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

A person considering hip arthroscopy usually wants to know whether the operation will relieve pain, restore activity, and help preserve the joint. A person who remains in pain after surgery has a different question: what was missed, what has changed, and what can help now?

At Caring Medical, we see people exploring nonsurgical options and people seeking help after surgery has not resolved their symptoms. Their experiences help explain why it is important to examine the whole hip and its supporting structures. They do not establish the failure rate of hip arthroscopy in the general population. Patients who recover well are less likely to come to us for another opinion.

This article discusses what arthroscopy can accomplish, why some patients continue to hurt, and how to interpret the research. We retain the important distinction between treating an abnormality visible on imaging and identifying the problem responsible for a patient’s symptoms.

Why is hip arthroscopy recommended?

Hip arthroscopy allows a surgeon to examine and treat the joint through small incisions. Common reasons include a symptomatic labral tear and femoroacetabular impingement, often called FAI. In FAI, the shape of the femoral head-neck junction, the acetabular rim, or both can create abnormal contact during movement. A cam deformity involves the femoral side; a pincer pattern involves acetabular coverage. The clinical syndrome requires more than the presence of an unusual bone shape.

The labrum is the ring of tissue around the hip socket. It contributes to the joint’s fluid seal and stability. A tear may be associated with groin pain, catching, or difficulty with certain movements, but an MRI finding does not establish that the tear explains every symptom. Clicking can also come from tendons moving over nearby structures. A sensation of giving way deserves evaluation, but does not by itself diagnose instability.

A 2025 expert consensus identified substantial mechanical symptoms, functional limitations, and moderate to severe pain among relative indications for surgery. Age, dysplasia, pain severity, and degenerative changes were among the prognostic considerations. These are clinical considerations, not a formula that can predict an individual’s outcome. (1)

Understanding the specific aim of a proposed operation is important. Is it intended to repair a symptomatic labral tear, correct impingement, address a cartilage defect, or treat capsular insufficiency? These targets differ, and the health of the rest of the joint can limit the result.

Surgical terms that patients should understand

“Hip arthroscopy” describes the method of access. It does not specify everything done inside the joint.

Other hip-preserving operations have different purposes. A periacetabular osteotomy repositions the socket in selected patients with inadequate coverage; it is not equivalent to arthroscopic labral repair. Core decompression may be used in selected stages of osteonecrosis, also called avascular necrosis, to address disease of the femoral head. A collapsed femoral head presents a different problem from an isolated tear. Neither a labral repair nor an injection can be assumed to restore its original shape.

What does the research say about successful outcomes?

Surgery and physical therapy: the 2024 randomized trial

A single-surgeon randomized trial included 97 patients aged 40 or older with symptomatic labral tears and limited radiographic arthritis. Arthroscopy followed by physical therapy produced better pain and patient-reported outcomes over 24 months than the physical therapy comparison strategy. Of 45 patients initially assigned to physical therapy, 32 eventually crossed over to surgery. (2)

Patients who crossed over improved similarly to those who received surgery initially. The trial did not find a significant difference in conversion to hip replacement between groups during that follow-up. A preliminary course of physical therapy therefore did not appear to compromise later surgical improvement in this selected population. (2)

This is useful evidence for patients who wonder whether being over 40 automatically makes arthroscopy inappropriate. It does not establish the same benefit for advanced arthritis, every type of tear, or every surgical technique. The high crossover rate also matters when interpreting the comparison. A two-year trial cannot determine whether an operation prevents replacement over the following decade.

A large arthroscopy cohort provides useful context

A 2020 retrospective study examined 1,249 hips in 1,118 patients, with an average follow-up of approximately 50 months. It reported conversion to total hip arthroplasty in 122 hips, or 9.8%, and revision arthroscopy in 124 hips, or 9.9%. Older age and higher body mass index were among the factors associated with conversion to replacement. (3)

Those figures deserve to remain in the discussion, with their context. The study excluded hips with more substantial radiographic arthritis and previous surgery. Its conversion rate should not be presented as a prediction for all patients considering arthroscopy. Revision and replacement percentages also should not be added together to create an assumed overall failure rate; the outcomes and possible overlap must be considered.

