Multicenter Outcomes After Primary Hip Arthroscopy: A Comparative Analysis of Two-Year Outcomes After Labral Repair, Segmental Labral Reconstruction, or Circumferential Labral Reconstruction

Secondary Hip Labral Reconstruction Yields Inferior Minimum 2-Year Functional Outcomes to Primary Reconstruction Despite Comparable Intraoperative Labral Characteristics

PURPOSE

To compare intraoperative labral characteristics and minimum 2-year functional outcomes of allograft labral reconstruction in primary versus revision hip arthroscopy across multiple orthopaedic centers.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter hip arthroscopy registry was queried for patients with completed labral reconstruction surgeries from January 2014 to March 2023 with completed 2-year international Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) reports. Age, sex, and major intraoperative variables also were collected. Patients were placed in cohorts based on whether their arthroscopic allograft labral reconstruction was a primary procedure or secondary procedure (reconstruction following failed hip arthroscopy). One-way analysis of variance was performed on continuous variables. χ2 test was performed on categorical variables. Achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) also was assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 77 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and had complete information. The primary reconstruction group (n = 50) was significantly older than the secondary reconstruction group (n = 27) (47.5 ± 10.5 vs 39.1 ± 8.8 years; P = .001). In both cohorts, most patients had labral bruising, advanced labral degeneration, and/or grade III complexity of labral tearing. There was no difference in any recorded intraoperative findings (P = .160, P = .783, P = .357, respectively). Each cohort experienced significant improvement in iHOT-12 scores (P < .0001). However, patients undergoing secondary labral reconstruction reported inferior iHOT-12 scores (60.1 ± 29.2 vs 74.8 ± 27.0; P = .030). Patients undergoing primary reconstruction were more likely to reach MCID, PASS, and nearly normal SCB (92 vs 66.7%, P = .024; 68.0 vs 40.7%, P = .021; 76.0 vs 48.1%, P = .014, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary and secondary allograft labral reconstruction show clinical improvement, but primary reconstruction demonstrates better outcomes and greater percentage of patients reaching MCID, PASS, and nearly normal SCB than reconstruction in the revision setting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic case-control study.

The Use of Combined Hip Arthroscopy and Periacetabular Osteotomy for Hip Dysplasia Is Increasing and Has Low Complication Rates

Purpose

To analyze the annual use of hip arthroscopy (HA) and Bernese periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for the treatment of hip dysplasia (HD), as well as postoperative outcomes, including ipsilateral reoperations.

Methods

International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision, codes were used to query the PearlDiver Mariner database from January 2010 through January 2022 to identify patients aged 10 to 59 years who had a presenting diagnosis of HD and subsequently underwent (1) HA; (2) PAO; or (3) combined HA and PAO (HA-PAO, defined as PAO on the same day or within 28 days after HA). We analyzed annual rates for each treatment, as well as rates of postoperative emergency visits, readmissions, and 5-year ipsilateral secondary operations (determined via Kaplan-Meier analysis).

Results

There were 32,068 patients who underwent surgical treatment of HD. For HA, PAO, and HA-PAO, there were 29,700, 2,083, and 285 patients, respectively. All operations had the greatest percent-increase from 2015 to 2016. HA and HA-PAO peaked in 2021, whereas PAO peaked in 2019. For HA, PAO, and HA-PAO, most cases were performed in female patients and patients aged 30 to 49 years, 10 to 19 years, and 10 to 29 years, respectively. The 5-year incidence of ipsilateral secondary operations, which include revision HA, PAO, or conversion to total hip arthroplasty, was 9.2% (95% confidence interval 8.6%-9.8%) in the HA group and 6.5% (95% confidence interval 4.1%-8.8%) in the PAO group. Combining HA with PAO resulted in so few secondary operations that Kaplan-Meier analysis was infeasible. The PAO cohort had the greatest 30-day emergency visit and 90-day readmission rates, with infection as the most common cause for readmission.

Conclusions

HA is more frequently performed than PAO for hip dysplasia. HA-PAO is increasing at the greatest rate, demonstrating fewer complications and reoperations.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative trial.

