Ross Hauser, MD, Danielle Matias, PA-C, Demi Foster, APRN

Hip pain can become a problem of confidence as well as comfort. You may shorten your steps, hesitate before turning, or reach for a railing on stairs. Some people describe a loose or unreliable hip. Others mainly notice tight muscles, a painful catch, or increasing difficulty walking.

At Caring Medical, we consider how the hip’s supporting tissues contribute to these symptoms. The bones, labrum, capsule, ligaments, and muscles work together to support movement. When that support is impaired, the explanation for pain may involve more than the structure named on an MRI report.

This article explains hip instability and microinstability, how an apparently tight hip can still have a stability problem, and why changes in walking deserve attention. We also discuss the research behind diagnosis, rehabilitation, surgery, and our prolotherapy perspective. Several conditions can produce similar symptoms, so the aim is to understand the mechanics without assuming that every painful hip is unstable.

Part 1: Understanding how the hip stays stable

Instability, microinstability, subluxation, and dislocation

The femoral head is the ball at the top of the thighbone. The acetabulum is its socket in the pelvis. A dislocation means the ball has left the socket; a subluxation is partial loss of the normal joint relationship. Microinstability describes a subtler problem: excessive movement that produces symptoms while the ball remains within the socket. A foundational review explains that painful excessive motion may occur with or without a sensation of unsteadiness and may involve inadequate bony coverage, soft tissue damage, or both. (1)

Laxity means looseness. Instability means that looseness or another mechanical problem interferes with comfortable, controlled function. A flexible person can have a stable, painless hip. Conversely, a person with painful instability may limit movement because of guarding. The amount of movement and the ability to control it are separate questions.

The hip is supported by more than its bones

The socket provides substantial support, but it does not work alone. The labrum is a rim of fibrocartilage around the socket. The capsule is the connective tissue envelope around the joint, reinforced by ligaments. Muscles crossing the hip provide active control, and the ligamentum teres inside the joint may contribute to stability in particular positions. These components are described together in the foundational microinstability literature. (2)

The articular cartilage covering the ball and socket provides smooth bearing surfaces. Joint fluid lubricates movement. Together, the joint must allow motion, distribute load, and resist unwanted displacement. Pain can arise when one or several parts of this system are compromised.

The three main capsular ligaments

The iliofemoral, pubofemoral, and ischiofemoral ligaments reinforce different regions of the capsule. An anatomical study mapped their locations and their relationship to arthroscopic portals, illustrating why capsular tissue matters in hip surgery. (3)

• Iliofemoral ligament: a strong, Y-shaped reinforcement at the front of the hip, extending from the pelvis toward the front of the upper femur. It restrains excessive extension and contributes to rotational control.
• Pubofemoral ligament: reinforces the lower front portion of the capsule and blends with neighboring capsular tissue. It helps limit excessive abduction, or movement of the leg away from the body, and extension.
• Ischiofemoral ligament: reinforces the back of the capsule. Its contribution to rotational restraint changes with hip position.

These are interconnected reinforcements rather than three independent straps. Their fibers become more taut as the hip extends and relatively less taut in flexion. This wrapping action is often described as a screw-home mechanism: the capsule helps provide restraint as the hip moves toward an upright position. The function of each region depends on the position of the entire joint. (2)

This anatomical illustration helps show how the capsule and ligament regions connect the pelvis and femur. Their restraint varies with joint position.

What happens when the capsule becomes lax?

In a 2018 laboratory study of eight cadaveric hips, researchers created capsular laxity and measured its effect on motion. The modified hips showed increased rotation and translation, meaning movement of the femoral head relative to the socket. The findings support a mechanical role for the capsule in keeping movement controlled. (4)

The investigators did not find a simple correlation between increased rotation and increased translation. That distinction matters: a large rotation arc does not tell us exactly how much the ball is shifting. This was also a laboratory experiment, not proof that a particular patient’s pain comes from capsular laxity or that degeneration is inevitable. (4)

A 2020 study used three-dimensional CT models in 78 patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement to compare the hip in neutral and flexed, abducted, externally rotated positions. Mean translation was approximately 0.84 mm. This demonstrates that measurable translation can occur in a clinical population; it does not establish a universal millimeter threshold separating normal movement from painful instability. (5)

Why can a hip feel tight if it is unstable?

