Periportal and Puncture Capsulotomy Techniques Have Similar Outcomes to Traditional Capsulotomies With Closure in Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis of 2‐Year Outcomes

PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate capsulotomy techniques through patient-reported outcome measures, rates of revision arthroscopy, conversion to total hip arthroplasty, and achievement of clinically meaningful outcomes. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases were queried in June 2024 for studies that could be used to compare capsular management strategies primarily via patient-reported outcome measures at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement, minimum 2-year follow-up, and reported capsulotomy type. Based on the capsular management technique performed, groups were defined as interportal capsulotomy with closure, T-capsulotomy with complete closure, periportal capsulotomy, or puncture capsulotomy. Heterogeneity was adjusted for using metaregression models. RESULTS: Of the 1322 unique studies identified in our search, 8 studies (1961 hips) were included. The combined puncture capsulotomy and periportal capsulotomy group (mean difference range, 21.30-32.56) performed similarly to interportal capsulotomy with closure (mean difference range, 18.33-32.00) and T-capsulotomy with complete closure (mean difference range, 20.70-23.30) groups in modified Harris Hip Score (P = .274). This continued when evaluating revision and total hip arthroplasty rates (proportion range, 0.0-0.05 and 0.0-0.01, respectively). Metaregression adjustments found baseline modified Harris Hip Score significantly influences mean differences (adjusted mean difference, -0.53 [-0.83, -0.23], P = .0006). When considering the achievement rates of minimal clinically important difference, all capsulotomy methods were similar for modified Harris Hip Score; however, minimal clinically important difference thresholds had a significant influence of -0.46 (95% confidence interval, [-0.54, -0.39], P < .0001) based on a metaregression model. CONCLUSIONS: Periportal and puncture capsulotomy techniques did not yield statistically different outcomes compared with traditional capsulotomy techniques that use capsular closure at 2-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
Published
2026-04-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/arj.70207
Primary Topic
Hip disorders and treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Periportal and Puncture Capsulotomy Techniques Have Similar Outcomes to Traditional Capsulotomies With Closure in Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis of 2‐Year Outcomes

Kieran Dowley, Stephen M. Gillinov, Nathan J. Cherian, Chris T Eberlin et al.
Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
Hip disorders and treatments
article

Periportal and Puncture Capsulotomy Techniques Have Similar Outcomes to Traditional Capsulotomies With Closure in Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis of 2‐Year Outcomes

Kieran Dowley, Stephen M. Gillinov, Nathan J. Cherian, Chris T Eberlin, Srish S Chenna, Scott D Martin, Brandon J Allen, Jeffrey S Mun, Rachel L Poutre, Bilal S Siddiq
article en

Abstract

PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate capsulotomy techniques through patient-reported outcome measures, rates of revision arthroscopy, conversion to total hip arthroplasty, and achievement of clinically meaningful outcomes. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases were queried in June 2024 for studies that could be used to compare capsular management strategies primarily via patient-reported outcome measures at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement, minimum 2-year follow-up, and reported capsulotomy type. Based on the capsular management technique performed, groups were defined as interportal capsulotomy with closure, T-capsulotomy with complete closure, periportal capsulotomy, or puncture capsulotomy. Heterogeneity was adjusted for using metaregression models. RESULTS: Of the 1322 unique studies identified in our search, 8 studies (1961 hips) were included. The combined puncture capsulotomy and periportal capsulotomy group (mean difference range, 21.30-32.56) performed similarly to interportal capsulotomy with closure (mean difference range, 18.33-32.00) and T-capsulotomy with complete closure (mean difference range, 20.70-23.30) groups in modified Harris Hip Score (P = .274). This continued when evaluating revision and total hip arthroplasty rates (proportion range, 0.0-0.05 and 0.0-0.01, respectively). Metaregression adjustments found baseline modified Harris Hip Score significantly influences mean differences (adjusted mean difference, -0.53 [-0.83, -0.23], P = .0006). When considering the achievement rates of minimal clinically important difference, all capsulotomy methods were similar for modified Harris Hip Score; however, minimal clinically important difference thresholds had a significant influence of -0.46 (95% confidence interval, [-0.54, -0.39], P < .0001) based on a metaregression model. CONCLUSIONS: Periportal and puncture capsulotomy techniques did not yield statistically different outcomes compared with traditional capsulotomy techniques that use capsular closure at 2-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies.

Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
University of Nebraska at Omaha (US), University of Iowa (US), University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (US), Massachusetts General Hospital (US), Nebraska Orthopaedic Hospital (US), University of Nebraska Medical Center (US)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 14%
Hip disorders and treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.