Labral repair, reconstruction, and augmentation improve postoperative outcomes in patients with irreparable or hypoplastic labra: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To review the postoperative outcomes of arthroscopic surgical options in treating irreparable and hypoplastic labrum of the hip.

METHODS

Three online databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) were searched from database inception to June 27, 2023 to identify literature on treatment strategies for hypoplastic/irreparable acetabular labrum. Data pertaining to classification of irreparable tears or labral hypoplasia, indication for surgery, description of treatment, radiographic findings, and clinical outcomes were recorded and described. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed by the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria.

RESULTS

Seven level IV case series, eleven level III retrospective cohort studies, and two level II prospective cohort studies comprising 1937 patients were included for analysis. Studies were divided into an irreparable labral group comprising 1002 patients and a hypoplastic labral group comprising 935 patients. Treatments included repair, augmentation, or reconstruction. In the irreparable group, 12 studies recorded improvement of modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) with preoperative scores ranging from 50.3 to 67.3 and postoperative scores ranging from 76.2 to 95.0. The rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) and rate of revision arthroscopy were 6.6% and 5.9%, respectively across all studies. In the hypoplastic group, two studies that focused on repair noted no statistical difference in mHHS for repair in hypoplastic labrum vs repair in non-hypoplastic labrum. One study showed that there was a difference in post-operative mHHS for labral repair for hypoplastic vs non-hypoplastic labrum, with repair in non-hypoplastic labrum showing superior mHHS (p ​< ​0.001).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this review suggest that treatment of irreparable labra with reconstruction or augmentation results in improved patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). For the hypoplastic labrum, primary repair also results in improvement in PROMs. Future studies focusing on the hypoplastic labra alone with an appropriate control group, rather than irreparable labral tears, are needed to properly assess patient outcomes and guide surgical indications.

Comparison of Pain Scores and Functional Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Hip Labral Repair and Concomitant Capsular Repair or Plication Versus No Closure

Background

The need for capsular closure during arthroscopic hip labral repair is debated.

Purpose

To compare pain and functional outcomes in patients undergoing arthroscopic hip labral repair with concomitant repair or plication of the capsule versus no closure.

Study Design

Cohort study.

Methods

Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing arthroscopic hip labral repair with concomitant repair or plication of the capsule versus no closure at up to 2 years postoperatively and with stratification by age and sex. Patients with lateral center-edge angle <20°, a history of instability, a history of prior arthroscopic surgery in the ipsilateral hip, or a history of labral debridement only were excluded. Subanalysis was performed between patients undergoing no capsular closure who were propensity score matched 1:1 with patients undergoing repair or plication based on age, sex, and preoperative Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS). We compared patients who underwent T-capsulotomy with concomitant capsular closure matched 1:5 with patients who underwent an interportal capsulotomy with concomitant capsular repair based on age, sex, and preoperative MHHS.

Results

Patients undergoing capsular closure (n = 1069), compared with the no-closure group (n = 230), were more often female (68.6% vs 53.0%, respectively; P < .001), were younger (36.4 ± 13.3 vs 47.9 ± 14.7 years; P < .001), and had superior MHHS scores at 2 years postoperatively (85.8 ± 14.5 vs 81.8 ± 18.4, respectively; P = .020). In the matched analysis, no difference was found in outcome measures between patients in the capsular closure group (n = 215) and the no-closure group (n = 215) at any follow-up timepoint. No significant difference was seen between the 2 closure techniques at any follow-up timepoint. Patients with closure of the capsule achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the 1-year MHHS at a similar rate as those without closure (MCID, 50.3% vs 44.9%, P = .288; PASS, 56.8% vs 51.1%, P = .287, respectively). Patients with T-capsulotomy achieved the MCID and the PASS for the 1-year MHHS at a similar rate compared with those with interportal capsulotomy (MCID, 50.1% vs 44.9%, P = .531; PASS, 65.7% vs 61.2%, P = .518, respectively).

Conclusion

When sex, age, and preoperative MHHS were controlled, capsular closure and no capsular closure after arthroscopic hip labral repair were associated with similar pain and functional outcomes for patients up to 2 years postoperatively.

