Arthroscopic acetabular labral reconstruction with rectus femoris tendon autograft: Our experiences and early results

Mid- to Long-Term Outcomes in Patients After Hip Arthroscopy With Labral Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Background

There is a paucity of aggregate data documenting mid- to long-term outcomes of patients after hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction.

Purpose

To report mid- to long-term outcomes in patients after undergoing either primary or revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction for the treatment of irreparable labral tears.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

A systematic review of the PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases in May 2022 was conducted with the following keywords: "hip arthroscopy,""labral reconstruction,""irreparable,""labrum,""reconstruction,""five-year,""midterm,""5 year,""long-term,""10 year," ten-year," and "femoroacetabular impingement" using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. Midterm was defined as mean 5-year follow-up, and long-term was defined as mean 10-year or longer follow-up. For each included article, the demographic, radiographic, intraoperative, and surgical variables, as well as patient-reported outcomes (PROs), psychometric thresholds, and secondary surgeries were recorded. Forest plots were created for PROs that were reported in ≥3 studies; heterogeneity was assessed using I2 values.

Results

Out of 463 initial articles, 5 studies including 178 hips with primary and 41 hips with revision surgeries were included. One study had an average 5-year follow-up, three studies had a minimum 5-year follow-up and one study had a minimum 10-year follow-up. The most common indications for hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction were irreparable labral tears. The most common PRO was the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), which was reported in all 5 studies. The mean preoperative mHHS ranged from 58.9 to 66, and the mean postoperative mHHS at minimum 5-year follow-up ranged from 80.2 to 89. The preoperative and postoperative mHHSs for the single long-term follow-up study were 60 and 82, respectively. All 5 studies demonstrated significant improvements in reported PROs. All 5 studies reported secondary surgery rates, with 1 study reporting rates at both 5- and 10-year follow-up. Conversion to total hip arthroplasty ranged from 0% to 27%, while overall secondary surgery rates ranged from 0% to 36%.

Conclusion

Findings demonstrated that patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction experienced favorable outcomes and high rates of clinical benefit and survivorship at mid- to long-term follow-up.

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.

No Difference in Most Reported Outcome Measures for Allograft Versus Autograft for Hip Labral Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

PURPOSE

To systematically review studies comparing outcomes of allograft versus autograft for hip labral reconstruction.

METHODS

A systematic review following guidelines established by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) was performed in 3 databases using the terms "labrum," "hip," "acetabulum," "reconstruction," "augmentation," "allograft," and "autograft." Data on study characteristics, patient demographic characteristics, follow-up time, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), rates of revision surgery, and rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were collected.

RESULTS

Three studies were included, with Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) scores ranging from 17 to 23. Among 92 patients receiving allografts, the mean ages ranged from 30.6 to 34.8 years; mean follow-up times, from 34.6 to 66.1 months; revision rates, from 0% to 23.6%; and conversion-to-THA rates, from 0% to 20%. Among 185 patients receiving autografts, the mean ages ranged from 34.6 to 35.9 years; mean follow-up times, from 32.7 to 80.8 months; revision rates, from 0% to 7.3%; and conversion-to-THA rates, from 0% to 6.7%. One study reported significantly higher revision rates in the allograft group. All studies reported no statistically significant differences in postoperative PROs, and all postoperative PROs significantly improved compared with preoperative PROs. Rates of achievement of the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state, reported by 1 study, were statistically similar between the 2 groups and ranged from 55.6% to 100% for the allograft group and from 53.8% to 84.6% for the autograft group.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences between allograft and autograft patients in terms of postoperative PROs; however, all PRO measures were slightly higher in allograft patients. Both revision and conversion-to-THA rates were higher in allograft patients in 2 studies, with the level of significance being reached in terms of revision in 1 study. The third study reported zero revisions and conversions to THA in allograft and autograft patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.

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

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.].

Minimum 2-Year Functional Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Capsular Autograft Hip Labral Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of literature on arthroscopic capsular autograft labral reconstruction.