Muscle tightness and ligament laxity can coexist. A muscle produces active force; a ligament supplies passive restraint. A person may restrict movement around a painful joint even when its passive restraints are unusually loose.

Our clinical interpretation is that protective muscle activity may contribute to tight hip flexors, buttock tension, or restricted motion in some patients with instability. This is one possible explanation for recurrent tightness after stretching. It does not mean that every tight iliopsoas or piriformis muscle is compensating for a damaged ligament. Tendon disorders, spinal problems, arthritis, training demands, and other causes must also be considered.

The practical learning point is to ask why a muscle is tight. When tightness accompanies apprehension or painful excessive motion, flexibility alone may not address the underlying problem. When stiffness comes from arthritis or another condition, that explanation changes the treatment question.

Swelling, muscle guarding, and bone spurs need their own interpretation

The synovium is the lining that produces joint fluid. Inflammation can lead to excess fluid, called an effusion. Effusion is a finding with several possible causes, including arthritis and injury; it does not by itself diagnose instability.

We have described swelling and guarding as possible responses around an irritated joint. The idea that swelling acts like a temporary internal support is a proposed explanation, not an established test of ligament failure. An inflamed hip still needs assessment of the cause of inflammation.

Likewise, a stiff hip does not automatically mean severe cartilage loss. Guarding and soft tissue restriction may contribute. Bone spurs, however, should not simply be assumed to represent the body’s successful attempt to stabilize lax ligaments. Arthritis involves several biological and mechanical processes, and the significance of a spur depends on its location and the rest of the findings.

Part 2: Microinstability, labral injury, and diagnosis

Why the labral seal matters

The labrum helps maintain a fluid seal between the femoral head and the socket. A 2014 cadaveric study found that the labrum regulated fluid transfer between joint compartments and that its sealing function changed with joint position. This gives a mechanical explanation for why the relationship between the labrum and femoral head matters during movement. (6)

A labral tear may impair that relationship, coexist with capsular laxity, or occur alongside abnormal bone shape. It may also be an imaging finding whose contribution to pain is uncertain. Identifying the tear is therefore one step; understanding how the joint functions is another.

Our hip labral tear treatment article discusses nonsurgical options in more detail. Here, the important question is whether the labrum is part of a broader stability problem that also involves the capsule, bone coverage, or muscle control.

Cartilage damage: an association worth retaining

A study published online in 2021 and in a 2022 journal issue compared patterns of femoral head cartilage damage in an arthroscopy population. Among 32 patients with central femoral head chondromalacia, or cartilage softening, 81% were diagnosed with instability. The study included 64 patients overall and identified an association between the location of cartilage damage and instability. (7)

This is a useful clue about how abnormal mechanics and cartilage findings may relate. It does not show that 81% of all people with cartilage damage have instability, that microinstability necessarily progresses to bone-on-bone arthritis, or that treating laxity will regenerate missing cartilage. The population was selected for surgery, and the study was observational. (7)

Can impingement and instability occur together?

Femoroacetabular impingement involves abnormal contact between the femur and socket during movement. Microinstability involves excessive movement within the joint. The two problems can coexist rather than cancel each other out.

A 2024 scoping review included 123 studies and found that impingement and microinstability may be associated or aggravate each other. Reported coexistence ranged from 21% to 42% in selected populations undergoing arthroscopy or MR arthrography. These figures describe those clinical populations, not everyone with hip pain. The review also identified inconsistent terminology and the need for better diagnostic and treatment research. (8)

For a patient, this means a diagnosis of impingement does not automatically answer the stability question. Our femoroacetabular impingement article explains the related bone-contact problem.

Symptoms that raise suspicion

Possible symptoms include pain at the front of the hip or deep in the groin, a sensation of looseness, painful catching, and apprehension during particular movements. Clicking, popping, or grinding may accompany these complaints, but sounds alone are not diagnostic.