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 Repair and Selective Labral Debridement Show No Significant Difference in Clinical Outcomes at a Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To compare the outcomes of arthroscopic labral repair using looped type suture with a matched-pair selective labral debridement with a minimum 2-years follow-up.

METHODS

We identified 378 patients undergoing primary arthroscopic labral repair using loop-suture and selective labral debridement from January 2, 2018, to December 28, 2020. The labral repair group was matched 1:1 to a selective labral debridement control group by age, sex, body mass index, follow-up period, lateral center-edge angle, Tönnis grade, and preoperative joint space. Before surgery, 3-Tesla radial magnetic resonance imaging with a 3-dimensional double-echo steady-state sequence was obtained following failed nonoperative treatment lasting more than 3 months. Follow-up imaging was conducted at a minimum of 2 years. In both groups, the ratio of positive slices in which a disrupted chondrolabral junction was observed between the 2 o'clock and 11 o'clock positions was measured. Patient-reported outcome scores included the Harris Hip Score, visual analog score, Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living Subscale, and Hip Outcome Score of Sport-Specific Subscale.

RESULTS

In total, 76 patients of the repair group were matched to 76 controls with a minimum 2-years follow-up (repair vs control: 2.6 ± 0.4 vs 2.6 ± 0.4 years, P = .775). The repair group experienced a 2-fold improvement (0.6 ± 0.1 to 0.3 ± 0.1, P＜.001). Although the selective debridement group experienced a 3-fold improvement (0.3 ± 0.1 to 0.1 ± 0.1, P＜.001). Significant improvement of the patient-reported outcome was shown in both groups at final follow-up without significant difference between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The mid-term clinical outcomes are comparable between the labral repair using looped type suture and selective labral debridement group. Although a gap between the labrum and articular cartilage may appear in 3-dimensional double-echo steady-state magnetic resonance imaging results after labral repair, it does not correspond with clinical outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Acetabular Labral Reconstruction: Review of Techniques and Outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To analyze advances in labral reconstruction, and to discuss the literature relating to efficacy, outcomes, and technical considerations of labral reconstruction.

RECENT FINDINGS

The available evidence suggests that labral reconstruction is a safe and effective procedure that can improve pain and function in patients with severe and/or complex labral tears. The superiority of labral reconstruction over labral repair is uncertain, and it remains unclear what graft type and technique should be used in labral reconstructions. Labral reconstruction assists in restoring the function of the labrum of the hip. It consistently restores stability of the hip joint and demonstrates good clinical outcomes at follow-up. The optimal graft type, technique, and extent are still debated, and more research is needed. Ultimately, despite this uncertainty, labral reconstruction is proving to be a valuable tool for hip preservation specialists.

Modified Loop Suture Technique in Arthroscopic Labral Repair of the Hip

Hip arthroscopy is rapidly increasing in case volume annually in the United States. However, it remains a challenging surgery with a steep learning curve. Labral repair is commonly performed to preserve the labrum rather than labral debridement or reconstruction. Many techniques have been described for labral repair. In this technical note, we describe our technique for a modified loop suture technique for arthroscopic labral repair of the hip.

Treatment of Severe Pincer-Type Femoroacetabular Impingement With Arthroscopic Significant Acetabular Rim Correction and Circumferential Labral Reconstruction Improves Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

PURPOSE

To validate an arthroscopic approach for performing significant acetabular rim correction and circumferential labral reconstruction required to treat severe pincer-type femoroacetabular impingement.

METHODS

Using a minimum of 2-year follow-up, data from 48 hips, including 47 patients (11 male, 36 female; mean age of 42 years) having undergone significant arthroscopic acetabuloplasty for severe pincer impingement (center edge angle >45°) with concomitant circumferential allograft labral reconstruction were analyzed to determine improvements in patient-reported outcomes and degree of radiographic correction.