PURPOSE

To report midterm functional outcomes for patients undergoing acetabular labral repair with capsular autograft labral reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case series of prospectively collected data on patients who underwent arthroscopic acetabular labral repair by the senior surgeon between March 2013 and August 2018. The inclusion criteria for this study were adult patients aged 18 years or older who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for arthroscopic capsular autograft labral reconstruction. Exclusion criteria were <2 years of postoperative follow-up, elective disenrollment from study before 2-year follow-up, or repeat ipsilateral hip surgery before 2-year follow-up. Intraoperatively, patients underwent capsular autograft hip labral reconstruction if they were found to have a labrum with hypoplastic tissue (width <5 mm), complex tearing, or frank degeneration of native tissue. Clinical outcome data consisted of patient-reported outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 97 hips (94 patients) met the inclusion criteria with a mean final follow-up of 28.2 months (95% CI, 26.0-30.4). Patients had a mean age of 39.0 years (95% CI, 36.8-41.2) with a mean body mass index of 25.8 (95% CI, 24.9-26.7). When compared with baseline (40.4 [95% CI, 36.7-44.2]), the mean international Hip-Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33) scores were significantly greater at 3-month (60.9 [95% CI, 56.8-64.9]; P < .001), 6-month (68.8 [95% CI, 64.7-72.9]; P < .001), 12-month (73.2 [95% CI, 68.9-77.5]; P < .001), and final (76.6 [95% CI, 72.4-80.8]; P < .001) follow-up. At 2-year follow-up, 76.3%, 65.5%, and 60.8% of patients' iHOT-33 scores exceeded clinically meaningful outcome thresholds for minimally clinically important difference (MCID), patient-acceptable symptomatic state, and substantial clinical benefit, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of 97 hips undergoing arthroscopic labral repair with capsular autograft labral reconstruction, we found favorable outcomes that exceeded the MCID thresholds in the majority of patients at a mean 28.2 months' follow-up. Future studies should compare outcomes between this technique and other methods of autograft and allograft reconstruction to determine differences in patient-reported outcomes, donor-site morbidity, and complications.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy in the Native Hip: A Review of Contemporary Evaluation and Treatment Options

Hip arthroscopy is a reproducible and efficacious procedure for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Despite this efficacy, clinical failures are observed, clinical entities are challenging to treat, and revision hip arthroscopy may be required. The most common cause of symptom recurrence after a hip arthroscopy that leads to a revision arthroscopy is residual cam morphology as a result of inadequate femoral osteochondroplasty and restoration of head–neck offset, though several other revision etiologies including progressive chondral and labral pathologies also exist. In these cases, it is imperative to perform a comprehensive examination to identify the cause of a failed primary arthroscopy as to assess whether or not a revision hip arthroscopy procedure is indicated. When a secondary procedure is indicated, approaches may consist of revision labral repair, complete labral reconstruction, or labral augmentation depending on labral integrity. Gross instability or imaging-based evidence of microinstability may necessitate capsular augmentation or plication. If residual cam or pincer morphology is present, additional resection of the osseous abnormalities may be warranted. This review article discusses indications, the evaluation of patients with residual symptoms after primary hip arthroscopy, and the evaluation of outcomes following revision hip arthroscopy through an evidence-based discussion. We also present a case example of a revision hip arthroscopy procedure to highlight necessary intraoperative techniques during a revision hip arthroscopy.

Hip Labral Reconstruction with Capsular Autograft Augmentation

Multiple treatment options are available for patients presenting with a torn or deficient acetabular labrum. Biomechanical studies have demonstrated that the acetabular labrum may play a role in decreasing the risk of osteoarthritis and in maintaining long-term hip kinematics and stability. As such, repair or reconstruction of the labrum is often preferred over resection or debridement. In instances of a hypoplastic labrum, labral reconstruction or augmentation may be necessary even in a primary setting. Although reconstruction is a technique that should be in any hip arthroscopist's toolkit, allografts can be expensive and may not always be available when needed. In this Technical Note, we describe a labral augmentation with capsular autograft that diminishes donor-site morbidity associated with fascia lata autografts. This technique enables incorporation of healthy capsular tissue that allows for the recreation of the suction seal while avoiding some of the technically challenging aspects and costs of the conventional allograft labral reconstruction.

