Arthroscopic Reconstruction of the Irreparable Acetabular Labrum: A Match-controlled Study

Hip Labral Repair versus Reconstruction: Meta-analysis

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the postoperative outcomes and complications of labral repair with those of labral reconstruction. An electronic search strategy was conducted from 1986 until August 2023 using the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20). The primary objectives included the postoperative clinical outcomes determined by the number of patients who reached minimal clinical important difference (MCID) on the visual analog scale (VAS), modified Harris hip score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Life (HOS-ADL), and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12). In addition, analysis of the rate of revision arthroscopy, the rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), the postoperative VAS, mHHS, HOS-SS, HOS-ADL, iHOT-12, nonarthritic hip score (NAHS), patient satisfaction, lower extremity function scale (LEFS), and the SF-12 (12-item shortform) was also performed. Any differences arising between the investigators were resolved by discussion. Seventeen studies were relevant to the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. A higher rate of patients who reached MCID in the mHHS (P=0.02) as well as a higher rate of revision arthroscopy was observed for labral repair (P=0.03). The remaining studied outcomes were comparable. Despite the greater predictability of success in the reconstruction group, conduct of additional studies will be required for evaluation of the benefits of such findings. In addition, labral reconstruction is more technically demanding than a labral repair.

Outcomes following open acetabular labrum reconstruction: Comparing fresh-frozen tendon with fresh meniscus allograft transplantation

Background

Symptomatic acetabular labral insufficiency in young, active patients is often treated with labral repair or reconstruction using fresh-frozen allografts. However, fresh-frozen tendon allografts do not have tissue or material properties that closely mimic acetabular labral fibrocartilage. Recent studies suggest meniscal allografts may be a better biomechanical, geometric, and material alternative for acetabular labrum reconstruction (ALR).

Hypothesis

Patients undergoing open ALR using fresh meniscus allograft transplants (MAT) will have better outcomes than those using fresh-frozen tendon allografts transplants (TAT) when comparing initial treatment success, diagnostic imaging assessments, and patient-reported pain and function scores.

Study design

Cohort Study.

Methods

With IRB approval, patients undergoing ALR with either TAT or MAT were included when initial (>1-year) outcomes data related to treatment success, pain, and function were available. In addition, a subcohort of patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging at least 6-months after surgery to evaluate allograft healing.

Results

Initial success rate, defined as no need for ALR revision or conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), was 88.9% for the entire group (n = 27, TAT = 5, MAT = 22) with 1 (20%) patient in the TAT cohort and 2 patients (9.9%) in the MAT cohort undergoing THA. In the MAT cohort, significant improvements were documented for physical function and pain scores at 1 year and final follow-up (FFU)(mean 26.8 months). Improvements in pain and function were noted at 1-year, but not at FFU (mean 59.6 months) in the TAT group. MRIs completed at least 6 months after labrum reconstruction showed improved allograft integrity and integration in the MAT cohort over the TAT cohort.

Conclusion

For acetabular labrum reconstructions, MAT was associated with a higher initial success rate, superior patient reported outcomes, and subjectively better MRI findings when compared to TAT.

Similar Clinical Outcomes for Arthroscopic Labral Reconstruction in Irreparable Cases Using the Indirect Head of the Rectus Femoris Tendon With an All-Inside Technique for Small Defects and the Iliotibial Band for Large Defects

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes and satisfaction rate of patients who underwent arthroscopic labral reconstruction for an irreparable labral tear with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Additionally, this study aimed to compare 2 different reconstructive techniques for small and large labral defects: the indirect head of the rectus femoris tendon (IHRFT) autograft with an all-inside technique used to repair small defects (≤3 hours) and the iliotibial band (ITB) autograft for large defects (>3 hours).

METHODS

A total of 24 hips treated with the IHRFT were compared with 24 hips treated with the ITB. All patients underwent clinical evaluation before surgery and during the most recent follow-up (42 ± 18 months). The evaluation included patient satisfaction, the modified Harris Hip Score, the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, the Hip Outcome Score, the Hip Outcome Score-sport subscale, the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool, and the visual analog scale pain score.

RESULTS

All clinical scores were significantly improved (P < .001) at the latest follow-up in both groups. The final satisfaction was 7.1 ± 2.8 and 8.8 ± 1.6 for the IHRFT and ITB groups, respectively (P = .006). There was a significant difference in age (41.2 ± 6.0 years for the IHRFT group and 33 ± 8.5 for the ITB group; P = .004) and in surgery time (147.3 ± 39.4 minutes for the ITB group and 105.3 ± 25.7 for the IHRFT group; P < .001). One patient (4.2%) in the IHRFT group underwent total hip arthroplasty after 21.3 months (P = .999).

CONCLUSIONS

At the 2-year follow-up, treating small defects using IHRFT and larger defects using ITB resulted in good patient-reported outcome measures with a low rate of complications and failures. The ITB group reported a higher level of satisfaction at the final follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Statistical fragility analysis of reported outcomes associated with surgical management of acetabular labral pathology

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to analyse the robustness of comparative research that evaluated arthroscopic labral reconstruction versus other surgical management of labral pathology. Key measures of statistical fragility include the fragility index and fragility quotient.ß.

METHODS

12 comparative studies that evaluated the use of arthroscopic labral reconstruction were included in this study. Particular attention was placed on evaluating trends, either statistically significant or not, of functional improvement, complication rates, need for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and revision rates with associated p-values. The analysis involved in this study was the Fragility Index, which is the median number of events required to change the statistical significance of a particular outcome, thus changing the study conclusions. Fragility quotient was calculated for each study as the fragility index divided by sample size.

RESULTS

Of the 12 studies that were included for analysis, there were a total of 25 reported outcomes, 8 of which were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The statistical fragility for the significant outcomes were 2.5 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1.5-3.5), whereas the median statistical fragility for insignificant results was 6 (IQR 4-9). The overall fragility index was 4 (IQR 3-7). The median of fragility quotients was 0.04 (IQR 0.01-0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that comparative research regarding arthroscopic techniques of labral reconstruction may not be as statistically stable as previously hoped. In many of the reported outcomes, particularly the ones that were statistically significant, only a small percentage of event changes was required to change the significance of the study conclusions. This fragility is worrisome, since clinical decisions that rely on these reported outcomes may have a significant impact on long-term patient outcomes. It is, therefore, crucial to optimise patient outcomes by incorporating past literature and reported outcomes.

Arthroscopic Hip Labral Reconstruction With Fresh Meniscal Allograft

The acetabular labrum is essential to maintaining the functional health of the hip joint through contributions to joint congruity, stability, and the negative pressure suction seal. Injury, overuse, long-standing developmental disorders, or failed primary labral repair can eventually lead to functional labral insufficiency requiring management via labral reconstruction. While numerous graft options exist for hip labral reconstruction, there is no current gold standard. The optimal graft should best mimic the native labrum with regard to geometry, structure, mechanical properties, and durability. This has led to the development of an arthroscopic technique for labral reconstruction with fresh meniscal allograft tissue.

High-Level Athletes With Borderline Hip Dysplasia Achieve Favorable Outcomes and Return to Sport Rates Following Primary Hip Arthroscopy: Minimum 5-Year Outcomes Comparison to a Propensity-Matched Control Group

PURPOSE

(1) To report minimum 5-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and return to sport (RTS) rates in high-level athletes with borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) following primary hip arthroscopy for labral pathology and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and (2) to compare results to a propensity-matched control group of athletes with normal acetabular coverage.

