This news story introduces readers to arthroscopy as a treatment for hip pain. It explains what the procedure does and the theoretical basis for its potential benefit. But the story fails to mention costs or potential harms, and cites expert testimony in lieu of evidence.
In brief:
The story does not mention the cost of hip arthroscopy or other methods to treat labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).
The story provides no quantification of benefit. The anecdotal evidence of long-term benefit provided by one surgeon–that “hip arthroscopy may be a way of delaying or even possibly preventing hip arthritis”–is controversial, and viewed with skepticism by many experts. (Clin Orthop Rel Res 2009;467:605-7)
The news story fails to mention potential harms of hip arthroscopy. A recent review suggests the rate of complications for all indications is “generally less than 1.5%.” (Clin Orthop Rel Res 2009;467:760-8) Various sources suggest complications include: scuffing of the articular cartilage and chondral surface from instrument breakage and inadequate distraction (separation of the femoral head from the hip socket); iatrogenic dislocation; nerve damage (sciatic, superior gluteal, lateral femorocutaneous); removal of too much labral tissue; removal of too much bone, thus weakening the bone and causing a fracture; damaging the blood supply to the femoral head, leading to avascular necrosis; temporary numbness of the perineum or foot (a distraction neuropraxia); and scrotal necrosis. Although an expert says that the procedure is meant to prevent future arthritis, this is not quantified; without good data on people who did not have the procedure, it is conceivable that arthroscopy could promote arthritis.
The story does not mention any evidence or attempt to describe the quality of the scientific literature on this topic. A recent systematic review described the quality of the literature in this area as “limited.” The authors found no clinical trials and no studies with a prospective design that investigated treatment for labral tears and femoracetabular impingement. (Arthroscopy 2008;24:1135-45) The story does note that imaging is unreliable, and suggests that some doctors can make the diagnosis in spite of these limitations. But recent reviews have pointed out that the standard diagnostic techniques used today are not reproducible and can not accurately or consistently identify the source of pain in people with hip complaints. (Clin Orthop Rel Res 2009;467:666-75; Arthroscopy 2008;24:1013-18)
Hip pain can be very uncomfortable and occasionally disabling. The story does not over hype the problem or medicalize a normal human variation. Although it suggests that labral tears “can lead to osteoarthritis,” it doesn’t provide a complete picture of the natural history: do the symptoms ever go away on their own, even if the pathology doesn’t? In addition, there is no mention of how common the problem is and how many of these procedures are now being performed.
The story includes interviews with two surgeons who perform a substantial number of hip arthroscopies. But the story should also include testimony from a trusted independent source who is not a proponent.
The story briefly mentions rest and physical therapy, and implies that they do not work, but it is hardly a balanced discussion. Also, the story does not mention open surgical procedures, the historical “gold standard,” which can also restore the normal clearance that separates the femur and hip socket. There is no discussion of the relative benefits of the newer procedure compared with the options–and no mention that there do not appear to be any clinical studies comparing treatments.
The news story explains that orthopaedic surgeons are performing increasingly more hip arthroscopy procedures, and are taking increasingly more courses to learn how to do them. Readers are likely to correctly infer that the procedures are commonplace in some centers around the U.S. and less common in others.
The story provides accurate information on the novelty of the treatment and its growth in popularity over the past 15 years.
The story cites two sources and does not appear to rely solely or largely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.