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

Variation in the Cost of Hip Arthroscopy for Labral Pathological Conditions: A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite growing interest in delivering high-value orthopaedic care, the costs associated with hip arthroscopy remain poorly understood. By employing time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC), we aimed to characterize the cost composition of hip arthroscopy for labral pathological conditions and to identify factors that drive variation in cost.

METHODS

Using TDABC, we measured the costs of 890 outpatient hip arthroscopy procedures for labral pathological conditions across 5 surgeons at 4 surgery centers from 2015 to 2022. All patients were ≥18 years old and were treated by surgeons who each performed ≥20 surgeries during the study period. Costs were normalized to protect the confidentiality of internal hospital cost data. Descriptive analyses and multivariable linear regression were performed to identify factors underlying cost variation.

RESULTS

The study sample consisted of 515 women (57.9%) and 375 men (42.1%), with a mean age (and standard deviation) of 37.1 ± 12.7 years. Most of the procedures were performed in patients who were White (90.6%) or not Hispanic (93.4%). The normalized total cost of hip arthroscopy per procedure ranged from 43.4 to 203.7 (mean, 100 ± 24.2). Of the 3 phases of the care cycle, the intraoperative phase was identified as the largest generator of cost (>90%). On average, supply costs accounted for 48.8% of total costs, whereas labor costs accounted for 51.2%. A 2.5-fold variation between the 10th and 90th percentiles for total cost was attributed to supplies, which was greater than the 1.8-fold variation attributed to labor. Variation in total costs was most effectively explained by the labral management method (partial R2 = 0.332), operating surgeon (partial R2 = 0.326), osteoplasty type (partial R2 = 0.087), and surgery center (partial R2 = 0.086). Male gender (p < 0.001) and younger age (p = 0.032) were also associated with significantly increased costs. Finally, data trends revealed a shift toward labral preservation techniques over debridement during the study period (with the rate of such techniques increasing from 77.8% to 93.2%; Ptrend = 0.0039) and a strong correlation between later operative year and increased supply costs, labor costs, and operative time (p < 0.001 for each).

CONCLUSIONS

By applying TDABC to outpatient hip arthroscopy, we identified wide patient-to-patient cost variation that was most effectively explained by the method of labral management, the operating surgeon, the osteoplasty type, and the surgery center. Given current procedural coding trends, declining reimbursements, and rising health-care costs, these insights may enable stakeholders to design bundled payment structures that better align reimbursements with costs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and Decision Analysis Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

Capsular Repair, Labral Repair, and Femoroplasty are Increasingly Performed for the Arthroscopic Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

PURPOSE

To provide an updated assessment of hip arthroscopy use by using an institutional database that is specific to the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

METHODS

All patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for the treatment of FAIS were retrospectively identified between the years 2014 and 2022 via Current Procedural Terminology coding in a multi-institutional, single health system database. A longitudinal analysis was performed to identify trends in the use of arthroscopic techniques including capsular and labral treatment, osteoplasty, and traction set-up.

RESULTS

During the study, 789 arthroscopic hip procedures in 733 patients were analyzed (56 staged bilateral). Between 2016 and 2022, the number of hip arthroscopies performed each year increased by 1,490% (R2 = 0.87, P = .001). Capsular repair (R2 = 0.92, P < .001), labral repair (R2 = 0.75, P = .002), and femoroplasty (R2 = 0.70, P = .004) were performed in an increasing proportion of cases over our study period whereas labral debridement (R2 = -0.84, P < .001) became less used. Postless traction systems were employed in 84% (663/789) of hip arthroscopies overall, were used in at least 70% of hip arthroscopies each year, and did not undergo any significant changes in use (R2 = 0.02, P = .73).

CONCLUSIONS

Capsular repair, labral repair, and femoroplasty were increasingly performed for the arthroscopic treatment of FAIS whereas the use of labral debridement decreased significantly over our study period. Postless traction systems were used in the majority of cases each year.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As comparative literature continues to define the safety and efficacy of hip arthroscopy, understanding how novel techniques or procedures are incorporated in clinical practice is important.

