low. Although individual studies report a HO incidence between 0 and 44%, two thirds of included studies describe an incidence of 5% or under and one third report an incidence under 1%. Although no formal meta-analysis was possible, majority of cases were Brooker grade 1 or 2 cases, with more severe cases rarely found in 11 studies. Given the rise in popularity of hip arthroscopy and corresponding increase in publications in its field, it is not surprising that the majority of included articles were published in the last decade [80].
Although there is a large amount of literature concerning the topic of HO following hip arthroscopy, with 45 articles included in this review, almost 75% are level IV evidence, with limited higher levels of evidence as exemplified by the availability of only two randomised control studies. Due to the high degree of heterogeneity present in level III and IV studies, pooling of rates of HO in these studies was not possible, and hence a statistical comparison against the 30 studies not reporting any use of prophylactic measures was not performed.
A large variation in reported rates of HO is seen. The majority (36/45, 80%) of studies report rates of less than 10%, with six articles reporting no cases of HO in their cohorts. However, rates as high as 36% and 44% are reported in the studies of Amar et al.(2015) and Rath et al.(2013), respectively [21, 35]. One reason for this large variation may be the use of prophylactic NSAID therapy to prevent HO. Such a strategy has been described in 16 (34.8%) of the included studies. Another explanation for this variation may be because radiographs are not obtained routinely, six months or a year post-HA in all included studies, which may produce an underestimate of HO incidence.
Of the six studies directly comparing the occurrence of HO in those receiving prophylactic NSAIDs with controls, five report significantly decreased rates in the former group [26, 36, 42, 56, 61, 62]. There is therefore robust evidence suggesting that post-operative prophylactic NSAID administration is effective in reducing the incidence of HO following HA. Nevertheless, questions remain regarding its routine use in all patients undergoing HA, and it is therefore important to carefully consider the risk–benefit ratio. Firstly, the use of NSAID prophylaxis does not completely eliminate the risk of HO, with rates as high as 22.9% and 8.3% seen in the Dow et al.(2020) and Bedi et al.(2012) despite post-operative NSAID administration [24, 42]. Furthermore, the results of this review suggest that the large majority of HO cases may be classified as Brooker Grade I or II, which typically does not present with symptoms and is instead detected on radiographic imaging [24]. There is also currently no evidence to suggest that prophylactic NSAID therapy may decrease the severity of HO according to the Brooker classification, with Beckmann et al.(2015) describing no significant difference in Brooker classification between patients receiving prophylactic NSAIDs and controls receiving no prophylaxis [36]. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the development of HO affects patient outcomes following hip arthroscopy. Dow et al.(2020) report no significant difference in iHOT33 values between patients with and without HO, whilst no significant difference was also found between the prophylaxis and control group in terms of the proportion of patients achieving MCID at 6 months, 1 year or 2 years post-operatively [42]. Similarly, Zheng et al. (2020) found significant post-operative improvements in mHHHS VAS, HOS-ADL and HOS-SS in those with asymptomatic HO [76].
Whilst NSAID use is cost effective and generally considered safe, complications may occur in some, particularly those with pre-existing cardiovascular or renal risk [81,82,83,84,85,86,87]. However, the majority of studies included in this review did not routinely collect or report on side effects or complications associations with NSAID use. Of the two studies that reported this information, one reported a case of acute renal failure, one haematochezia following acute colitis and three cases of gastritis [36], whilst the other reported relatively minor side effects such as headache, weight gain and gastrointestinal upset [26]. It is likely that the patients undergoing hip arthroscopy are in general a healthy population with few concomitant cardiovascular or renal diseases. This combined with the relatively short period of NSAID administration (Table 3) and the lack of evidence suggesting a high risk of serious side effects indicates that the safety profile of NSAIDs should not be a major concern in this clinical context.