RESULTS

Findings demonstrated a 98% success rate, including substantial improvements on all radiographic measurements and patient-reported outcomes. Minimal clinically important differences were met with extremely strong measures of effect. The mean center edge angle improved from 49° to 36° (MΔ = 13.96, P ≤ .001, standard deviation [SD] = 55.97, confidence interval [CI] 12.17- 15.62, d = 2.33) and the mean Tönnis angle improved from -6° to 0° (MΔ = 6.2, P ≤ .001, SD = 2.76 CI -7.1 to -5.39, d = 2.29). Modified Hip Harris Scores improved by a mean of 34.45 points (P ≤ .001, SD = 20.64, 95% CI 28.45-40.44, d = 1.66). Lower extremity functional scale scores improved by a mean of 27.35 points (P ≤ .001, SD = 18.37, 95% CI 22.02-32.69, d =1.48). No complications were reported. One case converted to a total hip arthroplasty (2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings validated that the significant acetabular rim correction required to treat severe pincer morphology is safe and feasible via an arthroscopic approach. This, in addition to concomitant circumferential allograft labral reconstruction, resulted in improvement in patient-reported outcomes and radiographic measurements.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case-series.

Labral Degeneration Predicts Inferior Mid-Term Outcomes in Hip Labral Repair: A Multicenter Comparative Analysis

PURPOSE

To analyze and compare the mid-term outcomes of hip arthroscopy for patients with and without labral degeneration from multiple orthopaedic centers. The purpose of this research is to develop an understanding of the impacts of labral degeneration on patient outcomes following arthroscopic treatment of labral tears.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter hip arthroscopy registry was queried for primary surgeries from January 2014 to October 2017 with completed 2-year International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) reports. Patients were placed into cohorts based on the presence or absence of labral degeneration noted intraoperatively during hip arthroscopy. Degeneration was defined as yellowing, ossification, or calcification present in at least 50% of the labrum. Differences in baseline variation between groups were assessed with a Wilcoxon rank-sum test or χ² test. Two-year outcomes were assessed with iHOT-12. Multivariate logistic regression models were fitted while controlling for age, body mass index, sex, and preoperative iHOT-12 scores to identify significant predictors of achieving the clinically significant thresholds of minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient-acceptable symptom scale.

RESULTS

In total, 735 patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 613 had complete outcomes information. Relative to the control group, the labral degeneration group was significantly older (mean age 44 ± 11 years vs 33 ± 12 years; P < .01). Both groups experienced statistically significant improvement in iHOT-12 scores from baseline to final follow-up (P < .001); however, patients with labral degeneration reported inferior 2-year iHOT-12 scores when compared with patients without degeneration (P < .001). In the logistic regression models, labral degeneration was a significant negative predictor of achieving iHOT-12 minimal clinically important difference (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.28-0.79), patient acceptable symptom state (OR 0.50; 95 CI 0.32-0.77), and substantial clinical benefit (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.37-0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our study conclude that patients with nondegenerative labral tissue at the time of repair have superior patient-reported outcomes at mid-term follow-up. The presence of labral degeneration was a negative predictor of achieving clinically significant thresholds after controlling for patient age, body mass index, sex, and baseline iHOT-12 scores.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.

Primary Arthroscopic Labral Management: Labral Repair and Complete Labral Reconstruction Both Offer Durable, Promising Results at Minimum 5-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Increased understanding of the acetabular labrum's role in hip joint biomechanics has led to a greater focus on the conservation and restoration of normal labral anatomic characteristics; however, labral repair is often not possible in the setting of severe intrasubstance damage or deficiency.

PURPOSE

To compare 5-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes between hips treated with primary complete arthroscopic labral reconstruction and those treated with primary labral repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

All hips that underwent primary labral repair or reconstruction by the senior surgeon between January 2015 and December 2015 were included. Hips that had undergone a previous intra-articular procedure were excluded. Visual analog scales and patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments were completed by patients within 1 week before surgery as a baseline measurement, between 22 and 26 months postoperatively for 2-year outcomes, and between 58 and 62 months for 5-year outcomes. PRO scores collected included the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool, and the visual analog scale for pain and satisfaction. Pain and satisfaction were assessed using visual analog scales.