Outcomes of Isolated Endoscopic Gluteal Tendon Repair Compared With Concomitant Endoscopic Gluteal Tendon Repair and Arthroscopic Hip Labral Repair: A Propensity-Matched Analysis With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Background

Both gluteal and labral tears are common sources of hip pain, but no studies have evaluated how concomitant arthroscopic labral repair and correction of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) affect outcomes after endoscopic gluteus/minimus repair.

Purpose

(1) To compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinically significant outcomes achievements between patients who underwent endoscopic gluteus medius/minimus and arthroscopic hip labral repair with correction of FAIS versus endoscopic gluteus medius/minimus repair without labral repair and (2) to define threshold scores required to achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 12-item international Hip Outcome Tool, and visual analog scale for pain in these patients.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Patients who underwent primary endoscopic gluteus medius/minimus repair between 2012 and 2020 were identified. Those who underwent concomitant arthroscopic labral repair and correction of FAIS with femoroplasty or acetabuloplasty as indicated were propensity matched in a 1 to 1 ratio by sex, age, and body mass index to patients who underwent gluteus medius/minimus repair without labral repair. Patients who completed the study PROs were assessed preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively. Threshold scores required to achieve the MCID and PASS thresholds were calculated.

Results

A total of 32 patients who underwent simultaneous gluteal and labral repair (G+L) were matched to 32 patients who underwent gluteal repair without labral repair (G); 75% of patients in the G cohort underwent labral debridement, while 25% in this cohort received no labral treatment. A significant difference was observed between groups in preoperative mHHS scores (G+L, 54.4 ± 12.9 vs G, 46.3 ± 14; P = .048) but no differences in any other PRO scores (P≥ .207). The MCID/PASS thresholds were as follows: Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (11.14/83.82), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific (16.07/59.72), mHHS (11.47/70.95), 12-item international Hip Outcome Tool (13.73/45.49), and visual analog scale for pain (14.30/22). There were no significant differences in MCID or PASS achievement rates between the 2 groups (P≥ .108).

Conclusion

Patients who underwent combined G+L demonstrated comparable PROs and clinically significant outcomes achievement rates to patients who underwent G, highlighting sustained successful outcomes for patients with gluteal tendon pathology and concomitant FAIS and labral tears.

Ten-Year Survivorship, Outcomes, and Sports Participation in Athletes After Primary Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Hip arthroscopy is an effective treatment tool for athletes with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome. However, long-term data are scarce.

PURPOSE

To assess survivorship, minimum 10-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and sports participation after primary hip arthroscopy for FAI syndrome in athletes and to perform a propensity-matched comparison between patients undergoing labral debridement and labral repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Athletes who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAI syndrome between February 2008 and December 2010 were eligible. Exclusion criteria were other ipsilateral hip condition, Tönnis grade ≥2, or no baseline PROMs. Survivorship was defined as no conversion to total hip arthroplasty. The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), maximum outcome improvement (MOI) satisfaction threshold, and sports participation were reported. A propensity-matched comparison between labral debridement and labral repair was performed. Two additional propensity-matched subanalyses were performed for capsular management and cartilage damage.

RESULTS

In total, 189 hips (177 patients) were included. The mean ± SD follow-up was 127.2 ± 6.0 months. Survivorship was 85.7%. Significant improvement in all PROMs was reported (P < .001). A total of 46 athletes with labral repair were propensity matched to 46 athletes with labral debridement. This subanalysis demonstrated significant and comparable improvement in all PROMs at minimum 10-year follow-up (P < .001). For the labral repair group, the PASS achievement rates were 88.9% for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and 80% for the Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS); the MCID achievement rates were 80.6% for the mHHS and 84% for HOS-SSS; and for the MOI satisfaction threshold, rates were 77.8%, 80.6%, and 55.6% for the mHHS, Nonarthritic Hip Score, and visual analog scale, respectively. For the labral debridement group, the PASS achievement rates were 85.3% for the mHHS and 70.4% for the HOS-SSS; the MCID achievement rates were 81.8% for the mHHS and 74.1% for HOS-SSS; and for the MOI satisfaction threshold, rates were 72.7%, 81.8%, and 66.7% for the mHHS, Nonarthritic Hip Score, and visual analog scale. Total hip arthroplasty conversions occurred significantly sooner with labral debridement than labral repair (P = .048). Age was identified as a significant predictor of achieving the PASS.