The study examined associations between specific procedures and subsequent outcomes. Such comparisons can be influenced by the reason a surgeon selected a procedure. For example, debridement may be chosen because tissue is already less repairable. An association between a procedure and later replacement does not, by itself, prove that the procedure caused deterioration. (3)

What newer ten-year research adds

A 2026 prospective multicenter study followed patients treated surgically for FAI for an average of 10.4 years. Among 362 hips with follow-up, representing 80.1% of the eligible cohort, survival without total hip arthroplasty was 90.6%. The average age was 32.1 years. Importantly, the study included arthroscopy and surgical hip dislocation, so it is not an arthroscopy-only success rate. (4)

Older age, obesity, male sex, and femoral head chondromalacia were associated with replacement risk. These results offer longer-term context for appropriately selected hip-preservation patients. They do not mean that 90.6% were pain-free or had returned to their former sport. There was no nonsurgical control group to establish that surgery prevented arthritis or replacement. (4)

Together, the randomized trial and longer-term cohort show why neither blanket dismissal nor a promise of permanent joint preservation is justified. The patient’s starting condition, the treatment target, and the outcome measured all matter.

Joint space, cartilage loss, and age

A systematic scoping review of 101 studies involving 90,315 hips identified older age and pre-existing osteoarthritis as important factors associated with less favorable outcomes. Dysplasia and other patient and anatomical characteristics also require consideration. Age is part of the assessment, but it cannot substitute for evaluating cartilage condition and joint mechanics. (5)

What does the 2 mm joint-space finding actually mean?

Joint space on an X-ray is an indirect indicator of the space occupied by articular cartilage. Marked narrowing suggests a different situation from a labral tear in an otherwise well-preserved joint.

A frequently cited 2013 study evaluated 96 patients aged 50 or older who met its inclusion criteria. Thirty-one proceeded to hip replacement during follow-up. A joint-space measurement of 2 mm or less was an important predictor of conversion. The authors described approximately 80% accuracy for predicting progression to replacement using this measurement. (6)

That does not mean that 80% of all people having hip arthroscopy will need replacement. Nor should it be converted into an 80% replacement probability for every patient whose X-ray shows 2 mm of joint space. It describes the predictive performance reported in a particular older surgical population. (6)

The learning point is that a narrow joint space can identify a hip in which cartilage degeneration may limit the benefit of an operation aimed at the labrum or impingement. The same reasoning applies to substantial cartilage damage found during surgery even when a preoperative scan appeared less concerning.

Imaging and operative findings are obtained in different ways and can differ. Such a difference does not establish that cartilage was destroyed between the scan and the operation. It does mean the prognosis may need to be reconsidered using the full information now available. Our hip MRI article explains the distinction between identifying structural findings and establishing their relationship to pain.

Does arthroscopy prevent arthritis or hip replacement?

A 2025 systematic review included 16 studies involving 2,278 hips with FAI syndrome. A meta-analysis based on only two comparative retrospective cohorts found an association between arthroscopy and less radiographic osteoarthritis progression. It found no statistically significant difference in conversion to hip replacement or resurfacing. (7)

This distinction matters. A difference on an X-ray is not automatically a difference in symptoms, and a favorable radiographic association is not proof that an operation prevents replacement. The available comparative evidence is limited and susceptible to differences between patients selected for surgery and those managed without it. (7)

Some patients have substantial disease before their first arthroscopy. Others have a relatively preserved joint and a specific mechanical problem. Applying the same replacement percentage to both groups obscures information patients need. Equally, replacement years after arthroscopy does not alone prove that the operation caused the arthritis.

Why can pain persist after hip arthroscopy?

Residual symptoms and recurrent symptoms are different

Residual pain continues without a meaningful period of improvement. Recurrent pain returns after an initial period of relief. This distinction helps frame the reassessment. Was an important pain source left untreated, or has a new problem developed?

A review of failed arthroscopy identifies residual impingement, labral pathology, capsular problems, cartilage damage, and adhesions among possible explanations. Revision patients can improve, but results are generally less favorable than after successful primary arthroscopy. (8)

Pain can also come from outside the joint. The lumbar spine, sacroiliac region, pubic symphysis, gluteal tendons, iliopsoas, and other surrounding structures may contribute to a person’s symptoms. Hip and spine problems can coexist. A successful labral repair cannot be expected to resolve pain generated by an unrelated structure.

This does not mean that every painful hip has ligament laxity, or that spine disease automatically makes hip surgery ineffective. It means the examination should not stop at the MRI report. The location of pain, movements that reproduce it, weakness, neurological symptoms, and the relationship between back and hip complaints can help establish what requires further assessment.

