The Effect of Rim Preparation, Labral Augmentation, and Labral Reconstruction on the Suction Seal of the Hip

Hip Circumferential Labral Reconstruction Provides Similar Distractive Stability to Labral Repair After Cam Over-Resection in a Biomechanical Model

PURPOSE

To evaluate the change in hip distractive stability after a cam over-resection, labral tear, repair, labrectomy, or circumferential 6- or 10-mm labral reconstruction in a biomechanical model.

METHODS

Ten fresh-frozen matched-pair human cadaveric hips were analyzed using a materials testing system to measure the force and distance required to disrupt the suction seal of the hip (1) with an intact capsule and labrum; (2) after a capsulectomy and labral repair; (3) after a capsulectomy, 5-mm cam over-resection and labral repair; (4) after a capsulectomy, 5-mm cam over-resection and labral tear; (5) after a capsulectomy, 5-mm cam over-resection and labrectomy; and (6) after a capsulectomy, 5-mm cam over-resection and a 6- or 10-mm circumferential labral reconstruction with iliotibial band (5 hips each). Each specimen was retested at 0° flexion, 45° flexion, and 45° flexion and at 15° internal rotation and analyzed using nonparametric statistical methods.

RESULTS

The Friedman test of differences was significant among structural conditions and hip positions (P = .001). In all positions, the resistive force that opposed the disruption of the suction seal in an intact hip was significantly greater compared with all other conditions. The resistive force for the capsulectomy, 5-mm cam over-resection and labrectomy condition was significantly less compared with almost all other conditions and hip positions. A qualitative suction seal was achieved in 20% of hip specimens with a 6-mm labral reconstruction, whereas a seal was in achieved 60% of specimens with a 10-mm labral reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

After a cam over-resection, a circumferential labral reconstruction improves the distractive stability of a labral deficient hip, comparable to a labral repair or tear in a biomechanical model.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Circumferential labral reconstruction may be a viable treatment option for patients with ongoing symptoms after hip arthroscopy with evidence of a cam over-resection and a deficient labrum.

The Contribution of Soft Tissue and Bony Stabilizers to the Hip Suction Seal: A Systematic Review of Biomechanical Studies

BACKGROUND

Previous biomechanical studies have identified capsular closure, labral repair or reconstruction, and osteochondroplasty as important surgical interventions to improve hip stability.

PURPOSE

To investigate the outcome metrics used to quantify hip stability and assess and measure the relative contributions of the labrum, capsule, and bone to hip stability through a quantitative analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase databases were searched using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Included studies evaluated cadaveric hip biomechanics related to capsular, labral, and bony management during hip arthroscopy. Studies were assessed for distraction force and distance, fluid measures, and contact forces used to quantify the suction seal. Exclusion criteria included open surgery, arthroplasty, reorientation osteotomy, or traumatic dislocation.

RESULTS

A total of 33 biomechanical studies comprising 322 hips that evaluated 1 or more of the following were included: distraction force or distance (24 studies), fluid measures (10 studies), and contact forces (6 studies). Compared with a capsulotomy or capsulectomy, capsular repair or reconstruction demonstrated greater resistance to distraction (standardized mean difference [SMD], 1.13; 95% CI, 0.46-1.80; P = .0009). Compared with a labral tear, a labral repair or reconstruction demonstrated less resistance to distraction (SMD, -0.67; 95% CI, -1.25 to -0.09; P = .02). Compared with a labral debridement, repair or reconstruction demonstrated greater resistance to distraction (SMD, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.23 to 2.26; P < .00001). No quantitative analysis was feasible from studies evaluating the effect of osseous resection due to the heterogeneity in methodology and outcome metrics assessed.

CONCLUSION

Most biomechanical evidence supports capsulotomy repair or reconstruction to improve hip distractive stability at the end of hip arthroscopic surgery. While the repair of a torn labrum does not improve distractive resistance, it is superior to labral debridement in most biomechanical studies.