Despite our results suggesting the majority of HO are Brooker grade I or II, this does not provide an adequate rationale against routine NSAID prophylaxis as it does not necessarily reflect the proportion of patients requiring revision excision. For example, 7/29 patients in the cohort of Bedi et al.(2012) required revision excision of HO, all of which were either grade I or II cases [24]. Furthermore, re-operation for excision rates of between 9.8% and 37.5% are reported in the included studies. It is thus clear that even a small area of HO, with a Brooker grade of I or II may cause significant symptoms requiring excision [24]. This effect may be explained through consideration of the location of ectopic ossification. For example, small areas of ossification located in the joint capsule, iliopsoas or rectus femoris may cause impingement on movement and hence require excision due to functional deficit and/or pain [24].
One way in the need to prevent HO may be balanced against the potential complications and may be through alterations in dosage. For example, Mortensen et al.(2020) found no significant difference in the rate of HO between those receiving two weeks and three weeks of Naproxen 500 mg PO BD [54]. Careful patient stratification and selection using risk factors for the development of HO may provide another suitable option.
Some studies have suggested factors such as male sex, arthroscopic approach, lack of capsular closure, length of operation and type of procedure (cam resection, pincer resection or mixed resection) may influence the development of HO [24, 35, 36, 42, 62, 69]. However, these factors are derived from small-scale individual studies with low-quality study designs and therefore cannot be used to guide clinical decision-making. This is a key area of further research, with more high-quality comparative studies required in determining patient or treatment-related risk factors for the development of HO. This will not only enable the stratification and selection of appropriate patients for NSAID prophylaxis but also the development of an evidence-based protocol for the prevention of HO development following HA. However, until the influence of these factors can be determined, it is more appropriate to administer prophylactic NSAIDs to all patients undergoing HA, owing to their efficacy at preventing HO and the subsequent need for surgical excision and favourable safety profile. To aid the development of a HO reduction protocol, further research should also investigate other prophylactic techniques, such as radiation therapy. Research suggests this technique is effective in reducing the risk of HO following open total hip arthroplasty; however its use in HA has not been investigated [88, 89].
Limitations
It is important to be aware of potential differences in radiographic follow-up between studies, which may also partly account for the large variation in rates of HO. Some studies included in this review focus specifically on the incidence of HO after hip arthroscopy, providing patients with regular radiographic imaging, whilst others have a more general aim of reporting outcomes/complications after hip arthroscopy. Our results suggest that the majority of cases of HO are likely to be Brooker grade I or II that is often asymptomatic and detected only through radiographic imaging. It could therefore be the case that the latter group of studies, which often have long periods of clinical follow-up, but might not provide patients with such thorough radiographic follow-up, may provide an underestimate of HO rates. Dow et al. (2020) describe 67 cases of HO after six months radiographic follow-up, 85 after one year and 92 after two years [42]. Although the majority of cases occur in the first six months, an increase is seen across a two year period, despite the loss to follow up of 150 patients. This highlights the effect a potential lack of radiographic follow-up may have on the underestimation of HO rates.
Conclusion
Although a large variation in rates of HO following HA is seen in the current literature, the majority of studies report a low incidence and most cases described are typically asymptomatic Brooker Grade I or II presentations. Whilst evidence suggests that post-operative NSAIDs do reduce the incidence of heterotopic ossification following hip arthroscopy, their routine administration in all patients undergoing HA needs to be considered in terms of the risk–benefit ratio, specifically given our findings suggesting a low incidence of symptomatic HO. Identification of patient- and treatment-related risk factors associated with the production of heterotopic ossification may allow clinicians to risk stratify patients, thereby aiding in patient selection and decision-making with respect to the use of NSAIDs for prophylaxis. However, as such a strategy cannot yet be implemented in a safe manner, prophylactic NSAIDs should be administered to all patients undergoing HA.