METHODS

Data were reviewed for surgeries performed between February 2009 and February 2016. Patients were eligible if they underwent primary hip arthroscopy in the setting of BHD (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA] 18-25°) and competed in professional, collegiate, or high school sports. Inclusion criteria were preoperative and minimum 5-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritis Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale for pain. Rates of achieving the minimal clinically importance difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold (MOIST) were recorded in addition to RTS. BHD athletes were matched by age at the time of surgery, sex, body mass index, Tönnis grade, follow-up time, sport type, and competition level to a control group of 58 athletes with normal acetabular coverage (LCEA 25°-40°) for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 34 BHD athletes were included with a mean follow-up of 73.6 ± 10.7 months. BHD athletes showed significant improvements in all PROs, demonstrated high RTS rates (90.0%), and achieved PASS/MCID/MOIST for mHHS (MCID: 80.0%, PASS: 93.3%, MOIST: 80.0%) and HOS-SSS (MCID: 76.7%, PASS: 73.3%) at high rates. When compared to a propensity-matched group with normal acetabular coverage, BHD athletes demonstrated similar postoperative PROs, rates of achieving psychometric thresholds, and RTS rates (P > .05). Additionally, by the latest follow-up, no athlete in either group required conversion to total hip arthroplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

High-level athletes with BHD undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for labral pathology and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome may expect favorable midterm outcomes and high RTS rates. These results were comparable to a control group of athletes with normal coverage.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Allograft reconstruction of acetabular labrum has comparable outcomes to labral refixation

The acetabular labrum plays an important role in hip stability, intra-articular fluid pressurization and force distribution. For irreparable labral pathology, labral reconstruction is an increasingly adopted technique shown to decrease hip pain and improve function. We evaluated survivorship and clinical outcomes of allograft labral reconstruction using the mini-open anterior surgical approach. Twelve patients who underwent labral reconstruction using a semitendinosus tendon allograft (reconstruction group) were matched 1:3 based on age, gender, body mass index, year of surgery, preoperative Tönnis grade, previous hip surgery, residual hip pathology and extent of acetabular chondral lesion to a control group of 36 patients who underwent direct labral repair with anchors (refixation group). At a minimum follow-up of 2 years, patient-reported outcomes, radiological findings and failure rates were compared. The average age was 31.3 years (±13.6) for reconstruction and 34.7 (±10.2) for refixation. Both groups had similar preoperative symptomatic periods (P = 0.3), prevalence of residual hip pathology (P = 1.0) and prevalence of prior hip surgeries (P = 1.0). both groups had a significant improvement of modified Harris Hip scores and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey physical scores. There was no statistically significant difference in conversion rates to total hip arthroplasty (25% versus 8.3%, P = 0.2); however, time to conversion was significantly longer in the reconstruction group (3.58 years ±1.04) compared to the refixation group (1.20 years± 0.93; P = 0.04). In conclusion, at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up, mini-open labrum reconstruction for severe insufficiency of acetabular labrum demonstrated comparable improvements in functional outcomes and significantly longer survivorship compared to labral refixation.

Editorial Commentary: Proper Indications for Primary Labral Resection and Reconstruction Versus Primary Labral Repair Remain Vague and Undefined

Primary labral reconstruction for complex hip pathologies has shown outcomes and complication rates similar to those of labral repair. As surgeons become more proficient and versatile in their hip arthroscopy techniques, we are seeing increasing feedback supporting reconstructions in the primary setting. Patients with severe pincer impingement, hypotrophic labrums, labral ossification, or irreparable degenerative tearing demonstrate notable improvement and satisfaction after primary labral reconstruction. However, there still is benefit to retaining native labral tissue when feasible. Biomechanical studies show loss of suction seal and increased contact pressures with labral reconstructions versus repairs. Although primary labral reconstruction is a necessary skill and treatment option particularly for the complex hip, the pendulum may be starting to swing too far away from repairs or augmentations. Proper indications for primary labral reconstruction continue to evolve and are not yet black and white in the literature. Regardless, surgeons may rest assured that patients are demonstrating appropriate improvement and safety with either preferred surgical option.

Elite Female Athletes Demonstrate a Comparable Improvement in Midterm Patient-Reported Outcome Scores and Rate of Return to Sport Compared With Elite Male Athletes After Hip Arthroscopic Surgery: A Sex-Based Comparison in Professional and Collegiate Athletes

BACKGROUND

Few studies have compared outcomes, return to sport (RTS), and continuation of sport (CTS) after primary hip arthroscopic surgery between matched groups of male and female athletes with a minimum 5-year follow-up.

PURPOSE

(1) To report minimum 5-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores as well as RTS and CTS rates for elite female athletes undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and (2) to compare clinical results with those of a matched control group of elite male athletes.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for elite (collegiate or professional) female athletes who underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS between March 2009 and March 2016. Inclusion criteria were preoperative and minimum 5-year scores for the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale, and visual analog scale for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia, previous ipsilateral hip surgery/conditions, and those unwilling to participate. Rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold (MOIST) were recorded in addition to RTS. CTS was also recorded and defined as athletes reporting continued sport activity at a minimum 5-year follow-up after initially reporting returning to sport. Elite female athletes were propensity matched in a 1:1 ratio to elite male athletes for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 81 hips in elite female athletes that underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery met the inclusion criteria, and follow-up was available for 65 hips (80.2%) at a mean of 67.6 ± 6.5 months, with a mean age of 24.3 ± 6.8 years. Female athletes demonstrated significant improvements in all recorded PRO scores; achieved the MCID, PASS, and MOIST at high rates; returned to sport at a rate of 80.4%; and continued sport at a rate of 97.1%. Female athletes demonstrated lower preoperative PRO scores compared with male athletes, but postoperative PRO scores; improvements in scores; rates of achieving the MCID, PASS, MOIST; and RTS and CTS rates were similar between female and male athletes.

CONCLUSION

Elite female athletes undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS demonstrated favorable PRO scores and high RTS and CTS rates at a minimum 5-year follow-up. These results were comparable with those of a propensity-matched control group of elite male athletes.

Determining Clinically Meaningful Thresholds for the Hip Outcome Score Sport-Specific Subscale in Athletes Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

BACKGROUND

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and maximum outcome improvement (MOI) satisfaction threshold for the Hip Outcome Score Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) have not been established in athletes undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

PURPOSE

To determine threshold MCID, PASS, SCB, and MOI satisfaction threshold values for the HOS-SSS in athletes undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAIS at minimum 2-year follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Anchor questions were administered to recreational, organized amateur, high school, college, and professional athletes who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS between May 2015 and March 2019. Patients were included if they were younger than 50 years, answered the anchor questions, and had preoperative and minimum 2-year follow-up for the HOS-SSS, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <18°), and previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to determine PASS, SCB, and MOI satisfaction for the HOS-SSS. Two distribution methods were used to calculate MCID for HOS-SSS.