Editorial Commentary: Protected Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Is Essential After Hip Capsule and Labral Repair

Hip arthroscopy is an effective procedure with rapidly improving techniques and implants. Routine labral and capsular repair are broadly agreed upon as standard of care in most cases, which is now supported by long-term outcome studies. A crucial component of patient postoperative success is physical therapy. While accelerated programs are appealing, biomechanical studies have consistently demonstrated decreased stability at time zero after hip arthroscopy, particularly labral repairs. Therefore, although we want to help our patients get back to their lives as soon as possible, it remains our responsibility to protect their hip in the early postoperative period. If, in ideal laboratory conditions, we cannot restore stability to an intact state, then we must presuppose that the suction seal improves as the capsule, and more importantly, the labrum, heals after surgical manipulation. This means we are not able to rely solely on the strength of our repair, and there is a distinct period where the repaired hip is particularly vulnerable. Most hip arthroscopy protocols use a protective period, ranging from 4 to 8 weeks, during which there is an emphasis on passive range of motion only, with a strict moratorium on "pushing beyond pain."

Indirect Head of the Rectus Femoris Tendon as a Graft for Segmental Hip Labral Reconstruction: An Anatomic, Radiographical, and Biomechanical Study in Comparison With Iliotibial Labral Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The indirect head of the rectus femoris (IHRF) tendon has been used as an autograft for segmental labral reconstruction. However, the biomechanical properties and anatomic characteristics of the IHRF, as they relate to surgical applications, have yet to be investigated.

PURPOSE

To (1) quantitatively and qualitatively describe the anatomy of IHRF and its relationship with surrounding arthroscopically relevant landmarks; (2) detail radiographic findings pertinent to IHRF; (3) biomechanically assess segmental labral reconstruction with IHRF, including restoration of the suction seal and contact pressures in comparison with iliotibial band (ITB) reconstruction; and (4) assess potential donor-site morbidity caused by graft harvesting.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive laboratory study.

METHODS

A cadaveric study was performed using 8 fresh-frozen human cadaveric full pelvises and 7 hemipelvises. Three-dimensional anatomic measurements were collected using a 3-dimensional coordinate digitizer. Radiographic analysis was accomplished by securing radiopaque markers of different sizes to the evaluated anatomic structures of the assigned hip.Suction seal and contact pressure testing were performed over 3 trials on 6 pelvises under 4 different testing conditions for each specimen: intact, labral tear, segmental labral reconstruction with ITB, and segmental labral reconstruction with IHRF. After IHRF tendon harvest, each full pelvis had both the intact and contralateral hip tested under tension along its anatomic direction to assess potential site morbidity, such as tendon failure or bony avulsion.

RESULTS

The centroid and posterior apex of the indirect rectus femoris attachment are respectively located 10.3 ± 2.6 mm and 21.0 ± 6.5 mm posteriorly, 2.5 ± 7.8 mm and 0.7 ± 8.0 mm superiorly, and 5.0 ± 2.8 mm and 22.2 ± 4.4 mm laterally to the 12:30 labral position. Radiographically, the mean distance of the IHRF to the following landmarks was determined as follows: anterior inferior iliac spine (8.8 ± 2.5 mm), direct head of the rectus femoris (8.0 ± 3.9 mm), 12-o'clock labral position (14.1 ± 2.8 mm), and 3-o'clock labral position (36.5 ± 4.4 mm). During suction seal testing, both the ITB and the IHRF reconstruction groups had significantly lower peak loads and lower energy to peak loads compared with both intact and tear groups (P = .01 to .02 for all comparisons). There were no significant differences between the reconstruction groups for peak loads, energy, and displacement at peak load. In 60° of flexion, there were no differences in normalized contact pressure and contact area between ITB or IHRF reconstruction groups (P > .99). There were no significant differences between intact and harvested specimen groups in donor-site morbidity testing.

CONCLUSION

The IHRF tendon is within close anatomic proximity to arthroscopic acetabular landmarks. In the cadaveric model, harvesting of the IHRF tendon as an autograft does not lead to significant donor-site morbidity in the remaining tendon. Segmental labral reconstruction performed with the IHRF tendon exhibits similar biomechanical outcomes compared with that performed with ITB.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study demonstrates the viability of segmental labral reconstruction with an IHRF tendon and provides a detailed anatomic description of the tendon in the context of an arthroscopic labral reconstruction. Clinicians can use this information during the selection of a graft and as a guide during an arthroscopic graft harvest.