RESULTS

A total of 68 primary labral repairs and 62 primary complete labral reconstructions were included in the final analysis. Patients in the reconstruction cohort were older (38.3 vs 29.9 years; P < .001), had a higher incidence of severe labral tearing (62.90% vs 5.88%; P < .001), required a greater number of concomitant procedures (P < .001), and were more likely to have Beck grade III or IV chondral damage (12.94% vs 1.47%; P < .001). Both groups demonstrated statistically significant increases in outcome scores at minimum 5-year follow-up. Patients who underwent labral reconstruction had a significantly greater increase in mHHS from the preoperative assessment to latest follow-up compared with patients undergoing labral repair (27.43 vs 17.13; P = .04). No statistically significant differences between the 2 cohorts were found in achievement of minimal clinically important difference, Patient Acceptable Symptom State, maximum outcome improvement, and substantial clinical benefit at latest follow-up (P > .05). In total, 2 patients in the repair cohort and 3 patients in the reconstruction cohort required revision arthroscopy (P = .574). Further, 1 patient from each group converted to arthroplasty (P = .947).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that primary complete labral reconstruction is a viable surgical option for hips with moderate to severe labral pathology. At minimum 5-year follow-up, labral reconstruction produced similar outcomes to labral repair despite less favorable preoperative patient characteristics in the reconstruction cohort.

Minimum 5-Year Outcomes After Primary Segmental Labral Reconstruction for Irreparable Labral Tears in the Hip With Hamstring Grafts: With a Subanalysis Comparing Autograft Versus Allograft

BACKGROUND

Comparable short-term outcomes have been obtained using hamstring allografts versus autografts after primary segmental labral reconstruction (SLR). Midterm results have not yet been determined.

PURPOSE

(1) To evaluate minimum 5-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores in patients who underwent primary SLR with hamstring grafts in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and irreparable labral tears and (2) to compare the outcomes of hamstring autografts versus allografts in a subanalysis using propensity-matched groups.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy between September 2010 and November 2015. Patients were included if they underwent SLR using hamstring autografts or allografts and had preoperative and minimum 5-year PROs. The exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions, dysplasia, or Tönnis grade >1. Patients with autograft SLR were propensity matched 1 to 1 based on age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) to patients who underwent SLR using hamstring allografts. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 48 patients (N = hips 48) were eligible to be included in this study, and 41 patients (n = 41 hips [85.4%]) had a minimum 5-year follow-up reporting significant improvements in all PROs. Within the entire cohort, 9.8% required a secondary arthroscopy, with a mean time of 19 ± 1.8 months, and survivorship was 82.9%. Of the 41 included patients, 15 underwent an SLR with a hamstring autograft and were matched to 15 patients with labral reconstruction using a hamstring allograft. Groups were similar for sex (P > .999), age (P = .775), and BMI (P = .486). The mean follow-up times were 80.8 ± 25.5 and 66.1 ± 8.3 months (P = .223) for the autograft and allograft groups, respectively. Baseline PROs, preoperative radiographic measurements, surgical findings, and intraoperative procedures were similar. The groups achieved significant and comparable improvements for all PROs (P < .0001), satisfaction (P = .187), and the rate of achieving the MCID and the PASS. However, a tendency for higher postoperative PROs favoring allograft reconstruction was found.

CONCLUSION

At a minimum 5-year follow-up, patients who underwent primary arthroscopic SLR in the context of FAIS and irreparable labra, with either autograft or allograft hamstring tendons, reported significant improvements and comparable postoperative scores for all PROs, patient satisfaction, MCID, and PASS.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy With Labral Reconstruction for Irreparable Labral Tears in Athletes: Minimum 2-Year Outcomes With a Benchmark Control Group

BACKGROUND

The incidence of revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction in athletes is increasing. However, the outcomes of revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction in athletes have not been well established.