A systematic review first published in 2022 included nine studies with 189 patients and 193 hips. Most participants were women. Anterior pain, a subjective feeling of instability while walking, and anterior apprehension during extension and external rotation were commonly reported. All included studies were low-level observational evidence, which limits how confidently their findings apply to broader populations. (9)

The history also matters: Did the symptoms begin after an injury, develop with repeated end-range activity, or appear after surgery? Do they occur during pivoting, stairs, squatting, or prolonged sitting? Does pain precede the giving-way sensation? These details help distinguish painful instability from tendon snapping, weakness, or other causes of an unreliable leg.

Dysplasia, generalized hypermobility, and connective tissue disorders

Dysplasia means that the socket provides insufficient coverage of the femoral head. This can increase demands on the labrum and capsule. It is a bony anatomical problem, even when soft tissues also contribute to pain.

Generalized joint hypermobility and connective tissue disorders can be relevant to capsular laxity. Thumb and finger flexibility may help identify generalized hypermobility, but neither observation diagnoses Ehlers-Danlos syndrome or proves instability in the painful hip. A person with a connective tissue diagnosis can also have a tendon injury, arthritis, impingement, or referred spinal pain.

The 2025 imaging review discusses evaluation of suspected laxity, including patients with connective tissue disorders. It places imaging within a broader assessment of anatomy and symptoms. (10)

Why no single examination finding is enough

An international Delphi study first published in 2022, with its journal issue in 2023, assembled expert opinion about diagnostic criteria. The panel developed a combination of history, examination, and imaging factors. No individual criterion was considered essential. This reinforces an important clinical point: diagnosing microinstability requires a pattern of evidence. (11)

Hip range of motion, pain location, muscle strength, apprehension, and generalized laxity each answer different questions. A painful maneuver may stress more than one structure. The diagnosis becomes more convincing when several findings point to the same mechanical explanation.

Range-of-motion research: useful information with important limits

A 2023 comparative study included 263 hips: 69 with isolated instability, 50 with isolated impingement, 50 with both, and 94 controls. Patients with instability generally had greater passive range of motion. A combined flexion-plus-rotation arc of at least 200 degrees was associated with intraoperative findings of instability in symptomatic patients. (12)

The measure combined movements rather than describing 200 degrees in one direction. Its sensitivity was 68.9% and specificity 80%, so it did not identify every unstable hip or exclude all stable hips. This is a useful research finding, not a stand-alone diagnostic cutoff. (12)

New 2026 research: which tests achieved expert agreement?

A 2026 international consensus involved 100 participants from 13 countries. Experts supported three clinician-performed tests: abduction-hyperextension-external rotation, prone instability, and anterior apprehension testing. They also agreed on anterior pain during activities, mechanical symptoms, and a subjective sensation of looseness as relevant symptoms. Female sex and hip dysplasia were associated risk factors. (13)

The FABER test and the combined 200-degree motion measure did not reach consensus. This does not erase the earlier range-of-motion study; it shows that a promising finding in one population has not become a universally accepted rule. The authors recommended combining findings and called for further validation. (13)

These maneuvers require clinical interpretation. They should not be used as forceful self-tests, particularly by someone already apprehensive about the hip.

A second 2026 review shows why the diagnosis remains challenging

A systematic review published in July 2026 examined 23 studies. The most frequently used criteria were ease of hip distraction during arthroscopy, a positive hyperextension-external rotation test, and a positive prone external rotation test. The researchers found substantial variation and no universally applied diagnostic framework. (14)

Ease of distraction means how readily the joint separates under traction during surgery. It can contribute to an intraoperative assessment, but surgery is not required simply to investigate suspected microinstability. The broader lesson is that studies may enroll somewhat different patient groups under the same diagnosis, which complicates treatment comparisons. (14)

Caring Medical’s clinical maneuver and demonstrations

We describe the Hauser Hip Maneuver, using combined hip positions to assess motion, the resistance felt near the end of movement, and mechanical symptoms. This reflects our clinical examination perspective. It should be distinguished from the maneuvers discussed in published diagnostic studies; an independently validated diagnostic rule for this named maneuver is not established by the research cited here.