Hip Labral and Capsular Repair Are Unable to Restore Distractive Stability in a Biomechanical Model

PURPOSE

To evaluate the change in hip distractive stability after a capsulotomy, labral tear, and simultaneous repair of both the capsule and the labrum in a biomechanical model.

METHODS

Ten fresh-frozen human cadaveric hips were analyzed using a materials testing system to measure the distractive force and distance required to disrupt the hip suction seal under the following conditions: (1) native intact capsule and labrum, (2) 2- or 4-cm interportal capsulotomy (IPC), (3) labral tear, (4) T extension, (5) labral repair, (6) T extension repair, and (7) IPC repair. Each specimen was retested at 0° of flexion, 45° of flexion, and 45° of flexion with 15° of internal rotation.

RESULTS

A significantly higher distractive force was required to rupture the suction seal in the intact condition compared with IPC (P = .012; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.9-42.4); IPC and labral tear (P = .002; 95% CI, 11.3-49.4); IPC, labral tear, and T extension (P = .001; 95% CI, 13.9-51.5); IPC, labral repair, and T extension (P < .001; 95% CI, 20.8-49.7); IPC, labral repair, and T extension repair (P = .002; 95% CI, 12.5-52.4); and IPC repair, labral repair, and T extension repair (P = .01; 95% CI, 5.8-46.1). The IPC condition required a higher distractive force in isolation than when combined with a labral tear (P = .14; 95% CI, 1.2-12.0), T extension (P = .005; 95% CI, 2.8-15.3), or labral repair (P = .002; 95% CI, 4.4-18.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The distractive resistance of an intact hip capsule and labrum was not restored once the soft tissues were violated, despite labral repair with a loop technique and capsular repair with interrupted figure-of-8 sutures.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Time-zero complete capsular repair with concomitant labral repair may not be adequate to restore distractive hip stability after hip arthroscopy, reinforcing the use of postoperative precautions in the early postoperative period.

The Role of the Hip Capsule in Restoring Stability in the Initial Phase of Hip Distraction: An In Vivo Analysis

Background

The labral suction seal has been shown to provide the majority of resistance in the initial phase of hip distraction. However, the effect of an unrepaired interportal capsulotomy and capsular repair on the initial phase of hip distractive stability in vivo is not well understood.

Purpose

To investigate the effect of capsular repair on the initial phase of distractive stability of hip joints in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome.

Study Design

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods

Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for FAI between March and August 2020 were prospectively enrolled. Total joint space was measured on fluoroscopic images at the medial and lateral edges of the sourcil at 12.5-lb (5.7-kg) axial traction intervals (up to 100 lb [45.4 kg]) in 3 capsular states: (1) native capsule, (2) interportal capsulotomy, and (3) capsular repair. Distraction on anteroposterior radiographs was calculated as the difference between total joint space at each traction interval and baseline joint space at 0 lb, normalized to millimeters. The native, capsulotomy, and capsular repair states were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank and McNemar tests.

Results

Included were 36 hips in 35 patients. The median force required to distract ≥3 mm was 75 lb (34.0 kg; 95% CI, 70-80 lb [31.8-36.3 kg]) in both the native and capsular repair states (P = .629), which was significantly greater than the median force required to distract ≥3 mm in the capsulotomy state (50 lb [22.7 kg]; 95% CI, 45-55 lb [20.4-24.9 kg]) (P < .001). The most rapid rates of change in joint space were observed at the traction interval at which hips first achieved ≥3 mm of distraction (n = 33 hips; 92%).

Conclusion

The traction force at which hips distracted ≥3 mm was 75 lb (34.0 kg) in both the native capsular and capsular repair states. Significantly less traction force (50 lb [22.7 kg]) distracted hips ≥3 mm in the capsulotomy state. Complete capsular closure after interportal capsulotomy resulted in restoration of initial distractive stability relative to the unrepaired capsulotomy state at time zero after primary hip arthroscopy.

Clinical Relevance

This study provides surgeons with an improved understanding of the additional stability to the hip joint from capsular repair after hip arthroscopy for FAI syndrome.

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.