The four categories in the 1,013-hip study

An important study examined 1,013 joint-preserving operations: 783 arthroscopies, 122 surgical hip dislocations, and 108 periacetabular osteotomies. At a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, 104 hips, or 10.2%, had another operation. The authors classified the reasons into four modes of failure. (9)

This study preserves a useful framework: disease progression, an incorrect treatment target, insufficient correction, and a treatment-related problem are different explanations. It was a mixed hip-preservation cohort, not 1,013 identical arthroscopies. Its reoperation rate also does not tell us how many patients had persistent pain without another operation. (9)

For a patient considering revision, the relevant question is which category best explains the symptoms. Repeating a procedure without a clearer explanation of the failure mechanism may not solve the problem.

Incomplete correction of impingement

A three-dimensional CT study examined 50 hips undergoing revision arthroscopy for symptomatic FAI and found residual deformity in 45, or 90%. (10)

This is a finding in a selected group already undergoing revision for FAI. It is not evidence that 90% of all hip arthroscopies leave an inadequately corrected deformity. Its value is to show why residual bone shape deserves attention when impingement symptoms continue after surgery. (10)

The opposite concern also matters clinically: bone correction should address the identified impingement while respecting the structures needed for a functioning joint. A patient’s operative report can help clarify whether bone reshaping, labral treatment, and capsular management were performed and what abnormalities were identified.

The capsule and postoperative instability

The hip capsule and its ligaments contribute to stability. The iliofemoral ligament, located at the front of the joint, helps restrain certain movements. The labrum, socket coverage, capsule, and muscles work together; no single structure explains every stable or unstable hip.

To access the joint, surgeons may divide part of the capsule. The size and location of that opening, subsequent management, underlying laxity, and the patient’s anatomy can matter. A capsulotomy is not synonymous with permanent instability, but capsular insufficiency is a recognized consideration in selected patients with postoperative symptoms.

What an early capsular-defect study showed

A 2014 study screened 25 revision patients and included nine meeting its criteria after excluding other explanations such as persistent impingement. All nine had capsular irregularities; seven had defects on MR arthrography, and two had gross defects confirmed at revision surgery. (11)

The study was small and highly selected. It does not estimate the frequency of capsular defects among everyone undergoing hip arthroscopy. It does support considering the capsule when a revision patient has an appropriate symptom pattern and other common explanations have been assessed. (11)

A separate published case described gross instability after arthroscopy treated with anterior capsuloligamentous reconstruction using an Achilles tendon allograft. This illustrates that a severe capsular problem can require substantial reconstruction. A case report cannot establish how often that complication occurs. (12)

Why ligament support may affect muscle demand

A 2022 biomechanical modeling study used walking data from 50 healthy participants to explore the role of the anterior capsule. In the model, the presence of the iliofemoral ligament reduced mechanical work demands on the iliopsoas by 54% and sartorius by 41%. (13)

This gives a mechanical explanation for why passive restraints can influence muscular effort. It was not a trial showing that patients develop these exact changes after arthroscopy. It also does not prove that a painful or tight muscle is compensating for ligament failure. Muscle guarding has several possible explanations, and the proposed relationship must be evaluated clinically. (13)

What newer capsule-repair research adds

A 2026 multilevel meta-analysis included 47 studies and 7,366 hips undergoing arthroscopy for FAI syndrome. Some functional outcomes favored capsular preservation or repair, but pooled pain, revision, replacement, and complication outcomes did not show consistent differences. Much of the evidence was retrospective and heterogeneous. (14)

A separate 2026 meta-analysis of three randomized trials involving 256 hips found no consistent significant clinical or revision advantage from routine repair after interportal capsulotomy at approximately two years. (15)

These findings should be read together. The capsule has an important mechanical role, yet routine closure in selected trial patients and treatment of a proven capsular deficiency are different questions. Results from standard FAI surgery cannot automatically be applied to patients with dysplasia, substantial laxity, or a damaged capsule requiring reconstruction.

A 2025 imaging review discusses MRI and MR arthrography assessment of capsular and labral abnormalities when microinstability is suspected. Imaging contributes to the assessment; postoperative pain alone does not demonstrate instability. Our hip microinstability article discusses these supporting structures in greater detail. (16)

Traction, surgical access, and pain after the operation

Arthroscopy may require traction to create working space within the joint. A traditional perineal post provides countertraction; postless techniques use a different positioning approach. Traction and pressure can affect nerves and soft tissues. Instruments, portal placement, capsular access, and irrigation are additional parts of the procedure whose risks should be understood without assuming they cause lasting injury in every patient.