RESULTS

A total of 225 athletes who underwent primary hip arthroscopy met the inclusion criteria. Of those athletes, 200 (88.9%) who had minimum 2-year follow-up and information regarding return to sport (RTS) were included. The cohort included 124 (62.0%) women and 76 (38.0%) men with a mean ± standard deviation age of 29.4 ± 10.4 years, body mass index of 25.6 ± 5.4, and follow-up of 29.5 ± 5.1 months. Athletes experienced significant improvements in HOS-SSS, mHHS, NAHS, and VAS from preoperative to latest postoperative follow-up (P < .001), and mean satisfaction was 8.2. The RTS rate was 83.7%. ROC analysis determined that the PASS, MOI satisfaction threshold, SCB absolute score, SCB change score, and MCID (baseline/change score methods) for the HOS-SSS were 77.0, 44.6%, 92.7, 30.6, and 10.6, respectively, with athletes achieving thresholds at high rates (80.0%, 80.5%, 45.0%, 54.0%, and 79.5%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

This study identified values for the HOS-SSS that can be used to define clinically meaningful outcomes in athletes after primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS. The PASS, MOI satisfaction threshold, SCB absolute score, SCB change score, and MCID for the HOS-SSS at minimum 2-year follow-up in athletes after primary hip arthroscopy were 77.0, 44.6%, 92.7, 30.6, and 10.6, respectively.

After Revision Hip Arthroscopy, Patients Having Either Circumferential or Segmental Labral Reconstructions for the Management of Irreparable Labra Show Clinical Improvement Based on Proper Indications

PURPOSE

To compare a minimum of two-year follow-up patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy for acetabular circumferential labral reconstruction (CLR) and segmental labral reconstruction (SLR) using propensity-matched groups, in the setting of irreparable labral tear.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy from April 2010 to September 2018. Patients were included if they underwent labral reconstruction and had preoperative and minimum 2-year PROs. Patients unwilling to participate, with Tönnis grade >1, or hip dysplasia were excluded. Patients in the CLR group were propensity-matched on the basis of age, sex, body mass index, and Tönnis grade to patients in the SLR group in a 1:1 ratio. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) rates were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-six hips (25 patients) with CLR were propensity-matched to 26 hips (26 patients) with SRL. The mean follow-up time 25.92 and 27.78 months for the CLR and SLR, respectively (P = .845). Groups reported comparable findings for sex (P = .773), age (P = .197), body mass index (P = .124), preoperative Tönnis grade (P = .124), lateral-center edge angle (P = .144), and alpha angle (P = .264), and comparable improvement for all PROs at minimum 2-year follow-up. Patient satisfaction was similar (P = .612). Rates of achievement for the MCID and PASS were comparable.

CONCLUSION

Following revision hip arthroscopy, patients who underwent CLR or SLR for complete and segmental irreparable labral tears, respectively, reported significant and comparable postoperative improvement for all PROs and rate of achievement for the MCID and PASS at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Comparable Outcomes Between Native and Periprosthetic Fractures of the Distal Femur

Despite the rising prevalence of arthroplasty and aging population, limited data exist regarding differences in periprosthetic fracture clinical outcomes compared with native counterparts. This study compares differences in hospital treatment, morbidity, and mortality associated with periprosthetic distal femur fractures at an urban level 1 trauma center. We retrospectively reviewed all adult AO/OTA type 33 fractures (526) that presented to our institution between 2009 and 2018. In total, 54 native and 54 periprosthetic fractures were matched by age and gender. We recorded demographics, operative measures, length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and mortality. We used McNemar's and paired t-tests for analysis where appropriate (p < 0.05) (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0. Armonk, NY; IBM Corp.). The average age at injury was 74 years ± 12 (native) compared with 73 years ± 12 (periprosthetic). After 1:1 matching, the groups had similar body mass index (31.01 vs. 32.98, p = 0.966 for native and periprosthetic, respectively) and mechanisms of injury with 38 native and 44 periprosthetic (p = 0.198) fractures from low-energy falls. Both groups had 51/54 fractures managed with open reduction internal fixation with a locking plate. The remaining were managed via amputation or intramedullary nail fixation. Mean operative time (144 minutes (±64) vs. 132 minutes (±62), p = 0.96) and estimated blood loss (319 mL (±362) vs. 289 mL (±231), p = 0.44) were comparable between the native and periprosthetic groups, respectively. LOS: 9 days ± 7 (native) versus 7 days ± 5 (periprosthetic, p = 0.31); discharge disposition (to skilled nursing facility/rehab): n = 47 (native) versus n = 43 (periprosthetic, p = 0.61); and mortality: n = 6 (native) versus n = 8 (periprosthetic, p = 0.55). No significant differences were observed. We found no statistical differences in morbidity and mortality in periprosthetic distal femur fractures treated over 10 years at a level 1 trauma center. Native and periprosthetic AO/OTA type 33 distal femur fractures are serious injuries with similar outcomes at a level 1 trauma center.

Earlier Treatment Yields Superior Outcomes in Competitive Athletes Undergoing Primary Hip Arthroscopy

PURPOSE

To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) and return to sport (RTS) for competitive athletes undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome within 1 year of symptom onset and to compare these results with a propensity-matched control group of competitive athletes with symptoms for over 1 year.

METHODS

Data on professional, collegiate, high-school, and organized amateur athletes who underwent primary hip arthroscopy within 1 year of symptom onset between April 2008 and November 2017 were collected. RTS and minimum 2-year PROs were collected for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and visual analog pain scale (VAS). Rates of achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) were also evaluated. These patients were propensity-matched to a control group of competitive athletes with symptoms for over one year for comparison.

RESULTS

Fifty competitive athletes (51 hips, 54.9% female) were included in the study group with a mean follow-up of 70.9 ± 29.1 months and age of 23.6 ± 11.3 years. They demonstrated significant improvement from preoperative to latest follow-up for all recorded PROs (P < .001) and RTS at a rate of 72.9%. When outcomes were compared to the control group, the study group demonstrated similar preoperative scores for all PROs but significantly better minimum 2-year postoperative scores for NAHS (93.8 vs 85.1, P = .0001), HOS-SSS (89.1 vs 77.2, P = .001), iHOT-12 (87.7 vs 76.4, P = 0.011), and VAS (1.5 vs 2.4, P = 0.027). Rates of achieving MCID for HOS-SSS and mHHS were comparable between groups. Further, RTS rates were similar between groups (P = .301).

CONCLUSION

Competitive athletes undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with symptoms for less than 1 year demonstrated superior 2-year PROs compared to a propensity-matched control group with symptoms for over 1 year, but the rates achieving MCID and RTS were similar between groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Outcomes and Return-to-Sport Rates for Elite Athletes With Femoral Retroversion Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy: A Propensity-Matched Analysis With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Background:

Return to sports (RTS) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for elite athletes with femoral version abnormalities undergoing hip arthroscopy have not been well established.

Purposes:

To (1) report minimum 2-year PROs and RTS rates in elite athletes with femoral retroversion who underwent primary hip arthroscopy and (2) compare clinical results to those of a propensity-matched control group of elite athletes with normal femoral version who underwent primary hip arthroscopy.

Study Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for elite (professional and collegiate) athletes with femoral version <5°, as measured on magnetic resonance imaging scans, who underwent hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome between March 2010 and April 2018. Inclusion criteria were preoperative and minimum 2-year follow-up PROs for the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia, and previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions. Rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold were recorded in addition to RTS. Athletes with retroversion were propensity matched in a 1:2 ratio to elite athletes with normal femoral version (5°-20°) for comparison.