Labral Augmentation With Either Iliotibial Band Allograft or Dermis Allograft Perform Similarly Regarding Peak Force, Displacement, and Work to Labral Repair in Suction Seal Restoration: A Biomechanical Study

PURPOSE

To investigate whether allograft substitutes may be used to restore suctional seal properties with labral augmentation, the purpose of the current study was to evaluate the biomechanical properties of the labral suction seal under several scenarios, including: (1) intact labrum, (2) rim preparation, (3) labral repair, (4) labral augmentation with iliotibial band (ITB), and (5) labral augmentation with a dermis allograft.

METHODS

Eleven hemi-pelvises were dissected to the level of the labrum and placed in a material testing system for biomechanical axial distraction. Each specimen was compressed to 250 newtons (N) and distracted at 10 mm/s while load, crosshead displacement, and time were continuously recorded. For each of the 5 labral states, 3 testing repetitions were performed. Peak force (N, newtons), displacement at peak force (mm, millimeter), and work (N-mm, newton, millimeter) were calculated and normalized to the intact state of each specimen.

RESULTS

Eleven specimens were tested and 8 specimens (age: 58.6 ± 5.4 years, body mass index: 28.6 ± 6.8 kg/m2; 4 female patients; 5 right hips) were included in final analyses. Expressed as a percentage relative to the intact state, the average normalized peak force, displacement at peak force, and work for each labral state were as follows: intact (100.0% ± 0% for all), rim preparation (89.0% ± 9.2%, 93.3% ± 20.6%, 85.1% ± 9.0%), repair (61.3% ± 17.9%, 88.4% ± 36.9%, 58.1% ± 16.7%), ITB allograft (62.7% ± 24.9%, 83.9% ± 21.6%, 59.4% ± 22.4%), and dermis allograft (57.8% ± 27.2%, 88.2% ± 29.5%, 50.0% ± 20.1%). Regarding peak force, intact state was significantly greater compared with the labral repair, augmentation with ITB, and augmentation with the dermis allograft states (P < .001). No significant differences were demonstrated between displacement at peak force (P = .561). Regarding work, both intact state and rim preparation states were significantly greater than the repair, ITB augmentation, and dermis allograft augmentation states (P < .001). In all outcome measures, the dermis allograft augmentation performed with no statistical difference to the ITB augmentation state.

CONCLUSIONS

Labral repair and labral augmentation with either ITB allograft or the dermis allograft resulted in significantly lower peak force and work to equilibrium compared with the intact and rim prep states. There was no statistical difference between repair and augmentation states as well as no statistical difference between ITB allograft and dermal allograft at time zero.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study compares biomechanical properties of the suction seal of the hip comparing labral states including intact, rim preparation, repair, and augmentation, which can be used for surgical decision-making.

Acetabular Labral Reconstruction Does Not Demonstrate Superior Biomechanical Properties Compared to Labral Repair or Intact Native Labrum but Is Superior to Labral Excision: A Systematic Review of Cadaveric Studies

PURPOSE

To systematically review and compare biomechanical properties of labral reconstruction to labral repair, intact native labrum, and labral excision in cadaveric studies.

METHODS

A search of the PubMed and Embase databases was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and checklist. Cadaveric studies focused on hip biomechanics related to intact labrum, labral repair, labral reconstruction, labral augmentation, and labral excision were included. Investigated parameters included biomechanical data measures, such as distraction force, distance to suction seal rupture, peak negative pressure, contact area, and fluid efflux. Review articles, duplicates, technique reports, case reports, opinion articles, articles written in a language other than English, clinical studies focusing on patient-reported outcomes, studies performed in animals, and articles with no abstract available were also excluded.

RESULTS

Fourteen cadaveric biomechanical studies were included that compared labral reconstruction to labral repair (4 studies), labral reconstruction to labral excision (4 studies); and evaluation of distractive force of the labrum (3 studies), the distance to suction seal rupture (3 studies), fluid dynamics (2 studies), displacement at peak force (1 study), and stability ratio (1 study). Data pooling was not performed because of methodological heterogenicity of the studies. Labral reconstruction did not outperform labral repair in restoring the hip suction seal or any other biomechanical property. Labral repair significantly prevented greater fluid efflux when compared to labral reconstruction. Labral repair and reconstruction improved the distractive stability of the hip fluid seal from the labral tear and labral excision stage, respectively. Furthermore, labral reconstruction demonstrated to have better biomechanical properties than labral excision.

