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.
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.
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. Copyright remains with the authors and publisher.
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.
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.
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. Copyright remains with the authors and publisher.