A 2026 systematic review and meta-analysis compared postless with post-assisted arthroscopy in five nonrandomized comparative studies involving 707 patients. Postless surgery was associated with fewer nerve or soft-tissue complications and less perineal numbness, as well as lower traction force and shorter traction duration. (17)

The evidence was not randomized, and reported complications can include temporary symptoms. These results do not provide an individual probability of permanent nerve damage. They show that technique can influence risk and that a broad statement about “arthroscopy complications” may overlook important procedural differences. (17)

 

Arthroscopy can combine labral treatment, bone correction, and capsular management. The specific procedures and condition of the tissues help explain the expected result.

Cartilage procedures: what can microfracture accomplish?

Articular cartilage covers the bearing surfaces of the femoral head and socket. It differs from the labrum. A labral repair does not replace a broad area of lost articular cartilage, and chondroplasty does not grow a new normal surface.

Microfracture is intended to stimulate a repair response at a focal cartilage defect by opening the underlying subchondral bone. The resulting tissue is generally fibrocartilage, with properties different from the original hyaline cartilage. Whether this is useful depends on the lesion and the condition of the surrounding joint. A focal defect in a relatively preserved hip should not be treated as equivalent to widespread osteoarthritis.

A 2024 systematic review examined 27 studies of arthroscopic cartilage-preservation techniques. Twenty were noncomparative and seven comparative. Isolated microfracture was the most frequently studied technique; reported survival estimates varied widely, from 59.1% to 100%. Other approaches included autologous chondrocyte transplantation, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis, and microfracture augmented with a scaffold. (18)

Patient-reported outcomes improved across several approaches, but the evidence for newer techniques involved relatively few studies. The wide range of results and limited direct comparisons prevent a confident claim that one technique is best for every patient. “Survival” also needs its study-specific definition; it is not automatically complete cartilage regeneration or a pain-free hip. (18)

This research does not demonstrate that prolotherapy, platelet-rich plasma, or bone marrow injections outperform cartilage surgery. It does reinforce the need to explain whether treatment is aimed at a focal cartilage lesion, supporting tissues, pain reduction, or a severely degenerated joint.

If replacement is eventually needed, does prior arthroscopy matter?

Two different research questions are often confused: whether a patient will eventually need replacement, and whether a previous arthroscopy affects the outcome of a replacement that is later performed.

A meta-analysis published in a 2024 journal issue addressed the second question. Among patients undergoing hip arthroplasty, prior arthroscopy was associated with greater odds of dislocation, reoperation, and revision: odds ratios of 2.02, 1.66, and 2.15, respectively. It found no significant pooled differences in patient-reported outcomes, blood loss, or operative time. (19)

These odds ratios do not measure the chance that an arthroscopy patient will need replacement. They also are not absolute complication percentages and should not be described as proving that arthroscopy doubles everyone’s risk of needing a new hip. The underlying studies show associations, and they cannot establish that a capsule injury was the cause of every later complication. (19)

For someone already considering replacement, a history of hip arthroscopy is relevant information for the treating surgeon. The finding should inform the discussion without implying that a good replacement outcome is unlikely or that the prior operation inevitably caused harm.

Pain control, weakness, and recovery deserve attention

Pain relief can support early recovery, but the effects of a medication or nerve block should be distinguished from the underlying surgical result.

A systematic review examined 14 studies of pain-management approaches after hip arthroscopy, including femoral, lumbar plexus, and fascia iliaca blocks, local injections, and celecoxib. It found that some approaches could reduce pain or opioid use, while nerve blocks required attention to fall risk. (20)

A temporary reduction in pain does not show that the hip is ready for unrestricted loading. Conversely, pain during recovery does not immediately establish that the operation failed. The type of procedure, weight-bearing restrictions, muscle control, and any neurological symptoms affect how symptoms are interpreted. Patients should discuss medication effects and safe mobility with their surgical and rehabilitation teams.

A study examining patients after arthroscopy found associations between hip strength or range-of-motion impairments and quality of life. This supports an important functional learning point: the outcome includes how well the person moves, not only the appearance of a repaired structure. The study does not show that one labral procedure was superior or that weakness necessarily resulted from capsular injury. (21)

New severe pain, fever, increasing wound redness or drainage, or an inability to bear weight warrants prompt contact with the surgical team or urgent assessment. Progressive weakness or persistent numbness also deserves reassessment rather than being assumed to be ordinary recovery.