CONCLUSIONS

In cadaveric studies, labral repair or intact native labrum was biomechanically more superior than labral reconstruction; however, labral reconstruction can restore acetabular labral biomechanical properties and was biomechanically superior to labral excision.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In cadaveric models, labral repair outperforms segmental labral reconstruction in preserving the hip suction seal; nonetheless, segmental labral reconstruction biomechanically outperforms labral excision at time 0.

Labral Reconstruction via Capsular Augmentation Maintains Perfusion to the Acetabular Labrum and Locally Transferred Autograft: An in Vivo Laser Doppler Flowmetry Analysis

Background

The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of arthroscopic labral repair with capsular augmentation on blood flow in vivo with use of laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) to measure microvascular perfusion of the labrum and autograft tissue.

Methods

The present prospective case series included patients ≥18 years old who underwent arthroscopic acetabular labral repair with capsular augmentation; all procedures were performed by a single surgeon between 2018 and 2022. The LDF probe measured microvascular blood flow flux within 1 mm3 of the surrounding labral and capsular tissue of interest. Mean baseline measurements of flux were compared with readings immediately following capsular elevation and after completing labral augmentation. Blood flux changes were expressed as the percent change from the baseline measurements.

Results

The present study included 41 patients (24 men [58.5%] and 17 women [41.5%]) with a mean age (and standard deviation) of 31.3 ± 8.4 years, a mean BMI of 24.6 ± 3.4 kg/m2, a mean lateral center-edge of angle 35.3° ± 4.9°, a mean Tönnis angle of 5.8° ± 5.8°, and a mean arterial pressure of 93.7 ± 10.9 mm Hg. Following capsular elevation, the mean percent change in capsular blood flow flux was significantly different from baseline (-9.24% [95% confidence interval (CI), -18.1% to -0.04%]; p < 0.001). Following labral augmentation, the mean percent change in labral blood flow flux was significantly different from baseline both medially (-22.3% [95% CI, -32.7% to -11.9%]; p < 0.001) and laterally (-32.5% [95% CI, -41.5% to -23.6%]; p = 0.041). There was no significant difference between the changes in medial and lateral perfusion following repair (p = 0.136).

Conclusions

Labral repair with capsular augmentation sustains a reduced blood flow to the native labrum and capsular tissue at the time of fixation. The biological importance of this reduction is unknown, but these findings may serve as a benchmark for other labral preservation techniques and support future correlations with clinical outcomes.

Level of Evidence

Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Hip Joint Venting Decreases the Traction Force Required to Access the Central Compartment During Hip Arthroscopy

Purpose

To investigate the effect of hip joint venting on the magnitude of traction force required to arthroscopically access the central compartment of the hip.

Methods

Patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome prospectively underwent an intraoperative traction protocol. Joint space was measured on fluoroscopic images obtained at 50 and 100 lbs of axial traction in the prevented and vented state, and joint space values were normalized to millimetric values using preoperative anteroposterior pelvis radiographs. Venting was performed by inserting a large gauge spinal needle into the hip joint through the hip capsule and removing the stylet. Joint space differences were compared with paired t-tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and McNemar tests.

Results

Fifty hips in 46 patients were included. Mean joint space before venting was 7.4 ± 2.6 mm and 13.3 ± 2.8 mm at 50 and 100 lbs of traction, respectively. Mean joint space after venting was 13.9 ± 2.3 mm and 15.5 ± 2.4 mm at 50 and 100 lbs of traction, respectively. Mean differences in joint space at 50 and 100 lbs were 6.5 mm (P < .001) and 2.2 mm (P < .001), respectively. Mean joint space at 50 lbs in the vented state was significantly greater than in the pre-vented state at 100 lbs (13.9 mm vs. 13.3 mm; P = .002). The increase in joint space between 50 and 100 lbs of traction was significantly greater in the prevented state than in the vented state (5.9 mm vs 1.6 mm; P = .021).

Conclusions

Venting the hip reduces the traction force necessary to arthroscopically visualize and instrument the central compartment of the hip by at least 50%. Further, residual negative pressurization of the hip joint remains after breaking the labral suction seal and venting effectively eliminates this phenomenon to aid in hip joint distraction at lower traction force.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, case series.