Technical Pearls for Arthroscopic Labral Augmentation of the Hip

Our recent understanding of the importance of the acetabular labral suction seal has placed preserving labral integrity as a guiding principle in hip preservation surgery. In cases with a hypoplastic labrum and intact chondrolabral junction, labral augmentation presents as a viable alternative and an often preferred treatment option over labral reconstruction. At this time, there are few studies that have described the technical pearls of performing labral augmentation of the hip. In this technique guide, we describe, in detail, the kite technique for the introduction, control, and acetabular fixation of a hip labral augmentation graft. Comparable to flying a kite with 2 fly lines and to the previously described kite technique for hip labral reconstruction, the kite technique for labral augmentation is based on the principle that the use of 2 control sutures in a pulley system creates an efficient method to accurately and reproducibly facilitate graft passage and fixation during arthroscopic labral augmentation procedures.

Characterizing irreparable: a retrospective machine learning analysis of patients who undergo primary labral reconstruction during hip arthroscopy

Hip labrum reconstruction has been demonstrated to be a viable option for patients with irreparable labral tears. However, there is a lack of data analyzing patient and labral characteristics in those undergoing primary hip labral reconstruction. To use a machine learning technique to subcategorize patients who underwent labral reconstruction during primary hip arthroscopy and to determine if there may be varying pathology resulting in severe labral damage. Patients who underwent primary labral reconstruction between 2015 and 2018 were included. Patients with a prior ipsilateral hip surgery, who were unwilling to participate, or had incomplete preoperative data were excluded. Agglomerative hierarchical clustering analysis was conducted to identify the subgroups of patients. A comparison was performed for preoperative characteristics, intraoperative findings and procedures. Of the 191 patients who underwent primary labral reconstruction and were eligible, 174 were included in the clustering analysis. Two distinct groups were identified (Group 1: 112 patients, 64.4%; Group 2: 62 patients, 35.6%). Group 1 had a significantly higher proportion of females (61.6% versus 43.5%; P &lt; 0.05), combined Seldes I and II labral tears (94.6% versus 54.8%; P &lt; 0.05), and larger tears. Group 2 had a significantly higher rate of labral calcification (82.3% versus 3.6%; P &lt; 0.05). The results of this study demonstrate two distinct groups of patients who underwent primary hip labral reconstruction: those with severe labral damage, and those with a calcified labrum. Approximately two-thirds were placed in the group with severe labral damage, while the other third had diminished quality secondary to calcific changes. Retrospective comparative trial; Level of Evidence, 3.

Graft Options in Hip Labral Reconstruction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The last decade has seen a boom in hip arthroscopy with refined indications. Improved understanding of pathoanatomy and disease progression has allowed for the development of advanced techniques. Labral reconstruction has been developed to substitute a non-functional or absent labrum. It has become an important technique in the armamentarium of high-volume arthroscopic hip surgeons.

RECENT FINDINGS

Basic science studies have improved understanding of hip biomechanics in the presence and absence of a labrum with a labral reconstruction allowing for reconstitution of normalcy. Current techniques have shown success with autograft and allograft tissue options. While autograft tissue allows for easy access intra-operatively and maintains patient biology, donor site morbidity is possible. Allografts negate donor site morbidity and allow for an abundance of tissue but can be resource-intensive and face availability concerns. Recent studies support outcomes of labral reconstructions using both autograft and allograft. Promising results have also allowed for performing labral reconstruction in a primary setting. Labral reconstruction can be successfully performed using both autograft and allograft. Patient biology should be respected, and native hip biomechanics restored. The literature is plentiful for appropriate surgical decision-making allowing the surgeon with multiple graft choices depending on training, experience, and resources.

