↓ Skip to main content

Return to Play After Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Return to Play After Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Published in
The American Journal of Sports Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.1177/0363546518759731
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The use of arthroscopic treatment for intra-articular hip pathology has demonstrated improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with a lower rate of complications, reoperation, and patient morbidity as compared with traditional methods. Although the use of this minimally invasive approach has increased in prevalence, no evidence-based return-to-play (RTP) criteria have been developed to ensure an athlete's preparedness for sporting activities. To determine if there exists sufficient evidence in the literature to support an RTP protocol and functional assessment after hip arthroscopy, as well as to assess the mean rate and duration of RTP. Systematic review and meta-analysis. The search terms "hip arthroscopy," "return to play," and 10 related terms were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science, yielding 263 articles. After screening, 22 articles were included. RTP timeline, rehabilitation protocols, and conditional criteria measures were assessed with previously established criteria. Pooled estimates were calculated for RTP rate and duration, and weighted mean scores were determined for PROs. A total of 1296 patients with 1442 total hips were identified. Although 54.5% (12 of 22) of studies did not provide a guideline for RTP duration after hip arthroscopy, 36.4% (8 of 22) recommended a duration of 4 months, while 9.1% (2 of 22) recommended 3 months. The most frequently described postoperative rehabilitation protocols were weightbearing guidelines (15 studies) and passive motion exercises (9 studies). Only 2 studies satisfied the criteria for a sufficient RTP protocol, and 3 provided a specific replicable test for RTP. The mean RTP duration was 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.1-8.8 months), and the return rate was 84.6% (95% CI, 80.4%-88.8%; P = .008) at a mean ± SD follow-up of 25.8 ± 2.4 months. Mean modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) improved from 63.1 to 84.1 postoperatively (+33.3%), while Non-arthritic Hip Score improved from 61.7 to 86.8 (+40.7%). A lower preoperative mHHS was significantly associated with a higher postoperative improvement ( r = -0.95, P = .0003). Significant variability exists in RTP protocols among institutions owing to a lack of standardization. Despite a high overall rate of RTP and improvement in PROs after hip arthroscopy, the majority of rehabilitation protocols are not evidence based and rely on expert opinion. No validated functional test currently exists to assess RTP.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 158 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 13%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Researcher 16 10%
Other 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 26 16%
Unknown 55 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 18%
Sports and Recreations 9 6%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 63 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,978,033
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from The American Journal of Sports Medicine
#2,919
of 5,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,804
of 329,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The American Journal of Sports Medicine
#68
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,409 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,870 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.