Tissue Integration and Chondroprotective Potential of Acetabular Labral Augmentation with Autograft Tendon: Study of a Porcine Model

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to explore the tissue healing process and changes in articular cartilage following acetabular labral augmentation in a porcine model.

METHODS

The labrum was resected unilaterally from 10 o'clock to 1 o'clock on the capsular side in 36 pigs. Eighteen pigs underwent labral augmentation (AUG group) using autologous Achilles tendon. No additional procedures were performed in the remaining pigs (control group). The pigs were killed at 6, 12, or 24 weeks postoperatively for histological assessment and measurement of the inflammatory cytokines interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1β, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α in synovial fluid.

RESULTS

All autografts were well placed in the labral defect in the AUG group, and good integration of the autograft with the remnant chondrolabral junction was observed at 24 weeks; only scar tissue was observed in the control group at 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Fibrochondrocytes were concentrated at the transition between the autograft and native labrum at early time points, and the cells within the autograft labrum were predominantly fibrochondrocytes at 24 weeks. Rough and irregular articular cartilage surfaces were observed in 3 of the 6 samples in the AUG group at 24 weeks; the others appeared smooth. Focal cartilage erosion (predominantly in the acetabulum) occurred in all samples in the control group at 12 and 24 weeks. The Mankin score at 24 weeks was significantly lower in the AUG group than in the control group (mean [95% confidence interval]: 2.33 [1.06 to 3.6] versus 9 [8.06 to 9.94], p < 0.001). Likewise, the concentrations of all cytokines (in pg/mL) were significantly lower in the AUG group than in the control group at 24 weeks (IL-6: 166.6 [155.22 to 177.94] versus 245.9 [242.66 to 249.14], p < 0.001; IL-1β: 122.1 [116.4 to 127.83] versus 282.9 [280.29 to 285.51], p < 0.001; and TNF-α: 56.22 [53.15 to 59.29] versus 135 [131.66 to 138.24], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Autograft tendon used for labral augmentation was able to integrate well with the native labrum, which may help to preserve the articular cartilage.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Labral augmentation with autograft tendon may be a feasible option in cases of viable labral remnants.

Tissue Regrowth and Its Vascularization Through Bone Marrow Stimulation: Microfracture at the Acetabular Rim for Irreparable Labral Tear in a Porcine Model

BACKGROUND

The treatment of irreparable acetabular labral tear remains a great challenge. Whether fibrocartilage-like tissue can regrow with sufficient volume to fill the labral defect area through bone marrow stimulation remains unknown.

PURPOSE

To characterize the healing process and vascularization course of the regrown tissue after microfracture at the acetabular rim for irreparable labral tears in a porcine model.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive laboratory study.

METHODS

Twelve pigs randomly underwent unilateral microfracture at the acetabular rim after the resection of a 10 mm-long section of labrum from 10 to 1 o'clock. Pigs were randomly sacrificed at 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively. The regrown tissues were harvested for macroscopic evaluation and histologic assessment. The regrown tissue was zoned into 2 halves to observe the vascular distribution: the capsular half (zone I) and the articular half (zone II). Each zone was divided into 2 parts: the peripheral part (IA and IIA) and the part attached to the acetabulum (IB and IIB).

RESULTS

At 6 weeks, all regrown tissue was hypotrophic with <50% filling of the labral defect. Fibrochondrocytes were concentrated at the interface between the acetabulum and the regrown tissue. The vascularization was equal among each part within the regrown tissue. As compared with regrown tissue at 12 weeks, proteoglycan and collagen type 1 and 2 were more evident within the regrown tissue at 6 weeks. At 12 weeks, tissue disintegration occurred in all regrown tissue with <25% filling of the labral defect area. The vascular structure could barely be observed, with few fibrochondrocytes found at the area adjacent to the acetabulum.

CONCLUSION

Fibrocartilage-like tissue did regrow with well-distributed vascular ingrowth of each part of the regrown tissue through bone marrow stimulation at the early stage. However, insufficient volume of the regrown tissue led to loss of the hip suction seal and subsequent tissue disintegration.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Microfracture at the rim of the acetabulum alone could not restore the morphology and function of the acetabular labrum. Nonetheless, microfracture at the acetabular rim might be a viable adjunct to labral reconstruction, as the well-distributed vascularization through bone marrow stimulation might overcome the obstacle of poor vascular ingrowth of the articular half of the autograft.