Results:

A total of 33 elite athletes (33 hips) with femoral retroversion who underwent hip arthroscopy met the inclusion criteria, and follow-up was available for 30 hips in 30 athletes (90.9%) at an average of 36.1 ± 25.6 months. Elite athletes with femoral retroversion demonstrated significant improvements in all recorded PROs, achieved the MCID and PASS for the HOS-SSS at high rates (86.7%), and returned to sports at a rate of 83.3%. PROs, rates of achieving MCID and PASS for the HOS-SSS, and RTS rates were similar between the study and propensity-matched control group.

Conclusion:

Elite athletes with femoral retroversion undergoing primary hip arthroscopy demonstrated favorable PROs and high RTS rates at a minimum 2-year follow-up. These results were comparable with those of a propensity-matched control group of elite athletes with normal femoral version.

Basketball Players Undergoing Primary Hip Arthroscopy Exhibit Higher Grades of Acetabular Cartilage Damage but Achieve Favorable Midterm Outcomes and Return to Sports Rates Comparable With a Propensity-Matched Group of Other Cutting Sports Athletes

BACKGROUND

Favorable short-term outcomes in competitive basketball players have been reported. Midterm outcomes in these athletes and how they compare with athletes in sports with similar demands have not been well established.

PURPOSE

(1) To report minimum 5-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and return to sports data in competitive basketball players undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and (2) to compare outcomes with a propensity-matched control group of other cutting sports athletes.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study, Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for basketball players who competed at the professional, collegiate, high school, or competitive amateur levels and underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS between May 2009 and March 2016. Patients with preoperative and minimum 5-year postoperative outcomes for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were included. Patients were propensity matched to athletes in other cutting sports (soccer, lacrosse, field hockey, and tennis) according to age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and preoperative competition level for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 28 competitive basketball players were included, with a mean follow-up time of 67.1 ± 5.1 months and a mean BMI of 23.7 ± 4; there were 12 (42.9%) female athletes. The cohort was composed of 1 professional, 10 collegiate, 13 high school, and 4 organized amateur athletes. They demonstrated significant improvements in all recorded PROs from baseline to the minimum 5-year follow-up (P < .001) and had high rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the mHHS (75%), NAHS (75%), HOS-SSS (67.9%), and VAS for pain (71.4%). Furthermore, 76.5% of basketball players who returned to sports were still competing at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively. When compared with a propensity-matched cohort of other cutting athletes, basketball athletes demonstrated a significantly higher acetabular labrum articular disruption (ALAD) grade (P < .001) and trended toward a higher Outerbridge grade of the acetabular cartilage (P = .067). Despite this, basketball players demonstrated similar preoperative, postoperative, and improvement scores in all recorded PROs. Moreover, both groups exhibited similar rates of achieving psychometric thresholds and rates of continued sports participation at minimum 5-year follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Competitive basketball players undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS demonstrated significant improvements in all recorded PROs and high rates of continued play at a minimum 5-year follow-up. When compared with a control group of other cutting sports athletes, basketball players exhibited more severe ALAD grades intraoperatively but similar midterm outcomes.

High-Level Athletes Who Did Not Return to Sport for Reasons Unrelated to Their Hip Achieve Successful Midterm Outcomes With a Benchmarking Against High-Level Athletes Who Returned to Sport

PURPOSE

1) To report minimum 2- and 5-year outcomes of high-level athletes who did not return to sport (RTS) after hip arthroscopy for reasons unrelated to their hip (T athletes) and 2) to benchmark these findings against a propensity-matched control group of high-level athletes who returned to sport (RTS athletes).

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for professional, collegiate, and high school athletes between April 2008 and October 2015, who underwent primary hip arthroscopy. Athletes were considered eligible if they did not return to sport for reasons unrelated to their hip such as loss of interest, graduation, or a lifestyle transition (T athletes). Inclusion criteria were preoperative and minimum 5-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Clinical outcomes were assessed using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold (MOIST). T athletes were then propensity-matched to a control group of high-level athletes who returned to sport after hip arthroscopy (RTS athletes) for comparison.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven T hips (25 patients) were included in the analysis with a mean follow-up time of 38.9 ± 16.8 and 72.1 ± 16.8 months for minimum 2- and 5-year outcomes, respectively. They demonstrated significant improvement in all measured PROs. When compared to a propensity-matched control group of RTS athletes, T athletes demonstrated similar improvement in PROs (mHHS, NAHS, and HOS-SSS) and achieved MCID at similar rates for NAHS (T: 77.8% vs RTS: 68.8%; P = .570) and HOS-SSS (T: 70.3% vs RTS: 76.6%, P = .824) compared to RTS athletes; however T athletes demonstrated higher rates of achieving MCID for mHHS (T: 88.9% vs RTS: 72.9% P = .033).

CONCLUSION

Athletes who did not return to sport for reasons unrelated to their hip demonstrated favorable outcomes at minimum 2- and 5-year follow-up. They had similar PROs and rates of achieving MCID for HOS-SSS compared to a propensity-matched control group of high-level athletes who returned to sport. Return to sport status may not necessarily be correlated to the patient's perception of their own outcome.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective cohort study.

Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement-Associated Labral Tears: Current Status and Future Prospects

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) has emerged as a common cause of hip pain, especially in young patients. While the exact cause of FAI is unknown, it is thought to result from repetitive microtrauma to the proximal femoral epiphysis leading to abnormal biomechanics. Patients typically present with groin pain that is exacerbated by hip flexion and internal rotation. Diagnosis of FAI is made through careful consideration of patient presentation as well as physical exam and diagnostic imaging. Use of radiographs can help diagnose both cam and pincer lesions, while the use of MRI can diagnose labral tears and cartilage damage associated with FAI. Both non-operative and surgical options have their role in the treatment of FAI and its associated labral tears; however, hip arthroscopy has had successful outcomes when compared with physical therapy alone. Unfortunately, chondral lesions associated with FAI have had poorer outcomes with a higher conversion rate to arthroplasty. Capsular closure following hip arthroscopy has shown superior clinical outcomes and therefore should be performed if possible. More recently, primary labral reconstruction has emerged in the literature as a good option for irreparable labral tears. While non-operative management may have its role in treating patients with FAI, hip arthroscopy has developed a successful track record in being able to treat cam and pincer lesions, chondral damage, and labral injuries.

Comparable Minimum 2-Year Patient-Reported Outcome Scores Between Circumferential and Segmental Labral Reconstruction for the Management of Irreparable Labral Tear and Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome in the Primary Setting: A Propensity-Matched Study

PURPOSE

To compare minimum 2-year follow-up patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) in patients who underwent primary acetabular circumferential and segmental labral reconstruction for irreparable labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

METHODS

Data were reviewed from August 2010 to December 2017. Patients with primary labral reconstruction and minimum 2-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were included. Circumferential and segmental reconstruction were selected in each case based on the extent of the labral pathology. Exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip surgery/conditions, dysplasia, or Tönnis grade >1. Patients were propensity matched 1:1 based on age, sex, and body mass index. Secondary surgeries were reported. The P value was set at <.05.

