Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 18, 2025
The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
Endoscopic Gluteus Medius Repair With an ITB-Sparing Versus ITB-Splitting Approach: A Systematic Review and
Emily A Parker1, Alex M Meyer1, Jovan R Laskovski2
1Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Background:
During hip endoscopy, the iliotibial band (ITB) can be split or preserved to access the peritrochanteric workspace. To our knowledge, no comparative studies have been performed to analyze patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and surgical failure rates (gluteus medius retear and/or revision surgery rates) for ITB-sparing versus ITB-splitting approaches in endoscopic gluteus medius repairs.
Purpose:
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to evaluate PROs and failure rates of patients undergoing ITB-sparing versus ITB-splitting repairs of the gluteus medius.
Study Design:
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods:
A systematic review was performed by following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) guidelines and using the PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Embase databases. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the modified Coleman Methodology Score. Level 1-4 studies were evaluated for endoscopic abductor repair techniques on all types of gluteus medius tears. Given the small number of studies and varying population sizes, all quantitative data were adjusted for study population size.
Results:
A total of 13 studies met our inclusion criteria, while more granular data, including ITB approach, were available for 8 studies. Because of the paucity of literature on the subject, all included studies were of lower quality per the modified Coleman Methodology Score. The visual analog scale for pain, the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and the surgical failure rates were compared between approaches. Patients who underwent ITB splitting had a significantly greater change in mHHS (45.5 ± 4.6 vs 27.3 ± 6.5; P < .001) and lower surgical failure rates (3.67 ± 2.33 vs 4.75 ± 2.54; P = .04). There was no significant difference in change in visual analog scale for splitting versus sparing (4.26 ± 0.41 vs 4.39 ± 0.14; P = .96). The results may have been biased by between-group differences, such as patients who undergo ITB sparing being significantly younger.
Conclusion:
Endoscopic gluteus medius repair is a reliable procedure to improve pain and function in appropriately selected patients. This study highlighted the lack of high-quality literature available regarding ITB approach. However, the evidence to date has suggested that ITB approach may influence hip-specific PROs. Splitting the ITB during abductor repair may be associated with a greater improvement in mHHS and lower surgical failure rates. Further prospective comparative studies are warranted to evaluate the effect of ITB approach.
