Outcomes of Open Versus Endoscopic Repair of Abductor Muscle Tears of the Hip: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To compare the outcome of open versus endoscopic gluteal tendon repair.

METHODS: An extensive review of PubMed was conducted by 2 independent reviewers for articles containing at least 1 of the following search terms: gluteus medius, gluteus medius tear, gluteus medius tendinopathy, gluteus medius repair, hip abductors, hip abductor tears, hip abductor repair, hip rotator cuff, hip rotator cuff repair, trochanteric bursa, trochanteric bursitis, trochanteric bursectomy, peritrochanteric procedures, peritrochanteric repair, and peritrochanteric arthroscopy. This yielded 313 articles. Of these articles, 7 satisfied the following inclusion criteria: description of an open or endoscopic gluteal repair with outcomes consisting of patient-reported outcome scores, patient satisfaction, strength scores, pain scores, and complications.

RESULTS: Three studies on open gluteal repairs and 4 on endoscopic gluteal repairs met the inclusion criteria. In total, there were 127 patients who underwent open procedures and 40 patients who underwent endoscopic procedures. Of the 40 patients who underwent endoscopic procedures, 15 had concomitant intra-articular procedures documented, as compared with 0 in the open group. The modified Harris Hip Score was common to 1 study on open repairs and 3 studies on endoscopic repairs. The scores were similar for follow-up periods of 1 and 2 years. Visual analog pain scale scores were reported in 1 study on open gluteal repairs and 1 study on endoscopic repairs and were similar between the 2 studies. Improvement in abductor strength was also similarly reported in selected studies between the 2 groups. The only difference between the 2 groups was the reported incidence of complications, which was higher in the open group.

CONCLUSIONS: Open and endoscopic gluteal repairs have similar patient-reported outcome scores, pain scores, and improvement in abduction strength. Open techniques have a higher reported complication rate. Randomized studies of sufficient numbers of patients are required to ultimately determine if one technique produces superior patient outcomes over the other.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.