RESULTS

In total, 144 hips were eligible, and 17 hips were lost to follow-up, leaving 127 hips (88.2%) for analysis. Eighty hips underwent a segmental reconstruction, and 47 hips underwent a circumferential reconstruction. Forty-seven hips with circumferential reconstruction were matched to 47 hips with segmental reconstruction. The average follow-up and age for the segmental and circumferential groups were 29.0 ± 7.8 and 27.9 ± 7.0 months (P = .732) and 43.1 ± 9.4 and 44.7 ± 10.2 years (P = .442) respectively. The segmental and circumferential groups were 48.9% and 51.1% female, respectively. The groups achieved significant and comparable improvement for all PROs and rates of secondary surgeries. No differences were found for achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS). The MCIDs for the segmental and circumferential groups were 76.7% and 77.8% for the mHHS, 64.9% and 77.8% for the HOS-SSS, 71.1% and 68.9% for the VAS, and 68.9% and 73.9% for the NAHS, respectively. The PASSs for the segmental and circumferential groups were 78.3% and 73.3% for the mHHS, 55.3% and 55.0% for the HOS-SSS, and 75.6% and 71.1% for the International Hip Outcome Tool 12, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

At minimum 2-year follow-up, patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for either circumferential or segmental labral reconstruction for irreparable labra and FAIS reported significant improvement and similar postoperative scores for all PROs, with no difference in psychometric outcomes and rate of secondary surgeries. A customized approach, using the extent of the irreparable labral tear, seems to be an appropriate strategy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Return to Sports and Minimum 2-Year Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy in Elite Athletes With and Without Coexisting Low Back Pain: A Propensity-Matched Comparison

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and return to sports (RTS) after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) have not been established in elite athletes with coexisting low back pain (LBP).

PURPOSE

(1) To report minimum 2-year PROs and RTS rates after primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS in elite athletes with coexisting LBP and (2) to compare clinical results with a propensity-matched control group of elite athletes without back pain.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were reviewed for elite athletes (college and professional) who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS and had coexisting LBP between October 2009 and October 2018. Inclusion criteria were preoperative and minimum 2-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <18°), and previous ipsilateral hip or spine surgery or conditions. Rates of achieving the minimal clinically importance difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold were recorded in addition to RTS. For the subanalysis, the elite athlete study group was propensity matched to an elite athlete control group without back pain.

RESULTS

A total of 48 elite athletes with LBP who underwent primary hip arthroscopy met inclusion criteria, and follow-up was available for 42 (87.5%) at 53.2 ± 31.6 months (mean ± SD). Elite athletes with coexisting LBP demonstrated significant improvements in all recorded PROs and achieved the MCID and PASS for the HOS-SSS at rates of 82.5% and 67.5%, respectively. They also returned to sports at a high rate (75.8%), and 79% of them did not report LBP postoperatively. PROs, rates of achieving the MCID and PASS for the HOS-SSS, and RTS rates were similar between the study group and propensity-matched control group.

CONCLUSION

Elite athletes with coexisting LBP who undergo primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS may expect favorable PROs, rates of achieving the MCID and PASS for the HOS-SSS, and RTS rates at minimum 2-year follow-up. These results were comparable to those of a propensity-matched control group of elite athletes without back pain. In athletes with hip-spine syndrome, successful treatment of their hip pathology may help resolve their back pain.

Labral Tear Management in Patients Aged 40 Years and Older Undergoing Primary Hip Arthroscopy: A Propensity-Matched Case-Control Study With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Previous literature has suggested that primary acetabular labral reconstruction leads to lower secondary surgery rates than does labral repair for patients aged ≥40 years.

PURPOSE

To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores, survivorship, and secondary surgeries in patients aged ≥40 years who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction compared with a propensity-matched primary labral repair group.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent a primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome between January 2014 and June 2018. Patients aged ≥40 years who underwent a labral reconstruction or a labral repair and had preoperative and minimum 2-year PROs for the modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were included. Patients with previous ipsilateral hip conditions and surgery, Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia, or workers' compensation status were excluded. Patients in the reconstruction group were propensity matched 1:2 to patients in the repair group based on age, sex, and body mass index. Secondary surgeries and achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and maximum outcome improvement (MOI) were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 53 and 106 hips were included in the labral reconstruction and repair groups, respectively. The average follow-up time was 37.6 months. The average ages for the reconstruction and repair groups were 48.01 ± 5.4 years and 48.61 ± 6.0 years, respectively. Both groups achieved significant improvements in all PROs at a minimum of 2 years, with similar achievements of MCID, PASS, and MOI, and comparable secondary surgery rates.

CONCLUSION

Patients aged ≥40 years who received primary labral repair and primary labral reconstruction achieved similar significant improvements in all PROs, VAS pain, and patient satisfaction at the minimum 2-year follow-up, with comparable rates of secondary surgeries and achieving MCID, PASS, and MOI. Based on these findings, labral repair remains the gold standard treatment for viable labrum in this population group, while reconstruction is a useful alternative for irreparable labrum.

Circumferential and Segmental Labral Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

The purposes of this study were to synthesize, report, and compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between arthroscopic segmental and circumferential labral reconstruction. A systematic review was performed in February 2019 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) method. Inclusion criteria were levels I to IV evidence, articles in English, arthroscopic labral reconstruction, and PROs data. Exclusion criteria were labral treatment without reconstruction, open surgery, and less than 6-month follow-up. Eleven studies were identified. Nine studies (212 hips) reported outcomes of segmental reconstruction. Two studies (194 hips) reported outcomes of circumferential reconstruction. Significant improvement in PROs at short-term with either segmental or circumferential reconstruction was found. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(6):361-366.].

Return to Sports and Minimum 2-Year Outcomes of Bilateral Hip Arthroscopy in High-Level Athletes With a Propensity-Matched Benchmarking Against a Unilateral Control Group

BACKGROUND

Return to sports (RTS) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for high-level athletes after bilateral hip arthroscopy have not been well established.

PURPOSE

(1) To report minimum 2-year PROs and RTS rates in high-level athletes who underwent staged bilateral primary hip arthroscopies and (2) to compare clinical results against a propensity-matched control group of high-level athletes who underwent unilateral primary hip arthroscopy.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for high-level athletes (professional, college, or high school) who underwent staged bilateral hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome between September 2009 and October 2018. Inclusion criteria were preoperative and minimum 2-year follow-up for modified Harris Hip Score, Non-arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <18°), and previous ipsilateral hip surgery/conditions. Rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold were recorded in addition to RTS. These athletes were then propensity matched in a 1:3 ratio to high-level athletes who underwent unilateral arthroscopy for comparison. Outcomes were compared among the first hip of the study group, the second hip of the study group, and the control group.

RESULTS

A total of 74 high-level athletes who underwent bilateral hip arthroscopy met the inclusion criteria, and follow-up was available for 68 (91.9%) at 58.9 ± 24.5 months (mean ± SD). Athletes undergoing bilateral hip arthroscopy returned to sports at a high rate (81.7%), demonstrated significant improvements in all recorded PROs, and achieved the MCID and PASS for the HOS-SSS at rates of 80.9% and 64.7%, respectively. PROs, RTS rate, and rates of achieving the MCID and PASS for the HOS-SSS were similar when the bilateral study group was compared with the unilateral control group (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

High-level athletes who undergo staged bilateral primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome may expect favorable PROs and RTS rates at minimum 2-year follow-up. These results were comparable with those of a propensity-matched control group of high-level athletes who underwent unilateral primary hip arthroscopy.