This clinical demonstration illustrates motion assessment. A video finding alone does not establish a validated threshold for symptomatic instability or identify every source of pain.

What can imaging and a diagnostic injection contribute?

Radiographs help assess socket coverage, bone shape, alignment, and arthritis. MRI and MR arthrography can identify labral, cartilage, and capsular abnormalities. Static imaging remains useful even when it does not reproduce the movement that provokes symptoms.

The 2025 imaging review describes traction MRI and dynamic ultrasound in selected circumstances. It also emphasizes that findings can be subtle. Advanced dynamic techniques are specialized tools rather than a single required test for every patient. (10)

A diagnostic anesthetic injection can provide information about whether pain is arising inside the hip joint. It does not by itself identify instability, establish which joint tissue is responsible, or resolve all questions about referred pain.

Our detailed hip MRI companion explains the difference between identifying structural abnormalities and identifying the source of symptoms.

Part 3: Walking, muscle compensation, and connected joints

What happens when you put your weight on one leg?

Walking repeatedly transfers support from one leg to the other. During single-leg support, the hip must accept load while the surrounding muscles control the pelvis. The capsule and ligaments supply passive restraint; the muscles supply active force and coordination.

A painful hip may lead to shorter steps, slower walking, or less time spent on the affected leg. Some people avoid extension behind the body or rotation during turns. These adaptations can reduce an uncomfortable demand while changing how the rest of the body moves.

The direction of a limp deserves attention. An antalgic gait reduces time on a painful limb. A Trendelenburg pattern reflects difficulty maintaining pelvic position. Several patterns may coexist, and none identifies ligament damage by appearance alone.

Why does the pelvis drop in a Trendelenburg pattern?

The gluteus medius and minimus are important hip abductor muscles. During single-leg support, they help prevent the opposite side of the pelvis from dropping. If their function is inadequate, the pelvis may drop toward the unsupported side.

A person may compensate by leaning the trunk toward the supporting leg. This changes the mechanical demand on the hip abductors. When it occurs on both sides, walking can look like a waddle.

Weakness is one possible explanation, but painful inhibition, abductor tendon injury, altered hip anatomy, and neurologic problems can also matter. The finding should lead to assessment of muscle and tendon function rather than an automatic diagnosis of capsular failure.

<!– WordPress media preservation: retain the existing Ross Hauser gait demonstration video from the original article here. Its illustrations are examples of walking patterns, not a validated mild-to-extreme microinstability grading system. –>

In the gait demonstration, changes in step length, balance, hip motion, and trunk position help illustrate how people adapt to a painful or poorly functioning hip.

The hip, pelvis, sacroiliac joints, and lower back share movement demands

The pelvis is a ring formed by the two hip bones and sacrum. Each hip bone develops from the ilium, ischium, and pubis. The sacroiliac joints connect the sacrum and ilia at the back; the pubic symphysis connects the pubic bones at the front. The hip joints connect this ring to the femurs.

This arrangement helps explain why movement at the hip can affect demands on the pelvis and spine. A person who cannot comfortably extend the hip may use more pelvic or lumbar movement to complete a step. A shorter stride or trunk lean may also change knee and ankle mechanics. The exact adaptation varies among patients.

A 2020 study compared 11 women with hip osteoarthritis and 11 controls and found differences in how the thigh, pelvis, and lumbar region coordinated during walking. It supports the importance of looking beyond the hip when evaluating gait. It studied arthritis, however, and does not prove that microinstability causes a predictable chain of ligament injuries in other joints. (15)

Pain beyond the hip: referral, compensation, or a separate problem?

Pain in the knee, buttock, or lower back may accompany a hip complaint. Three explanations deserve consideration: pain referred from the hip, discomfort associated with altered movement, and an independent problem in another region.