[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.

Indications and Outcomes for Arthroscopic Hip Labral Reconstruction With Autografts: A Systematic Review

Background: The acetabular labrum plays a major role in hip function and stability. The gold standard treatment for labral tears is labral repair, but in cases where tissue is not amenable to repair, reconstruction has been demonstrated to provide superior outcomes compared to debridement. Many types of grafts have been used for reconstruction with good to excellent outcomes. Autograft options include iliotibial band (ITB), semitendinosus, and indirect head of the rectus femoris tendon, while allografts have included fascia lata and gracilis tendon allografts.

Questions/Purposes: As allografts are not always readily available and have some inherent disadvantages, the aims of this systematic review were to assess (1) indications for labral reconstruction and (2) summarize outcomes, complications, and reoperation rates after arthroscopic labral reconstruction with autografts.

Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed using six databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, and Google Scholar) to identify studies reporting outcomes for arthroscopic labral reconstruction utilizing autografts, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Study design, patient demographics, autograft choice, complications, donor site morbidity, reoperation rates, conversion to arthroplasty, and patient reported outcomes were extracted and reported.

Results: Seven studies were identified for inclusion with a total of 402 patients (173 females, age range 16–72, follow-up range 12–120 months). The most commonly reported functional outcome score was the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), which was reported in six of seven studies. Preoperative mHHS ranged from 56 to 67.3 and improved postoperatively to a range of 81.4–97.8. Conversion to total hip arthroplasty and reoperation rates ranged from 0 to 13.2% and 0 to 11%, respectively. The most common indication for labral reconstruction was an irreparable labrum. Autografts utilized included ITB, hamstring tendons, indirect head of rectus femoris, and capsular tissue.

Conclusions: Arthroscopic autograft reconstruction of the acetabular labrum results in significant improvement in the short- and mid-term patient reported outcomes, for properly selected patients presenting with pain and functional limitation in the hip due to an irreparable labral injury.

Outcomes After Arthroscopic Hip Labral Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The acetabular labrum is critical to maintenance of hip stability and has been found to play a key role in preservation of the hip fluid seal. For irreparable labral damage, arthroscopic labral reconstruction is an evolving technique that has been shown to decrease hip pain and restore function.

PURPOSE

To provide a comprehensive review of current literature for arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction, with a focus on determining if outcomes differ between autograft or allograft tissue.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus online databases were searched with the key terms "hip,""labrum,""reconstruction," and "graft" in varying combinations. Procedures performed, complications, failures, and functional outcome measures were included in this analysis. The inverse variance method was used to calculate pooled estimates and 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Eight studies with 537 hips were included. Mean age was 37.4 years (95% CI, 34.5-40.4 years), and mean follow-up time was 29 months (95% CI, 26-33 months). Survivorship after autograft reconstruction ranged from 75.7% to 100%, as compared with 86.3% to 90.0% in the allograft cohort. In the autograft cohort, failures included 0% to 13.2% conversion to total hip arthroplasty and 0% to 11.0% revision hip arthroscopy. Failures in the allograft cohort included 0% to 12.9% total hip arthroplasty conversion, 0% to 10.0% revision arthroscopy, and 0% to 0.8% open revision surgery. Based on 6 studies, the modified Harris Hip Score improved by a mean 29.0 points after labral reconstruction (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction results in clinically significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes. Our analysis indicates that there are no significant differences in outcomes based on graft type alone. A number of factors may determine graft choice, including patient preference, surgeon experience, operative time, morbidity, and cost. Proper patient selection based on age and severity of degenerative joint disease will also optimize outcomes after labral reconstruction.

Arthroscopic labral debridement versus labral repair for patients with femoroacetabular impingement: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a common cause of hip pain and even tearing of the acetabular labrum in young adults and athletes. Either arthroscopic labral debridement (LD) or labral repair (LR) technique for FAI patients is needed to choose. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic LD versus LR intervention.