In search of labral restoration function with hip arthroscopy: outcomes of hip labral reconstruction versus labral repair: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients who underwent hip arthroscopy with labral repair versus labral reconstruction in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and labral tears.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed in May 2020 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and checklist. Articles were included in the analysis if they compared PROs between a labral repair and labral reconstruction cohort. For all PROs, the standardised mean difference (SMD) was calculated to compare the effect size of labral repair and labral reconstruction.

RESULTS

10 comparative studies, with 582 reconstruction cases and 631 repair cases, were included in this analysis. The mean age for the reconstruction and the repair groups ranged from 27.0 years to 52.6 years and 27.5 years to 47.0 years, respectively. The mean follow-up for the reconstruction and the repair groups ranged from 24.0 months to 66.0 months and 24.0 months to 71.0 months, respectively. The modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHS) was favourable in 8 reconstruction studies (range 80.4-95.0) and 9 repair studies (range 84.1-93.0). Average NAHS scores for the repair and reconstruction cohorts ranged from 77.9-88.6 and 73.9-92.4, respectively. Additionally, the effect sizes regarding NAHS and mHHS scores were large (SMD > 0.8) in both the reconstruction and repair groups for the majority of studies. Finally, reconstruction patients underwent a subsequent total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a slightly higher rate.

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of FAIS and labral tears, patients who underwent hip arthroscopy may expect significant improvement in PROs at short-term follow-up with either labral repair or labral reconstruction. Although, not statistically significant, the repair group trended towards higher scores and exhibited a lower risk of conversion to THA.

Achieving Successful Outcomes in High-Level Athletes With Borderline Hip Dysplasia Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy With Capsular Plication and Labral Preservation: A Propensity-Matched Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Return to sports (RTS) rates and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after hip arthroscopy in athletes with borderline dysplasia (BD) have not been established.

PURPOSE

(1) To report minimum 2-year PROs and RTS rates in high-level athletes with BD who underwent hip arthroscopy for labral pathology in the setting of microinstability and (2) to compare clinical results with those of a matched control group of athletes with normal acetabular coverage.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were reviewed for surgery performed between January 2012 and July 2018. Patients were considered eligible if they received a primary hip arthroscopy in the setting of BD (lateral center-edge angle, 18°-25°) and competed in professional, collegiate, or high school sports. Inclusion criteria included preoperative and minimum 2-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris Hip Score, Non-arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale, and visual analog scale for pain. Athletes with BD were matched to a control group of athletes with normal acetabular coverage (lateral center-edge angle, 25°-40°).

RESULTS

A total of 65 patients with BD were included in the study with a mean ± standard deviation follow-up of 47.5 ± 20.4 months. Athletes with BD showed significant improvement in all outcome measures recorded, demonstrated high RTS rates (80.7%), and achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale at high rates (MCID, 90.8%; PASS, 75.4%). When compared with a propensity-matched control group with normal acetabular coverage, capsular plication was performed more commonly in the BD group (93.8% vs 82.7%; P = .037). PROs and RTS, PASS, and MCID rates were similar between the BD and control groups (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

High-level athletes with BD who undergo primary hip arthroscopy for labral pathology in the setting of microinstability may expect favorable PROs and RTS rates at minimum 2-year follow-up. These results were comparable with those of a control group of athletes with normal coverage.

Ligamentum Teres Reconstruction May Lead to Improvement in Outcomes Following a Secondary Hip Arthroscopy for Symptomatic Microinstability: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To present the indications, surgical technique, outcomes, and complications for patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of the ligamentum teres (LT).

METHODS

Articles were included if they had postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for arthroscopic LT reconstruction. Studies were analyzed for patient demographics, clinical assessment and indications, radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging data, concomitant procedures performed, PROs, surgical techniques, intra-articular classifications, complications, and need for follow-up surgeries. For PROs, the standard mean difference was calculated. The proportion of patients achieving patient acceptable symptomatic state for postoperative modified Harris Hip Score (≥74) was recorded. The number of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference for modified Harris Hip Score (Δ ≥8) was calculated.

RESULTS

The majority of the cases were revision arthroscopies. Of the 3 studies reporting on patients undergoing LT reconstruction due to microinstability, 4, 9, and 11 patients demonstrated a mean improvement of 25.7, 35.2, and 27.7 in modified Harris Hip, respectively. In addition, one of the studies reported a mean improvement of 31.1 and 4.2 in Nonarthritic Hip Score and visual analog scale, respectively. Of the 3 studies, the percentile of patients surpassing minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state ranged between 50% and 100% and 33.3% and 88.8%, respectively. Overall, 5 patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy due to adhesions, iliopsoas impingement, and persistent microinstability, and 3 patients underwent a secondary hip arthroplasty due to refractory pain and radiographic evidence of hip osteoarthritis.

CONCLUSION

Reconstruction of the LT may be considered in surgical management for patients with symptomatic hip instability due to soft-tissue causes. Current evidence supports for LT reconstruction predominantly for patients experiencing refractory instability following previous hip preservation procedures. Patients' expectations as well as the relatively high reoperation rate (i.e., 33%) should be discussed before the procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.

Why Does Hip Arthroscopy Fail? Indications and PEARLS for Revision Success

The surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement has been shown to have successful early and mid-term clinical outcomes. Despite these favorable clinical outcomes that have been published in the literature, there is a subgroup of patients that present with continued or recurrent symptoms after surgical treatment. Not only has there been an increase in the number of hip arthroscopy procedures, but also there has been a corresponding increase in the number of revision hip arthroscopy and hip preservation surgeries. Previous studies have reported residual deformity to be the most common reason for revision hip arthroscopy. However, chondral, labral, and capsular considerations also are important when addressing patients not only in the primary but also, the revision setting. In this review, we outline the evaluation and treatment of the patient that presents with continued hip and groin pain after undergoing a hip.

[Research progress in arthroscopic treatment of acetabular labrum injury]

Objective

To review the surgical methods of arthroscopy in the treatment of acetabular labrum injury, and to provide reference for clinical treatment.

Methods

The literature about the surgical methods and clinical results of hip arthroscopy in the treatment of acetabular labrum injury was reviewed and analyzed.

Results

In the early stages of hip arthroscopy, the removal of the torn labrum is the primary treatment option. The current principles of treatment are based on the specific circumstances of a torn labrum, including acetabular labrum debridement, acetabular labrum repair, acetabular labrum reconstruction, and acetabular labrum augmentation.

Conclusion

Hip arthroscopy has become the preferred technique for the treatment of acetabular labrum injury. Labral repair is still the first choice, and labral reconstruction is used when acetabular labrum injury cannot be repaired.