Data availability
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Bozic KJ, Chan V, Valone FH et al (2013) Trends in hip arthroscopy utilization in the United States. J Arthroplasty. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.039
Colvin AC, Harrast J, Harner C (2012) Trends in hip arthroscopy. J Bone Jt Surg Am 94:e23. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01886
Bartlett JD, Lawrence JE, Khanduja V (2019) Virtual reality hip arthroscopy simulator demonstrates sufficient face validity. Knee Surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5038-8
Nakano N, Gohal C, Duong A, Ayeni OR, Khanduja V (2018) Outcomes of cartilage repair techniques for chondral injury in the hip—a systematic review. Int Orthop 42:2309–2322
Palmer AJR, Ayyar Gupta V, Fernquest S et al (2019) Arthroscopic hip surgery compared with physiotherapy and activity modification for the treatment of symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement: multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ l185. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l185
Nakano N, Khanduja V (2018) Femoroacetabular impingement: the past, current controversies and future perspectives. Phys Sportsmed 46:270–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.2018.1478151
Bedi A, Kelly BT, Khanduja V (2013) Arthroscopic hip preservation surgery: Current concepts and perspective. J Bone Jt Surg - Ser B 95 B:10–19. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B1.29608
Nakano N, Audenaert E, Ranawat A, Khanduja V (2018) Review: Current concepts in computer-assisted hip arthroscopy. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 14:e1929. https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1929
Khanduja V, Villar RN (2007) The arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement. Knee Surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-007-0319-7
Nakano N, Yip G, Khanduja V (2017) Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of extra-articular hip impingement syndromes. Int Orthop 41:1321–1328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3431-4
Martin HD, Reddy M, Gomez-Hoyos J (2015) Deep gluteal syndrome. J Hip Preserv Surg 2:99–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnv029
Sohatee MA, Ali M, Khanduja V, Malviya A (2020) Does hip preservation surgery prevent arthroplasty? Quantifying the rate of conversion to arthroplasty following hip preservation surgery. J Hip Preserv Surg 7:168–182. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnaa022
Matsumoto K, Ganz R, Khanduja V (2020) The history of femoroacetabular impingement. Bone Joint Res 9:572–577. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.99.BJR-2020-0003
Kuroda Y, Saito M, Çınar EN, Norrish A, Khanduja V (2020) Patient-related risk factors associated with less favourable outcomes following hip arthroscopy. Bone Joint J 102-B:822–831. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.102B7.BJJ-2020-0031.R1
Kuroda Y, Saito M, Sunil Kumar KH, Malviya A, Khanduja V (2020) Hip arthroscopy and borderline developmental dysplasia of the hip: A systematic review. Arthroscopy 36:2550–2567.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2020.05.035
Clarke MT, Arora A, Villar RN (2003) Hip arthroscopy: Complications in 1054 cases. Clinical Orthop and Relat Res 406:84–88
Sampson TG (2005) Complications of hip arthroscopy. Tech Orthop 20:63–66. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.bto.0000153634.91198.c8
Nakano N, Lisenda L, Jones TL, Loveday DT, Khanduja V et al (2017) Complications following arthroscopic surgery of the hip: A systematic review of 36 761 cases. Bone Jt J 99B:1577–1583. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.99B12.BJJ-2017-0043.R2
Budd H, Patchava A, Khanduja V (2012) Establishing the radiation risk from fluoroscopic-assisted arthroscopic surgery of the hip. Int Orthop 36:1803–1806. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1557-y
Nakano N, Lisenda L, Khanduja V (2018) Arthroscopic excision of heterotopic ossification in the rectus femoris muscle causing extra-articular anterior hip impingement. SICOT-J 4:41. https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2018036
Rath E, Sherman H, Sampson TG et al (2013) The incidence of heterotopic ossification in hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 29:427–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.10.015
Yeung M, Jamshidi S, Horner N et al (2016) Efficacy of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug prophylaxis for feterotrophic ossification in hip arthroscopy: A systematic review. Arthroscopy 32:519–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2015.08.007
Winkler S, Craiovan B, Wagner F et al (2015) Pathogenesis and prevention strategies of heterotopic ossification in total hip arthroplasty: a narrative literature review and results of a survey in Germany. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2174-1
Bedi A, Zbeda RM, Bueno VF et al (2012) The Incidence of Heterotopic Ossification After Hip Arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med 40:854–863. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546511434285
Brooker A, Bowerman J, Robinson R, Riley L (1973) Ectopic ossification following total hip replacement. Incidence and a method of classification. J Bone Joint Surg Am 55:1629–1632
Beckmann JT, Wylie JD, Potter MQ et al (2015) Effect of Naproxen Prophylaxis on Heterotopic Ossification Following Hip Arthroscopy: A Double-Blind Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial. J Bone Jt Surgery, Am 97:2032–2037. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.01156
Pavlou G, Kyrkos M, Tsialogiannis E et al (2012) Pharmacological treatment of heterotopic ossification following hip surgery: An update. Expert Opin Pharmacother 13:619–622
Baird EO, Kang QK (2009) Prophylaxis of heterotopic ossification-an updated review. J Orthop Surg Res. https://doi.org/10.1186/1749-799X-4-12
Arksey H, O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol Theory Pract. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK (2010) Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
Peters MDJ, Godfrey CM, Mcinerney P et al (2017) Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In: Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A (2016) Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Kastner M, Tricco AC, Soobiah C et al (2012) What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-114
Amar E, Warschawski Y, Sampson TG et al (2015) Capsular closure does not affect development of heterotopic ossification after hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 31:225–230.
