Diagnosing Hip Microinstability: an international consensus study using the Delphi methodology
-
Published:2022-04-30
Issue:1
Volume:31
Page:40-49
-
ISSN:0942-2056
-
Container-title:Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
Author:
Khanduja VikasORCID, Darby Nicholas, O’Donnell John, Bonin Nicolas, Safran Marc R., Andrade A. J., Krych Aaron, Malviya Ajay, Stubbs Allston J, Takla Amir, Papavasiliou Athanasios, Lund Bent, McBryde Callum, Nawabi Danyal, Kohlrieser Dave, Belzile Etienne L., Witt Johan, Sunil Kumar Karadi Hari, Enseki Keelan R, Diamond Laura, Ejnisman Leandro, Bankes Marcus, Wilson Matt, Mohtadi Nicholas, Marin-Pena Oliver, Ayeni Olufemi, Christofilopoulos Panayiotis, Singh Parminder, Field Richard, Uchida Soshi, Løken Sverre,
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Hip microinstability is a relatively new diagnosis which is increasingly being discussed in the literature and yet there are no clear guidelines for making a diagnosis. Microinstability has generally been defined as persistent excessive hip motion that has become symptomatic especially with pain. This aim of this Delphi study was to seek expert opinion to formulate a diagnostic criteria for hip microinstability.
Methods
A Delphi methodology was used for this consensus study. A literature search was conducted on PubMed up to March 2019 using the keywords ((hip) and (microinstability)) to identify relevant articles on this topic. All relevant criteria used for diagnosing hip microinstability were collated to create a questionnaire and further criterion suggested by the experts were included as well. Four rounds of questionnaires were delivered via an online survey platform. Between each round the authors acted as administrating intermediaries, providing the experts with a summary of results and synthesising the next questionnaire. The expert panel was comprised of 27 members: 24 (89%) orthopaedic surgeons and 3 (11%) physiotherapists from around the world.
Results
Expert panel participation in rounds 1–4 was: 27 (100%), 20 (74%), 21 (78%) and 26 (96%) respectively. A literature review by the authors identified 32 diagnostic criteria to populate the first questionnaire. Experts suggested amending three criteria and creating five new criteria. The panel converged on ranking 3 (8%) of criteria as “Not important”, 20 (54%) as “Minor Factors” and 14 (38%) as “Major Factors”. No criteria was ranked as “Essential”. Criteria were subcategorised into patient history, examination and imaging. Experts voted for a minimum requirement of four criteria in each subcategory, including at least six “Major factors”. The final diagnostic tool was approved by 20 (77%) of the final round panel.
Conclusion
This study describes the first known expert consensus on diagnosing hip microinstability. The relative complexity of the final diagnostic tool is illustrative of the difficulty clinicians’ face when making this diagnosis.
Level of evidence
V.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Surgery
Reference48 articles.
1. Akins RB, Tolson H, Cole BR (2005) Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:37 2. Audigé L, Flury M, Müller AM, Durchholz H (2016) Complications associated with arthroscopic rotator cuff tear repair: definition of a core event set by Delphi consensus process. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25(12):1907–1917 3. Avella J (2016) Delphi panels: research design, procedures, advantages, and challenges. Int J Dr Stud 11:305–321 4. Ayeni OR, Larson CM, Bonin N, Safran MR (2017) Editorial: is the hip really a stable joint? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(1):1–2 5. Bellabarba C, Sheinkop MB, Kuo KN (1998) Idiopathic hip instability. An unrecognized cause of coxa saltans in the adult. Clin Orthop Relat Res 355:261-271.5
Cited by
16 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|