Arthroscopic acetabular labral reconstruction: a review

The function and importance of the acetabular labrum in hip biomechanics have been determined. A labral tear is one of the most common findings in the hip preservation field, commonly associated with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome. It has been established that the restoration of labral anatomy and function are key factors to improve patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) and psychometric tools following arthroscopic hip arthroscopy in the context of FAI syndrome. Labral repair or refixation is currently the gold-standard surgical option when facing labral tears, with clinical mid to long-term data supporting its use. Labral selective debridement has proven to be a valid alternative in selective patients. Acetabular labral reconstruction has risen as an alternative to labral excision or resection when repair is not an option due to labral tissue deficiency. Restoring the labral sealing mechanism is the goal behind the acetabular labral reconstruction. It has been proven that labral reconstruction leads to superior PROMs when compared with resection. This review presents an analysis of the indications, techniques, and outcomes for arthroscopic acetabular labral reconstruction.

Editorial Commentary: Hip Labral Reconstruction: A Necessary Skill for Hip Arthroscopy Surgeons

The surgical treatment of labral deficiency has generated a tremendous amount of discussion and controversy among hip arthroscopists. The surgical reconstruction of the labrum has been viewed as the natural next step, after debridement and repair, in the advancement of our ability to treat patients with hip labral pathology. However, the indications for labral replacement and the profile of patients who would benefit from this complex intervention are still under debate. Every hip arthroscopist must have the technical ability to perform reconstruction when indicated. Repair or debridement does not always achieve best patient outcome.

Comparison of Suction Seal and Contact Pressures Between 270° Labral Reconstruction, Labral Repair, and the Intact Labrum

PURPOSE

To biomechanically compare the suction seal, contact area, contact pressures, and peak forces of the intact native labrum, torn labrum, 12- to 3-o'clock labral repair, and 270° labral reconstruction in the hip.

METHODS

A cadaveric study was performed using 8 fresh-frozen hemipelvises with intact labra and without osteoarthritis. Intra-articular pressure maps were produced for each specimen using an electromechanical testing system under the following conditions: (1) intact labrum, (2) labral tear, (3) labral repair between the 12- and 3-o'clock positions, and (4) 270° labral reconstruction using iliotibial band allograft. Specimens were examined in neutral position, 20° of extension, and 60° of flexion. In each condition, contact pressure, contact area, and peak force were obtained. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to identify differences in biomechanical parameters among the 3 conditions. Qualitative differences in suction seal were compared between labral repair and labral reconstruction using the Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

Repeated-measures analysis of variance for contact area in neutral position, extension, and flexion showed statistically significant differences between the normalized study states (P < .05). Post hoc analysis showed significantly larger contact areas measured in labral repair specimens than in labral reconstruction specimens in the extension and flexion positions. Region-of-interest analysis for the normalized contact area in the extension and flexion positions, as well as normalized contact pressures in neutral position, showed statistically significant differences between the labral states (P < .05). Finally, 8 labral repairs (100%) versus only 1 labral reconstruction (12.5%) retained the manually tested suction seal (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this in vitro biomechanical model, 270° labral reconstruction resulted in decreased intra-articular contact area and loss of suction seal when compared with labral repair. Clinically, labral reconstruction may not restore the biomechanical characteristics of the native labrum as compared with labral repair.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Labral reconstruction may result in lower intra-articular hip contact area and loss of suction seal, affecting the native biomechanical function of the acetabular labrum. Further biomechanical studies and clinical studies are necessary to determine whether there are any long-term consequences of 270° labral reconstruction.

Arthroscopic Ligamentum Teres Reconstruction: Minimum 2-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes With Subanalysis of Patients With Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome

PURPOSE

To report on minimum 2-year outcomes of patients undergoing arthroscopic ligamentum teres reconstruction (LTR).

METHODS

Our institutional registry was retrospectively reviewed for all patients undergoing LTR between December 2012 and February 2016. LTR was indicated for a fully torn or dysfunctional ligamentum teres with symptomatic multidirectional instability not treatable by osteotomy or capsular plication alone. Demographic data, preoperative clinical and radiographic measures, and intraoperative data were recorded. Patient-reported outcome measures including the modified Harris Hip Score, the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, a visual analog scale score for pain, and patient satisfaction were recorded preoperatively and annually postoperatively. Revision arthroscopies and conversions to total hip arthroplasty were recorded.

RESULTS

Twelve reconstruction procedures were performed in 10 patients during the study period. Minimum 2-year follow-up was available for 9 patients (11 hips). The mean follow-up time was 44.27 months (range, 24-72 months). There were 7 female and 2 male patients, and the mean age was 30.34 years (range, 17.23-43.68 years). Two hips underwent conversion to total hip arthroplasty at a mean of 21.12 months. For the remaining patients, significant improvements were observed in the modified Harris Hip Score (from 44.1 to 71.8), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (from 47.5 to 78.6), and visual analog scale score (from 7.8 to 3.6) (P < .05). The average patient satisfaction rating was 7.88 (range, 4-10). Subanalysis of 5 patients (7 hips) with a diagnosis of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome showed a higher failure rate in this group.

CONCLUSIONS

Although LTRs are indicated and performed only in a select group of patients, the procedure can provide meaningful improvement in patient-reported outcomes, pain reduction, and patient satisfaction. However, most patients undergoing LTR at present have underlying factors that significantly mitigate their prognosis, such as Ehlers-Danlos syndrome or failed previous surgery. Because these patients represent a subset of patients with complex hip pathologies in whom treatment is difficult, the expectations of surgery should be set accordingly.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic study, case series.

Hips With Acetabular Retroversion Can Be Safely Treated With Advanced Arthroscopic Techniques Without Anteverting Periacetabular Osteotomy: Midterm Outcomes With Propensity-Matched Control Group

BACKGROUND

Different options, from reverse (anteverting) periacetabular osteotomy to hip arthroscopy, have been proposed for surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) in the setting of acetabular retroversion.

PURPOSE

(1) To report and analyze midterm patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) in patients with FAIS and labral tears in the setting of acetabular retroversion after isolated hip arthroscopy and (2) to compare these PROs with those of a propensity-matched control group without acetabular retroversion.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS and labral tear treatment between June 2008 and March 2014. Inclusion criteria were as follows: acetabular retroversion, pre- and postoperative PROs for modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Scale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS). Propensity score matching was utilized to identify a control group without acetabular retroversion matched 1:1 with similar age, sex, body mass index, acetabular and femoral head Outerbridge grade, preoperative lateral center-edge angle, and labral treatment. Patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) and/or minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, International Hip Outcome Tool-12, and VAS was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 205 hips with acetabular retroversion were matched to a control group. The groups showed no difference in demographic variables. The retroversion group was composed of 139 female and 66 male hips, with a mean ± SD age of 23.81 ± 7.28 years and follow-up time of 65.24 ± 20.31 months. Intraoperative diagnostic data and procedures performed were similar between groups, except more femoroplasties were performed in the retroversion group. Significant improvements for the mHHS, Non-arthritic Hip Score, HOS-SSS, and VAS were seen for both groups at a mean 5-year follow-up. The proportion of patients who reached the PASS and MCID were similar.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of FAIS and labral tears, patients with acetabular retroversion can be safely treated with advanced hip arthroscopic techniques without reverse (anteverting) periacetabular osteotomy in a high-volume surgeon's hands. Patients with acetabular retroversion demonstrated favorable PROs at midterm follow-up. Furthermore, the proportion of patients reaching the MCID and PASS for several PROs were comparable with those of a propensity-matched control group without acetabular retroversion.