Beckmann JT, Wylie JD, Kapron AL et al (2014) The effect of NSAID prophylaxis and operative variables on heterotopic ossification after hip arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med 42:1359–1364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514526361
Byrd JWT, Jones KS (2011) Arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement in athletes. Am J Sports Med 39(Suppl):7S–13S
Byrd JWT, Jones KS (2011) Arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement: Minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 27:1379–1388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2011.05.018
Chernchujit B, Sanguanjit P, Arunakul M, Jitapankul C, Waitayawinyu T (2009) Arthroscopic loose body removal after hip fracture dislocation: experiences in 7 cases. J Med Assoc Thai 92(Suppl 6):S161–164
Collins JA, Beutel BG, Garofolo G, Youm T (2015) Correlation of obesity with patient-reported outcomes and complications after hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 31:57–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2014.07.013
Di BP, GiuseppeN, Stefano M et al (2019) Arthroscopic treatment of iliopsoas impingement syndrome after hip arthroplasty. Acta Biomed 90:104–109. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v90i1-S.8076
Dow T, King J-P, Wong IH (2020) The reduction of heterotopic ossification incidence after hip arthroscopy in patients treated with selective cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitor (Celecoxib). Arthroscopy 36:453–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2019.08.034
Flecher X, Dumas J, Argenson JN (2011) Is a hip distractor useful in the arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement? Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2011.02.007
Gao GY, Zhang X, Dai LH et al (2019) Heterotopic ossification after arthroscopy for hip impingement syndrome. Chin Med J 132:827–833. https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000000153
Gedouin JE, May O, Bonin N et al (2010) Assessment of arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement. A prospective multicenter study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96:S59–S67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2010.08.002
Gupta A, Redmond J, Stake C et al (2016) Outcomes of revision hip arthroscopy: 2-year clinical follow-up. Arthroscopy 32:788–797
Gupta A, Redmond J, Stake CE et al (2016) Does Primary Hip Arthroscopy Result in Improved Clinical Outcomes?: 2-Year Clinical Follow-up on a Mixed Group of 738 Consecutive Primary Hip Arthroscopies Performed at a High-Volume Referral Center. Am J Sports Med 44:74–82
Hartigan DE, Perets I, Walsh JP et al (2016) Clinical Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy in Radiographically Diagnosed Retroverted Acetabula. Am J Sports Med 44:2531–2536. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516652615
Hufeland M, Kruger D, Haas N et al (2016) Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement shows persistent clinical improvement in the mid-term. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:687–691
Larson CM, Giveans MR (2008) Arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement: Early outcomes measures. Arthroscopy 24:540–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2007.11.007
Larson CM, Clohisy JC, Beaulé PE et al (2016) Intraoperative and Early Postoperative Complications After Hip Arthroscopic Surgery. Am J Sports Med 44:2292–2298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516650885
Lee J-W, Hwang D-S, Kang C et al (2019) Arthroscopic Repair of Acetabular Labral Tears Associated with Femoroacetabular Impingement: 7–10 Years of Long-Term Follow-up Results. Clin Orthop Surg 11:28–35. https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2019.11.1.28
Mercier M, Dangin A, Ollier E, Bonin N (2019) Does acetabular dysplasia affect outcome in arthroscopic treatment of cam femoroacetabular impingement? Case-control study with and without acetabular dysplasia. Rev Chir Orthop Traumatol 105:6–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcot.2018.11.014
Mortensen AJ, O’Neill DC, Adeyemi TF et al (2020) A 2-Week Course of Naproxen for Heterotopic Ossification Prophylaxis Is Effective Following Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement. Arthrosc Sport Med Rehabil 2:e789–e794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2020.07.016
Nazal MR, Parsa A, Gibbs JS et al (2020) Mid-term results of arthroscopic synovectomy for pigmented villonodular synovitis of the hip. Arthroscopy 36:1587–1598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2020.01.059