For example, buttock pain can involve gluteal tendons, the lumbar spine, or other structures. Knee pain may coexist with knee arthritis. Leg pain accompanied by numbness or weakness may require evaluation of a nerve problem. The presence of hip pain does not make those alternatives disappear.

At Caring Medical, our emphasis on connected structures is intended to broaden the mechanical explanation. It is reasonable to consider the surrounding pelvis and spine while avoiding the assumption that every nearby symptom comes from one lax hip ligament.

The demonstration illustrates the relationship among neighboring regions. It should be interpreted alongside the history, examination, and relevant imaging.

Part 4: Treatment options and the supporting research

Strengthening and activity modification remain important

Muscles cannot replace every function of the capsule or correct inadequate socket coverage. They can improve active control and load tolerance. That is why a stability-focused explanation should include rehabilitation rather than dismissing it because ligaments are passive restraints.

A 2022 retrospective study identified 64 patients with hip microinstability, 63 of whom were women. Treatment involved hip and core strengthening and home exercises. More than two-thirds of those assessed at follow-up avoided surgery. Outcome data were incomplete; among the 24 patients with available modified Harris Hip Scores, the mean improved from 67.4 to 85.0. (16)

The study supports meaningful nonsurgical improvement in some patients. Its design cannot prove which exercise component caused the improvement or predict the same result in all patients. The 2024 scoping review also called for randomized trials of training programs for microinstability, with or without impingement. (8)

For a hypermobile patient, repeated stretching into painful end-range positions may increase symptoms rather than solve the problem. Strength, control, and the demands of the activity need consideration alongside flexibility. This is a general mechanical principle, not a standardized exercise prescription for every hip.

When surgery addresses a structural problem

The foundational treatment review describes activity modification and periarticular strengthening as initial management. In patients who remain symptomatic, treatment depends on the underlying cause. Inadequate bony coverage may require an osteotomy to reposition the socket. This is different from shaving an impingement prominence. Capsular plication tightens the capsule; reconstruction replaces deficient tissue. Labral repair or reconstruction may address associated pathology. (1)

A patient with significant dysplasia therefore faces a different decision from someone with adequate coverage and a capsular defect. Pain improvement from an injection does not establish correction of the bony anatomy.

Persistent symptoms after arthroscopy deserve reassessment

Capsular insufficiency and excessive cam-bone resection were reported causes in the earlier systematic review. The term iatrogenic means related to medical treatment; it does not mean that the cause is unknown. These reports establish possible postoperative mechanisms, not a probability that every arthroscopy will produce instability. (9)

A review of failed arthroscopy describes residual impingement, labral pathology, instability, and adhesions among possible causes of ongoing symptoms. It distinguishes persistent symptoms from symptoms that recur after an initial improvement. (17)

Protecting capsular support remains an important consideration. The explanation should also recognize that several problems can account for postoperative pain and that appropriately selected surgery can help. Our hip arthroscopy outcomes article explores those decisions in more detail.

Caring Medical’s prolotherapy perspective: supporting tissues matter

Prolotherapy uses injections, commonly containing dextrose, with the aim of stimulating a tissue response. Our clinical rationale considers whether painful or lax supporting structures contribute to abnormal mechanics. At Caring Medical, we consider both the joint and its surrounding support when discussing the mechanics of a painful hip.

This rationale preserves an important learning point: an injection into the joint and treatment directed toward supporting connective tissues have different intended targets. It does not establish that all hip pain starts in the ligaments or that every patient needs the same injection pattern.

This photograph illustrates multiple treatment sites around one patient’s hip. The sites shown are an individual example; they do not prescribe a universal injection count.