PURPOSES

(1) To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores and return to sports (RTS) characteristics for high-level athletes undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction and (2) to compare clinical results with those of a propensity-matched control group of high-level athletes undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with labral repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed for athletes at any level who underwent a revision hip arthroscopy and a labral reconstruction between April 2010 and March 2019. Minimum 2-year PROs were reported for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), the Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and RTS. The percentages of athletes achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold (MOIST) were also recorded. These patients were propensity matched in a 1: 1 ratio to athletes undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with labral repair for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 46 athletes (N = 47 hips) were reported from 50 (n = 51 hips) athletes who underwent revision with labral reconstruction. A subanalysis of 30 propensity-matched athletes undergoing revision labral reconstruction was performed, with a mean follow-up time of 26.3 ± 2.4 months and an age of 28.5 ± 10.1 years, and compared with a revision labral repair group. Significant improvements were obtained for the mHHS, the NAHS, the HOS-SSS, and the VAS from preoperative to the latest follow-up (P < .001), with an achievement MCID rate of 61.5%, 72%, 62.5%, and 76.9% for the mHHS, the NAHS, the HOS-SSS, and the VAS, respectively. The rate for re-revision surgery (2 tertiary arthroscopy and 1 conversion to total hip arthroplasty) was 10%, and 14 patients (63.6%) were able to RTS. Improvements in PROs, rates of achieving MCID/MOIST, rate of re-revision surgery (re-revision hip arthroscopy, P = .671; conversion to total hip arthroplasty, P > .999), and RTS rate (P = .337) were similar when compared with those of the propensity-matched control labral repair group (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction, in the context of an irreparable labral tear, seems to be a valid treatment option in the athletic population, demonstrating significant improvements in all PROs and low rates of undergoing revision surgery. Athletes experienced a similar magnitude of improvement in PROs, RTS rate, and revision surgery rate to that of a propensity-matched control group of athletes undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with labral repair.

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.

Allograft Labral Reconstruction of the Hip: Expanding Evidence Supporting Greater Utilization in Hip Arthroscopy

Purpose of Review

The current review investigates outcomes and failure rates associated with arthroscopic circumferential allograft labral reconstruction of the hip, both as a revision and primary procedure in treating femoroacetabular hip impingement and labral-related pathology.

Recent Findings

Numerous studies within the last decade have demonstrated excellent patient-reported outcomes, high rates of return-to-play in athletes, and low failure rates in patients having undergone arthroscopic circumferential allograft labral reconstruction of the hip. Removal of chronically diseased and injured labral tissue can eliminate a significant pain-generator from the hip joint. Additionally, circumferential reconstruction of the labrum restores the hoop fiber strength and fluid seal akin to what would be seen with native, healthy labral tissue. Recent research has shown that arthroscopic circumferential allograft labral reconstruction may be used not only in the revision setting, but as a primary procedure. Circumferential labral reconstruction should be considered when a surgeon feels that the labrum is irreparable or has failed previous repair.

Summary

Arthroscopic circumferential allograft labral reconstruction of the hip can be utilized as treatment option not only in revision settings, but also in primary treatment for femoroacetabular impingement and labral pathology

Editorial Commentary: Hip Primary Labral Repair Versus Reconstruction: Equally Successful Outcomes Can Be Achieved Based on Proper Indications

One of the core principles of hip arthroscopy is preservation of the acetabular labrum. Compromise of the biomechanical function of the labrum underlies a significant symptom source in patients undergoing hip preservation surgery. As surgical techniques continue to improve and evolve beyond labral repair, increased use of advanced arthroscopic procedures like segmental and circumferential reconstruction shed further light on the optimal labral intervention. In the revision setting, labral deficiency warrants labral reconstruction or augmentation. Both segmental and circumferential techniques may significantly improve patient-reported outcomes. However, in the primary setting, controversy exists not necessarily in the surgical technique, but more in the indications to perform which specific labral intervention. Reasonable indications for primary labral reconstruction include a calcified or ossified labrum, irreparable labral tissue, and hypotrophy of the labrum (less than 2-3 mm) with a proven deficient suction seal without resistance to axial distraction. Short-term multicenter studies demonstrate similar success rates between primary labral reconstruction and repair using validated patient-report outcome scores. Mid- and long-term clinical and economic investigations comparing labral reconstruction and repair are needed to determine the role of primary reconstruction in modern arthroscopic hip preservation surgery.