Nossa JM, Aguilera B, Márquez W et al (2014) Factors associated with hip arthroscopy complications in the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Curr Orthop Pract 25:362–366. https://doi.org/10.1097/BCO.0000000000000122
Ong C, Hall M, Youm T (2013) Surgical technique: arthroscopic treatment of heterotopic ossification of the hip after prior hip arthroscopy. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471:1277–1282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2627-6
Palmer DH, Ganesh V, Comfort T, Tatman P (2012) Midterm outcomes in patients with cam femoroacetabular impingement treated arthroscopically. Arthroscopy 28:1671–1681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.04.154
Park M-S, Yoon S-J, Kim Y-J, Chung W-C (2014) Hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: The changing nature and severity of associated complications over time. Arthroscopy 30:957–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2014.03.017
Polat G, Dikmen G, Erdil M, Asik M (2013) Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: early outcomes. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 47:311–317. https://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2013.3041
Randelli F, Pierannunzii L, Banci L et al (2010) Heterotopic ossifications after arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement: the role of NSAID prophylaxis. J Orthop Traumatol 11:245–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10195-010-0121-z
Rath E, Warschawski Y, Maman E et al (2016) Selective COX-2 Inhibitors Significantly Reduce the Occurrence of Heterotopic Ossification After Hip Arthroscopic Surgery. Am J Sports Med 44:677–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515618623
Redmond JM, Keegan MA, Gupta A et al (2017) Outcomes of heterotopic ossification excision following revision hip arthroscopy. J HIP Preserv Surg 4:164–169. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnx010
Rego PA, Mascarenhas V, Oliveira FS et al (2018) Arthroscopic versus open treatment of cam-type femoro-acetabular impingement: retrospective cohort clinical study. Int Orthop 42:791–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-017-3735-4
Rhee S-M, Kang SY, Jang E-C et al (2016) Clinical outcomes after arthroscopic acetabular labral repair using knot-tying or knotless suture technique. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 136:1411–1416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2505-x
Rhon D, Schmitz M, Mayhew R et al (2019) Arthroscopy for management of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome in the military health system: A 10-year epidemiological overview of cases with 2-year follow-up. Mil Med 184:788–796. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usz057
Roos BD, Roos MV, Júnior AC et al (2015) Extracapsular approach for arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: clinical and radiographic results and complications. Rev Bras Ortop 50:430–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rboe.2015.06.011
Roos BD, Roos MV, Camisa Júnior A et al (2020) Subspine Hip Impingement: Clinical and Radiographic Results of its Arthroscopic Treatment. Rev Bras Ortop 55:722–727. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1713760
Sandoval E, Dolores Martin-Rios M, Cimas D et al (2016) Hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: a comparative study between the classic and the outside-in access. HIP Int 26:290–294. https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000336
Sariali E, Vandenbulcke F (2018) Clinical outcomes following arthroscopic treatment of femoro-acetabular impingement using a minimal traction approach and an initial capsulotomy. Minimum two year follow-up. Int Orthop 42:2549–2554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-018-3904-0
Schüttler KF, Schramm R, El-Zayat BF et al (2018) The effect of surgeon’s learning curve: complications and outcome after hip arthroscopy. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138:1415–1421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2960-7
Seijas R, Ares O, Sallent A et al (2017) Hip arthroscopy complications regarding surgery and early postoperative care: retrospective study and review of literature. Musculoskelet Surg 101:119–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-016-0444-x
Tjong VK, Gombera MM, Kahlenberg CA et al (2017) Isolated acetabuloplasty and labral repair for combined-type femoroacetabular impingement: Are we doing too much? Arthroscopy 33:773–779. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2016.10.022