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.

The Vascularization Course of Labral Autograft and Its Effect on Tissue Healing: Acetabular Labral Augmentation Versus Labral Reconstruction in a Porcine Model

BACKGROUND

The preservation of the native labral vascularization is assumed to be the potential advantage of acetabular labral augmentation, the effect of which remains unknown.

PURPOSE

To identify the vascular distribution within the labral autograft and its effect on the healing process between labral augmentation (AUG) and reconstruction (RECON) in a porcine model.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

A total of 36 pigs randomly underwent unilateral labral augmentation or reconstruction (AUG group, n = 18; RECON group, n = 18). The pigs were randomly sacrificed at 6, 12, and 24 weeks postoperatively. The labral autografts were harvested for macroscopic evaluation and histologic assessment. The labral autograft was zoned into 2 halves to observe the vascular distribution: the capsular half (zone I) and the articular half (zone II). Each zone was divided into 2 parts: the peripheral part (IA and IIA) and the part attached to the acetabulum (IB and IIB).

RESULTS

At 6 weeks, there existed more vascular ingrowth in zone I, whereas zone IIB appeared nearly avascular in both groups. At 12 weeks, the area with the greatest vascularity was zone II in the RECON group and zone IA in the AUG group. The vascularity was concentrated at zones IA and IIA in both groups at 24 weeks. The labral autografts were hypertrophic with sufficient filling of the labral defect in both groups at 6 weeks. At 12 weeks, an insufficient volume of the articular half was observed in 3 of 6 labral autografts in the RECON group, while all autografts remained well integrated with the chondrolabral junction in the AUG group. At 24 weeks, unsatisfactory merging of the labral autograft with the cartilage at the articular side was found in 2 of 6 labral autografts in the RECON group, which was not observed in the AUG group despite the sufficient volume of autografts labrum in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Slow vascular ingrowth within the articular half might account for the poor healing of the reconstructed labral autograft. Labral augmentation provides the possibility of better tissue healing because of the preservation of the original chondrolabral junction compared with labral reconstruction.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Labral augmentation might be a feasible alternative to labral reconstruction under the condition of viable labral remnants.

Midterm Outcomes After Hip Labral Augmentation in Revision Hip Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

Labral augmentation has emerged as an essential procedure to address a deficient or irreparable labrum while preserving native labral tissue and restoring the hip suction seal mechanism.

PURPOSE

To evaluate midterm outcomes of arthroscopic hip labral augmentation for labral insufficiency after previous hip arthroscopy.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Patients were identified from a prospectively collected database who underwent arthroscopic hip labral augmentation between January 2011 and January 2017 with a minimum 3-year follow-up. Pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome scores were compared and included the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey physical and mental component summaries, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Hip Outcome Score (HOS) (Activities of Daily Living [ADL] and Sport). Postoperative Tegner Activity Scale and patient satisfaction (1-10) scores were also evaluated. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) between the preoperative and minimum 3-year follow-up scores were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 88 patients (39 men, 49 women) underwent revision hip arthroscopy with labral augmentation. The average age was 32.8 ± 11 years. Of these, 77 patients (88%) were available for the minimum 3-year follow-up. The survivorship (absence of conversion to total hip arthroplasty) at 3 years and 5 years was 93% at both time points, with a mean survival time of 8.5 years (95% CI, 8.0-8.9). Eleven patients (14%) required revision arthroscopic surgery for continued pain. Revisions occurred at a mean of 2.6 ± 1.4 years after augmentation. The mean follow-up was 5.2 ± 1.2 years (range, 3-9 years). For patients not requiring subsequent surgery (n = 61), all patient-reported outcome measures significantly improved, which included a 20-point increase in HOS-ADL (MCID, 82%; PASS, 72%) and mHHS (MCID, 78%; PASS, 70%). The median postoperative Tegner score was 4 (range, 1-10). The median postoperative patient satisfaction score was 9 out of 10 (range, 1-10).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic hip labral augmentation is a successful treatment option for patients with labral insufficiency after previous hip arthroscopy, demonstrating improved patient-reported outcomes and survivorship of 93% at 3 years and 5 years. This technique provides a valuable labral preservation option when addressing hip labral pathology when viable native labral tissue remains.