What our clinic examples can and cannot teach

Our clinical examples include a nurse with persistent symptoms after bilateral arthroscopies and generalized hypermobility. Another example involved a young adult with continuing pain and walking limitations after repeated debridement and microfracture, who later reported benefit after our treatment. These examples illustrate why persistent symptoms may require a broader reassessment. They do not establish the comparative effectiveness of injections and surgery.

We also described young patients with severe femoral head or joint damage. In one, collapse led us to recommend replacement; in another, injection treatment was discussed as an attempt to delay a likely eventual replacement. These examples preserve an important limit: some hips have structural disease that supporting-tissue treatment cannot reverse.

Where prolotherapy, PRP, and bone marrow treatments fit

Our clinical interest is in the hip as a functioning joint, including supporting ligaments, tendons, capsule, and the surrounding pelvic structures. A treatment directed only inside the joint may have a different target from treatment of painful supporting tissues. That distinction does not establish that periarticular injections are required for every patient or that ligament treatment will repair every labral tear.

Dextrose prolotherapy is intended to stimulate a local response in treated tissues. PRP and bone marrow-based preparations contain different components and should not be treated as interchangeable. Bone marrow products are not a guarantee that injected cells become new cartilage or a new labrum. The rationale for a treatment and demonstrated clinical effectiveness must be discussed separately.

Our 2009 retrospective chronic hip-pain study included 61 patients with 94 painful hips. Reported pain scores decreased from 7.0 to 2.4, and 89% reported more than 50% pain relief. These were uncontrolled, retrospectively collected outcomes, with recalled pretreatment symptoms. The participants were not a uniform population with confirmed labral tears or microinstability. (22)

Our 2013 retrospective labral-lesion study included 19 patients and reported favorable symptom outcomes after dextrose prolotherapy. Approximately 54% of recorded symptoms resolved; that is not evidence that 54% of patients had an anatomically healed labrum. There was no randomized comparison with rehabilitation or arthroscopy and no controlled demonstration of labral regeneration. (23)

These preliminary studies provide information about patient-reported outcomes. Their limitations define the conclusions: they cannot establish that injections are equally effective as surgery, safer overall, or able to prevent replacement. Our nonsurgical hip labral tear article reviews these treatments and their evidence in greater detail.

Putting the information together for a treatment decision

For patients considering a first operation, the useful discussion connects the proposed procedure to the symptoms, examination, joint-space measurements, cartilage condition, and anatomical findings. A labral tear with limited arthritis differs from a tear in a severely degenerated joint. FAI differs from insufficient socket coverage, and a stiff painful hip may require a different explanation from a lax painful hip.

For patients with persistent symptoms, the assessment should distinguish residual impingement, labral or cartilage pathology, capsular insufficiency, adhesions, and pain arising outside the joint. An unsuccessful first operation does not make revision automatically ineffective, but the reason for the next procedure should be clearer than the label “failed arthroscopy.”

Patients can use these questions to understand the recommendation:

• What problem is believed to be causing my symptoms, and what supports that explanation?
• What will be repaired, removed, reshaped, or reconstructed?
• How do joint space, cartilage damage, dysplasia, or suspected instability affect my expected result?
• Does the quoted success rate mean less pain, return to activity, or avoidance of another operation, and over what period?
• If symptoms continue, what possibilities would require reassessment?

Treatment recommendations should combine clinical findings with current research. Arthroscopy can help selected patients. Persistent postoperative pain deserves a specific explanation. Nonsurgical treatment evidence deserves consideration with its limitations, and advanced structural damage may require a different level of treatment. The decision becomes more useful when the expected benefit and its limits are tied to the individual hip.