Truntzer JN, Hoppe DJ, Shapiro LM et al (2017) Complication rates for hip arthroscopy are underestimated: A population-based study. Arthroscopy 33:N.PAG-N.PAG. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2017.01.021
Weber AE, Nakata H, Mayer EN et al (2020) Return to sport after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome in NCAA Division I Athletes: Experience at a single institution. Orthop J Sport Med 8:2325967120918383. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967120918383
Zheng L, Hwang J-M, Hwang D-S et al (2020) Incidence and location of heterotopic ossification following hip arthroscopy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 21:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-3150-7
Harris JD, Brand JC, Cote MP, Dhawan A (2017) Research pearls: The significance of statistics and perils of pooling. Part 3: Pearls and pitfalls of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Arthroscopy 33:1594–1602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2017.01.055
Cote MP, Lubowitz JH, Rossi MJ, Brand JC (2018) Reviews pooling heterogeneous, low-evidence, high-bias data result in incorrect conclusions: But heterogeneity is an opportunity to explore. Arthroscopy 34:3126–3128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2018.10.005
Gedouin J-E, May O, Bonin N et al (2010) Assessment of arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement. A prospective multicenter study. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 96:S59-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2010.08.002
Magrill ACL, Nakano N, Khanduja V (2017) Historical review of arthroscopic surgery of the hip. Int Orthop 41:1983–1994
Baigent C, Bhala N, Emberson J et al (2013) Vascular and upper gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: Meta-analyses of individual participant data from randomised trials. Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60900-9
Schjerning AM, McGettigan P, Gislason G (2020) Cardiovascular effects and safety of (non-aspirin) NSAIDs. Nat. Rev. Cardiol 17:574–584
McGettigan P, Henry D (2011) Cardiovascular risk with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: Systematic review of population-based controlled observational studies. PLoS Med 8:e1001098. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001098
Bell S, Rennie T, Marwick CA, Davey P (2018) Effects of peri-operative nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on post-operative kidney function for adults with normal kidney function. Cochrane Database Syst 11:CD011274. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011274.pub2
Ungprasert P, Cheungpasitporn W, Crowson CS, Matteson EL (2015) Individual non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of acute kidney injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Eur J Intern Med. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2015.03.008
García-Rayado G, Navarro M, Lanas A (2018) NSAID induced gastrointestinal damage and designing GI-sparing NSAIDs. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 11:1031–1043
Vavken P, Dorotka R (2011) Economic evaluation of NSAID and radiation to prevent heterotopic ossification after hip surgery. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 131:1309–1315
Board TN, Karva A, Board RE et al (2007) The prophylaxis and treatment of heterotopic ossification following lower limb arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89-B:434–440. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B4.18845
Hu Z-H, Chen W, Sun J-N et al (2021) Radiotherapy for the prophylaxis of heterotopic ossification after total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails. Med Dosim 46:65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meddos.2020.07.010
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Ethical approval was not required as this study only contains data extracted from previous studies which are freely available online.
Consent to participate
Not applicable for a systematic review.
Consent for publication
Not applicable for a systematic review.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests. VK is a Consultant for Smith and Nephew & Arthrex Limited.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Level of Evidence: IV.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Arshad, Z., Maughan, H.D., Garner, M. et al. Incidence of heterotopic ossification following hip arthroscopy is low: considerations for routine prophylaxis. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 46, 1489–1500 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-022-05402-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-022-05402-4