The Journal of Arthroplasty, Volume 34, Issue 9, 2184 - 2191

Outcomes of Nonoperative Management, Iliopsoas Tenotomy, and Revision Arthroplasty for Iliopsoas Impingement after Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Shapira, Jacob et al.
Hip

Background

Nonoperative and operative management of iliopsoas impingement (IPI) is commonly performed following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this systematic review is to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following conservative treatment, iliopsoas (IP) tenotomy, and revision arthroplasty in patients presenting with IPI after THA.

Methods

The PubMed and Embase databases were searched for articles regarding IPI following THA. Studies were included if (1) IPI after THA was treated with conservative management, an IP tenotomy, or acetabular component revision and (2) included PROs.

Results

Eleven articles were selected for review and there were 280 hips treated for IPI following THA. Harris Hip Scores reported for the conservative group, the IP tenotomy group, and the cup revision group were 59.0 preoperatively to 77.8, 58.0 preoperatively to 85.4, and 58.1 preoperatively to 82.4 at latest follow-up, respectively. The IP tenotomy cohort also demonstrated superior postoperative functional outcomes using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index, Medical Research Council score, Oxford Hip Score, and Merle d’Aubigné-Postel Pain Score. Patients who had a revision exhibited higher Oxford Hip Scores, higher Medical Research Council scores, and lower Visual Analog Scale Pain scores postoperatively.

Conclusion

Management of IPI following THA includes nonoperative measures, IP tenotomy, or acetabular component revision. Patients have been shown to experience favorable PROs at latest follow-up, with an apparent advantage for surgical treatment. Compared to revision arthroplasty, IP tenotomy resulted in a lower overall rate of complications with less severe complication types. Therefore, IP tenotomy should be considered as a second line of treatment for patients who failed conservative measures. Revision arthroplasty should be reserved for recalcitrant cases.

Level of Evidence

IV.

Download article