Our chronic hip pain study: what patients reported

Our 2009 retrospective study included 61 patients representing 94 painful hips. Hip pain had been present for an average of approximately 63 months. Patients received an average of 4.7 dextrose prolotherapy treatments, with follow-up averaging about 19 months after the last treatment. (18)

Reported average pain declined from 7.0 to 2.4, and 89% reported more than 50% pain relief. The article also reported improvements in function and exercise ability. These results help explain our interest in the supporting tissues of chronically painful hips. (18)

The study had no untreated or comparison group, relied on recalled pretreatment symptoms, and included a broad chronic hip pain population. It was not a controlled trial of objectively confirmed microinstability. It cannot establish that injections normalized femoral head movement, regenerated cartilage, prevented arthritis, or reliably removed the need for surgery. (18)

Our labral-lesion study: improvement is different from demonstrated healing

Our 2013 retrospective study included 19 patients with labral tears or degeneration treated with dextrose prolotherapy. Patients received an average of 4.8 treatments. Reported pain scores fell from 5.0 to 0.7 at rest, 6.8 to 1.0 during daily activities, and 7.5 to 1.3 during exercise. Follow-up varied substantially, averaging approximately 12 months. (19)

The study reported complete relief in 54% of recorded symptom categories, which is different from saying that 54% of patients had a regenerated or completely healed labrum. All patients reported some improvement, but the study was small and uncontrolled. No adverse events were reported in this series; that does not establish the absence of treatment risk. (19)

These studies provide preliminary patient-reported outcomes. Controlled studies with mechanical and structural measurements would be needed to establish whether prolotherapy corrects confirmed microinstability or changes the course of degeneration.

PRP and bone marrow concentrate: separate questions need separate evidence

Platelet-rich plasma and bone marrow aspirate concentrate are also discussed as possible injection options for hip complaints. These preparations differ from dextrose prolotherapy and from one another. Evidence of benefit for one injection, one diagnosis, or one outcome cannot automatically be transferred to a different preparation or to confirmed hip microinstability.

Our stability-focused clinical rationale is a reason to investigate supporting tissues; it is not proof of labral or cartilage regeneration from an injection. The nonsurgical labral treatment companion provides the fuller discussion of injection evidence.

Cortisone: retain the risk discussion without assuming inevitable damage

Corticosteroid injections may reduce inflammation and provide temporary relief in hip arthritis. They are not designed to reconstruct a deficient capsule or correct dysplasia. Repeated symptom relief without resolving a mechanical problem remains worth discussing.

A 2025 systematic review included 20 studies reporting cartilage-related complications after intra-articular hip corticosteroid injections. Reported outcomes included rapidly progressive osteoarthritis, osteonecrosis, femoral head collapse, insufficiency fracture, and worsening arthritis. Rates varied widely across studies, and much of the evidence involved patients who already had arthritis. (20)

These findings support a discussion of potential harms. They do not establish that every injection accelerates arthritis or that degeneration seen after an injection was necessarily caused by it. A single before-and-after radiograph is an illustration, not a controlled comparison. Our article on cortisone and hip osteoarthritis examines this subject in greater depth.