References

1 Matache BA, Belzile EL, Ayeni OR, De Garie L, Degen RM, Goudie R, Heroux M, Klett MJ, Persson E, Wong I; AAC-CASEM Consensus Group. Management of Labral Tears in the Hip: A Consensus Statement. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2025;13(1):23259671241305409. [Google Scholar]
2 Martin SD, Dean MC, Gillinov SM, Cherian NJ, Eberlin CT, Kucharik MP, Abraham PF, Nazal MR, Conaway WK, Quinlan NJ, Alpaugh K, Torabian KA. Hip Arthroscopy Versus Physical Therapy for the Treatment of Symptomatic Acetabular Labral Tears in Patients Older Than 40 Years: 24-Month Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2024;52(10):2574–2585. [Google Scholar]
3 Hammarstedt JE, Laseter JR, Gupta A, Christoforetti JJ, Lall AC, Domb BG. Identifying the Most Successful Procedures in Hip Arthroscopy. Orthopedics. 2020;43(3):173–181. [Google Scholar]
4 Nepple JJ, Hood H, Kim YJ, Beaulé P, Sierra R, Millis M, Robben Z, Drain C, Clohisy JC; ANCHOR Study Group. Survivorship of Femoroacetabular Impingement Surgery at Mean 10-Year Follow-up: A Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume. 2026;108(11):860–866. [Google Scholar]
5 Kuroda Y, Saito M, Çınar EN, Norrish A, Khanduja V. Patient-related risk factors associated with less favourable outcomes following hip arthroscopy. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2020;102-B(7):822–831. [Google Scholar]
6 Philippon MJ, Briggs KK, Carlisle JC, Patterson DC. Joint Space Predicts THA After Hip Arthroscopy in Patients 50 Years and Older. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2013;471(8):2492–2496. [Google Scholar]
7 Lameire DL, Pathak A, Hu SY, Yuen YTK, Whelan DB, Dwyer T, Hauer TM, Chahal J. The Impact of Hip Arthroscopy on the Progression of Hip Osteoarthritis in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2025;13(4):23259671251326116. [Google Scholar]
8 Arakgi ME, Degen RM. Approach to a Failed Hip Arthroscopy. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine. 2020;13(3):233–239. [Google Scholar]
9 Beaulé PE, Bleeker H, Singh A, Dobransky J. Defining modes of failure after joint-preserving surgery of the hip. The Bone & Joint Journal. 2017;99-B(3):303–309. [Google Scholar]
10 Ross JR, Larson CM, Adeoyo O, Kelly BT, Bedi A. Residual Deformity Is the Most Common Reason for Revision Hip Arthroscopy: A Three-dimensional CT Study. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2015;473(4):1388–1395. [Google Scholar]
11 McCormick F, Slikker W III, Harris JD, Gupta AK, Abrams GD, Frank J, Bach BR Jr, Nho SJ. Evidence of capsular defect following hip arthroscopy. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2014;22(4):902–905. [Google Scholar]
12 Yeung M, Khan M, Williams D, Ayeni OR. Anterior hip capsuloligamentous reconstruction with Achilles allograft following gross hip instability post-arthroscopy. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2017;25(1):3–8. [Google Scholar]
13 Duquesne K, Pattyn C, Vanderstraeten B, Audenaert EA. Handle With Care: The Anterior Hip Capsule Plays a Key Role in Daily Hip Performance. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2022;10(3):23259671221078254. [Google Scholar]
14 Ramadanov N, Voss M, Heinz M, Hable R, Prill R, Becker R, Banke IJ. Capsular management strategies in hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: A multilevel meta-analysis. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2026;34(1):284–308. [Google Scholar]
15 Li WX, Shen LY, Zhang P, Li HY. No Significant Benefit of Capsule Repair After Interportal Capsulotomy in Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Arthroscopy. 2026;42(2):498–508. [Google Scholar]
16 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]
17 Ajrawat P, Nikolopoulos M, Dwyer T, Hoit G, Whelan DB, Pathak A, Chahal J. A Comparison of Postoperative Complications and Clinical Outcomes in Postless Versus Post-Assisted Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Nonrandomized Comparative Studies. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2026;14(3):23259671251407659. [Google Scholar]
18 Akhtar M, Wen J, Razick D, Dhaliwal A, Aamer S, Asim M, Tokhi I, Saeed A, Shelton T. Outcomes of Arthroscopic Joint Preservation Techniques for Chondral Lesions in the Hip: An Updated Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. 2024;40(5):1670–1686. [Google Scholar]
19 Arakawa H, Kobayashi N, Kamono E, Yukizawa Y, Takagawa S, Honda H, Inaba Y. Prior hip arthroscopy increases the risk of dislocation, reoperation, and revision after hip arthroplasty: An updated meta-analysis and systematic review. Journal of Orthopaedic Science. 2024;29(1):157–164. [Google Scholar]
20 Shin JJ, McCrum CL, Mauro CS, Vyas D. Pain Management After Hip Arthroscopy: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2018;46(13):3288–3298. [Google Scholar]
21 Kemp JL, Makdissi M, Schache AG, Finch CF, Pritchard MG, Crossley KM. Is quality of life following hip arthroscopy in patients with chondrolabral pathology associated with impairments in hip strength or range of motion?. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. 2016;24(12):3955–3961. [Google Scholar]
22 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]
23 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]

This article is educational and does not provide an individual diagnosis or treatment recommendation.