METHODS

The five studies were acquired from PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The data were extracted by two of the coauthors independently and were analyzed by RevMan5.3. Mean differences (MDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias.

RESULTS

Four observational studies and one prospective randomized study were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials indicated a low to moderate risk of bias. The pooled results of Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), failure rate of surgeries and complications showed that the differences were not statistically significant between the two interventions. The difference of modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and satisfaction rate was statistically significant between LD and LR intervention, and LR treatment was more effective. Sensitivity analysis proved the stability of the pooled results and there were too less included articles to verify the publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Hip arthroscopy with either LR or LD is an effective treatment for symptomatic FAI. The difference of mHHS, VAS score, and satisfaction rate was statistically significant between LD and LR intervention, and arthroscopic LR could re-create suction-seal effect, potentially reduce microinstability, which demonstrated a trend toward better clinical efficacy and comparable safety compared with LD. The arthroscopic LR technique is recommended as the optical choice for acetabular labrum tear with FAI.

Surgical Treatment of Labral Tears: Debridement, Repair, Reconstruction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With the rapid growth of hip arthroscopy over the past decade, new treatment paradigms as well as recognition of new disease states have sprung forth. The ability to perform complex arthroscopic procedures of the hip such as labral augmentation and reconstruction is essential for hip arthroscopists in the revision setting, with patient selection and indications for various labral treatments the key driver for improved short- and mid-term clinical outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current techniques have been developed to address disease states where the labrum is either unstable, torn, deficient, or otherwise incompetent. Many early reports focused on the description of these techniques with new literature reporting short- and mid-term outcomes. A few of these have demonstrated improved outcomes with a contemporary arthroscopy with emphasis on capsule preservation and repair. Studies have demonstrated that labral repair has improved outcomes over labral debridement, with results of labral reconstruction in a revision approaching those of labral repair. In addition, newer reports have shown significantly improved outcomes and survivorship with capsule repair and therefore should be included in every hip arthroscopy.

The Hip Labrum Reconstruction: Indications and Outcomes-an Updated Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To present an updated systematic review of the indications and outcomes of open and arthroscopic labral reconstruction. Due to the increasing popularity and recognition, the arthroscopic procedure has gained in recent years, the aim was to assess for changes in indications, graft selection, and improvement in outcomes within the last 5 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

A total of nine eligible studies (six case series, one cohort, and two retrospective comparative studies) with a total of 234 patients (265 hips), and an average 12/16 (non-comparative studies) and 20/24 (comparative studies) quality on the MINORS score were included in this review. All patients underwent labral reconstruction, whether as primary surgery or revision (76% vs 24% respectively). There were 244 hips assessed at final follow- up (92%) with a reported mean range of 12 and 61 months. There were more graft variabilities found in this study compared with the previous review (iliotibial band allograft, gracilis tendon autograft, indirect head of rectus femoris autograft, semitendinosus allograft, peroneus brevis allograft, labrum allograft, ligamentum capitus femoris). Surgical approaches differed (open 7.9% (previously 18.7%), arthroscopic 86% (previously 81. 3 %), arthroscopic assisted mini-open technique (AAMOT) (6%)). Overall, improvement was observed in the patient-reported outcomes and functional scores, with variability in their statistical significance. The failure rate or conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) decreased compared with the previous review (20% vs 9.5% [conversion to THA was 5.7% and revision surgery rate was 3. 8%]). Indications for labrum reconstruction remained similar (i.e., young, active patients with no or minimal arthritis (Tonnis 0-1), irreparable or ossified labrum, and hypotrophic < 2 mm or dysfunctional hypertrophic labrum > 8 mm). According to recent evidence, hip labrum reconstruction is a new technique that showed short- and mid-term improvement in patient-reported outcomes and functional scores postoperatively. The primary indication for reconstruction remained similar over time. The failure rates and/or conversion to THA appear to have decreased over time. Long-term follow-up with higher quality studies was not available in the literature based on this review. Level of evidence 2.