References

1 Safran MR. Microinstability of the Hip—Gaining Acceptance. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2019;27(1):12–22. [Google Scholar]
2 Bolia I, Chahla J, Locks R, Briggs K, Philippon MJ. Microinstability of the hip: a previously unrecognized pathology. Muscles, Ligaments and Tendons Journal. 2016;6(3):354–360. [Google Scholar]
3 Telleria JJM, Lindsey DP, Giori NJ, Safran MR. An anatomic arthroscopic description of the hip capsular ligaments for the hip arthroscopist. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(5):628–636. [Google Scholar]
4 Han S, Alexander JW, Thomas VS, Choi J, Harris JD, Doherty DB, Jeffers JRT, Noble PC. Does Capsular Laxity Lead to Microinstability of the Native Hip? American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2018;46(6):1315–1323. [Google Scholar]
5 Cvetanovich GL, Beck EC, Chalmers PN, Espinoza Orías AA, Stover MD, Inoue N, Nho SJ. Assessment of Hip Translation In Vivo in Patients With Femoracetabular Impingement Syndrome Using 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography. Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation. 2020;2(2):e113–e120. [Google Scholar]
6 Dwyer MK, Jones HL, Hogan MG, Field RE, McCarthy JC, Noble PC. The acetabular labrum regulates fluid circulation of the hip joint during functional activities. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2014;42(4):812–819. [Google Scholar]
7 Pullen WM, Curtis DM, Safran MR. Central Femoral Head Chondromalacia Is Associated with a Diagnosis of Hip Instability. Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation. 2022;4(2):e453–e457. [Google Scholar]
8 Caliesch R, Beckwée D, Taeymans J, Schwab JM, Renaud T, Brossard Q, Hilfiker R. Hip microinstability and its association with femoroacetabular impingement: A scoping review. Archives of Physiotherapy. 2024;14:29–46. [Google Scholar]
9 Cohen D, Jean PO, Patel M, Aravinthan N, Simunovic N, Duong A, Safran MR, Khanduja V, Ayeni OR. Hip microinstability diagnosis and management: a systematic review. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2023;31(1):16–32. Published online April 20, 2022. [Google Scholar]
10 Guimarães JB, Arruda PHC, Cerezal L, Ratti MAS, Cruz IAN, Morimoto LR, Cabrita HABA, Chhabra A, Nico MAC, Ormond Filho AG. Hip Microinstability: New Concepts and Comprehensive Imaging Evaluation. RadioGraphics. 2025;45(7):e240134. [Google Scholar]
11 Khanduja V, Darby N, O’Donnell J, Bonin N, Safran MR; International Microinstability Expert Panel. Diagnosing Hip Microinstability: an international consensus study using the Delphi methodology. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2023;31(1):40–49. Published online April 30, 2022. [Google Scholar]
12 Curtis DM, Pullen WM, Hopkins JN, Murray IR, Money A, Segovia NA, Safran MR. Can Hip Passive Range of Motion Predict Hip Microinstability? A Comparative Study. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023;11(6):23259671231169978. [Google Scholar]
13 Karimijashni M, Beaulé PE, Carsen S, Clohisy J, Sink E, Zaltz I, Grammatopoulos G, Pfalzgraf-Reny A, Bechiau C, Poitras S. How Should Hip Instability Be Clinically Diagnosed? Consensus Statements From a Scoping Review and an International Multidisciplinary Delphi Study. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2026;484(5):882–898. [Google Scholar]
14 Hatch R, Harley JD, Douglass BW, Carreira D, Christoforetti J, Jimenez AE, Martin RL, Matsuda DK, Wolff A, Hassan M. Diagnostic Criteria for Hip Microinstability Are Heterogeneous but Consistently Include Ease of Intraoperative Distraction and Physical Examination Findings: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. Published online July 31, 2026:e70395. doi:10.1002/arj.70395. [Google Scholar]
15 Ibara T, Anan M, Karashima R, Hada K, Shinkoda K, Kawashima M, Takahashi M. Coordination Pattern of the Thigh, Pelvic, and Lumbar Movements during the Gait of Patients with Hip Osteoarthritis. Journal of Healthcare Engineering. 2020;2020:9545825. [Google Scholar]
16 Ejnisman L, Elisman K, Safran MR. Effectiveness of Nonoperative Management of Hip Microinstability. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2022;50(4):1013–1019. [Google Scholar]
17 Arakgi ME, Degen RM. Approach to a Failed Hip Arthroscopy. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine. 2020;13(3):233–239. [Google Scholar]
18 Hauser RA, Hauser MA. A Retrospective Study on Hackett-Hemwall Dextrose Prolotherapy for Chronic Hip Pain at an Outpatient Charity Clinic in Rural Illinois. Journal of Prolotherapy. 2009;1(2):76–88. [Google Scholar]
19 Hauser RA, Orlofsky A. Regenerative Injection Therapy (Prolotherapy) for Hip Labrum Lesions: Rationale and Retrospective Study. The Open Rehabilitation Journal. 2013;6:59–68. [Google Scholar]
20 Parry D, Dhillon J, Kraeutler MJ. Risks of Intra-articular Hip Corticosteroid Injections Include Rapidly Progressive Osteoarthritis and Femoral Head Collapse in Patients With and Without Pre-existing Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation. 2025;7(4):101169. [Google Scholar]