Achieving Successful Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy in the Setting of Generalized Ligamentous Laxity With Labral Preservation and Appropriate Capsular Management: A Propensity Matched Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Association among generalized ligamentous laxity (GLL), hip microinstability, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after hip arthroscopy has yet to be completely established.

PURPOSES

(1) To report minimum 2-year PROs in patients with GLL who underwent hip arthroscopy in the setting of symptomatic labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and (2) to compare clinical results with a matched-pair control group without GLL.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data from a prospectively collected database were retrospectively reviewed between August 2014 and December 2016. Patients were considered eligible if they received primary arthroscopic treatment for symptomatic labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement. Inclusion criteria included preoperative and minimum 2-year follow-up scores for the following PROs: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and visual analog scale for pain (VAS). From the sample population, 2 groups were created: the GLL group (Beighton score ≥4) and the control group (Beighton score <4). Patients were matched in a 1:2 ratio via propensity score matching according to age, sex, body mass index, Tönnis grade, and preoperative lateral center-edge angle. Patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for mHHS, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Scale (HOS-SSS), and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 57 patients with GLL were matched to 88 control patients. Age, sex, body mass index, and follow-up times were not different between groups (P > .05). Preoperative radiographic measurements demonstrated no difference between groups. Intraoperative findings and procedures between groups were similar except for capsular treatment, with the GLL group receiving a greater percentage of capsular plications (P = .04). At minimum 2-year follow-up, both groups showed significant improvement in PROs and VAS (P < .001). Furthermore, the postoperative PROs at minimum 2-year follow-up and the magnitude of improvement (delta value) were similar between groups for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS (P > .05). Moreover, groups reached comparable rates of MCID and PASS for mHHS, HOS-SSS, and iHOT-12.

CONCLUSION

Patients with GLL after hip arthroscopy for symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement and labral tears may expect favorable outcomes with appropriate labral and capsular management at minimum 2-year follow-up. When compared with a pair-matched control group without GLL, results were comparable for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS and reached PASS and/or MCID for mHHS, HOS-SSS, and iHOT-12.

Return to Sport and Athletic Function in an Active Population After Primary Arthroscopic Labral Reconstruction of the Hip

Background:

Labral reconstruction has been advocated as an alternative to debridement for the treatment of irreparable labral tears, showing favorable short-term results. However, literature is scarce regarding outcomes and return to sport in the nonelite athletic population.

Purpose:

To report minimum 1-year clinical outcomes and the rate of return to sport in athletic patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and irreparable labral tears.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed for patients who underwent an arthroscopic labral reconstruction between August 2012 and December 2017. Patients were included if they identified as an athlete (high school, college, recreational, or amateur); had follow-up on the following patient-reported outcomes (PROs): modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score–Sport Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS); and completed a return-to-sport survey at 1 year postoperatively. Patients were excluded if they underwent any previous ipsilateral hip surgery, had dysplasia, or had prior hip conditions. The proportions of patients who achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for mHHS and HOS-SSS were calculated. Statistical significance was set at P = .05.

Results:

There were 32 (14 females) athletes who underwent primary arthroscopic labral reconstruction during the study period. The mean age and body mass index of the group were 40.3 years (range, 15.5-58.7 years) and 27.9 kg/m² (range, 19.6-40.1 kg/m²), respectively. The mean follow-up was 26.4 months (range, 12-64.2 months). All patients demonstrated significant improvement in mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS (P < .001) at latest follow-up. Additionally, 84.4% achieved MCID and 81.3% achieved PASS for mHHS, and 87.5% achieved MCID and 75% achieved PASS for HOS-SSS. VAS pain scores decreased from 4.4 to 1.8, and the satisfaction with surgery was 7.9 out of 10. The rate of return to sport was 78%.

Conclusion:

At minimum 1-year follow-up, primary arthroscopic labral reconstruction, in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and irreparable labral tears, was associated with significant improvement in PROs in athletic populations. Return to sport within 1 year of surgery was 78%.

Radiographic and Demographic Factors Can Predict the Need for Primary Labral Reconstruction in Hip Arthroscopic Surgery: A Predictive Model Using 1398 Hips

BACKGROUND

Labral tears are the most common findings in patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). The restoration of labral function is critical, and labral reconstruction has been proposed as an alternative for irreparable tears.

PURPOSE

To compare preoperative radiographic measurements and demographics of patients who underwent primary arthroscopic labral reconstruction versus primary labral repair and to identify factors that are predictive of the need for reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients who underwent their index hip arthroscopic procedure between October 2010 and November 2018 and underwent either labral reconstruction or repair were included in the study. A total of 18 variables (14 radiographic and 4 demographic) were assessed in a bivariate comparison and analyzed in a multivariate logistic model.

RESULTS

A total of 251 primary reconstruction and 1147 primary repair procedures were included. The logistic model selected age, body mass index (BMI), Tönnis grade, lateral center-edge angle (LCEA), and alpha angle. The odds of reconstruction were 2.52 times higher in patients with Tönnis grade 1 than 0 (odds ratio [OR], 2.52 [95% CI, 1.82-3.49]). Each additional degree in the LCEA was associated with a 6% increase in the odds of reconstruction (OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.04-1.09]) and 4% for each additional degree in the alpha angle (OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.03-1.05]). Higher age (per log 10 unit) and BMI also increased the likelihood of reconstruction (OR, 11.29 [95% CI, 4.23-30.10] and OR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.00-1.06], respectively).

CONCLUSION

In a multivariate analysis, factors identified as preoperative predictors for primary arthroscopic labral reconstruction in the setting of FAI and labral tears were Tönnis grade, LCEA, age, and BMI. These predictive factors may be useful for the clinician in determining the preoperative likelihood of primary labral reconstruction.

Primary labral reconstruction in patients with femoroacetabular impingement, irreparable labral tears and severe acetabular chondral defects decreases the risk of conversion to total hip arthroplasty: a pair-matched study

In the presence of severe acetabular cartilage defects, the benefits of labral reconstruction (RECON) versus labral resection (RESEC) have not been determined. Prospectively collected data between October 2008 and December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were hip arthroscopy, acetabular Outerbridge grade III/IV, irreparable labral tears that underwent RECON or RESEC, and minimum 2-year postoperative measures for the modified Harris Hip Score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, International Hip Outcome Tool, Patient Satisfaction and Visual Analogue Scale for pain. Exclusion criteria included Tönnis grade >1, previous hip conditions or previous ipsilateral hip surgeries. A 1:1 matched-pair analysis was performed based on age ±5 years, sex, body mass index ±5 kg/m², Tönnis grade, acetabular microfracture, femoral Outerbridge grade (0 or I compared with II, III or IV). Relative risk (RR) and conversion rate to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were calculated. A total of 38 RECON hips were successfully matched. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes (PROs). THA conversion was 5.3% and 21.1% for the RECON and RESEC groups, respectively (P = 0.04). RECON was four times less likely to require THA conversion than the RESEC group (RR=4.0; 95% CI 0.91-17.63). In the setting of primary arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement, irreparable labral tears and acetabular chondral lesions of Outerbridge III/IV, patients that underwent RECON and RESEC experienced significant improvement in PROs at minimum 2-year follow-up, and these functional scores were comparable when groups were matched. However, RR and rate to THA conversion were significantly higher in the RESEC group.