CONCLUSION

Primary hip arthroscopy for FAI syndrome in athletes results in 85.7% survivorship and sustained PROM improvement at a minimum 10-year follow-up. A significant time delay to total hip arthroplasty conversion at 10-year follow-up was reported with labral repair over debridement, although this should be interpreted with caution, as the total number of conversions was small.

Midterm results after arthroscopic femoral neck osteoplasty combined with labral debridement for cam type femoroacetabular impingement in active adults

INTRODUCTION

Arthroscopic labral procedures are frequently undertaken in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). The role of arthroscopic femoral neck osteoplasty is well established, but less is known about labral procedures. This study evaluates the midterm efficacy and feasibility of arthroscopic osteoplasty with concomitant labral debridement for cam impingement in active adults.

METHODS

The present study was conducted according to the STROBE Statement. All 108 patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for cam type FAI combined with labral debridement were considered. Axial and anteroposterior plain radiographs of the pelvis were obtained preoperatively to identify the cam deformity and assess the presence of osteoarthritis, the lateral centre-edge angle, and the alpha angle. The ROM (flexion, extension, abduction, adduction, and intra/extra rotation) was evaluated. The following PROMs were administered: visual analogic scale (VAS), Tegner Activity Scale, non-arthritic hip score (NAHS), the international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) overall score, and related subscales: symptoms and functional limitations, sports and recreational activities, job-related concerns, and social, emotional, and lifestyle concerns.

RESULTS

At a mean of 2.0 ± 1.1 months, all 108 patients returned to their daily activities with no limitation. At a mean of 2.6 ± 1.4 months, all 108 patients were able to return to sport with no limitation. At 11.9 ± 2.1-month follow-up, no differences were reported in the range of motion compared to baseline: flexion (P = 0.3), extension (P = 0.09), abduction (P = 0.1), adduction (P = 0.3), internal rotation (P = 0.4), and external rotation (P = 0.6). At 72.8 ± 21.7-month follow-up, the mean VAS score was 1.7 ± 3.0, Tegner Activity Scale 3.5 ± 1.4, NAHS 92.1 ± 21.5, iHOT33 83.3 ± 27.2. At a mean of 21.7 ± 15.5 months following the index procedure, 14 of 108 patients had undergone total hip arthroplasty. No further revisions or complications were reported.

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic femoral neck osteoplasty with concomitant labral debridement for cam type of FAI in active adults yields the reliable results, with a rate of progression to total hip arthroplasty of 13% (14 of 108) at 3-year follow-up. All patients returned to their daily activities with no limitation 2 months postoperatively. Within 3 months, all patients returned to sport with no limitations. No complication related to the index procedure was reported, and no further arthroscopic procedures were necessary.

Update on contribution of hip labral tears to hip pain: A narrative review

Hip labral tears are found in 22-55% of individuals with hip pain, but labral tears without cysts are usually not responsible for hip pain, which originates mostly from other structures than the torn labrum, like osteochondral, but also tendinous injuries (rectus femoris, gluteus minimus, iliopsoas) or capsulo-ligamentous tears (iliofemoral ligaments, ligament teres). Those lesions are mainly the consequences of underlying unrecognized functional acetabular dysplasia, and/or femoroacetabular impingements. Although the early repair of labral tears in young sportsmen induces a marked and lasting relief, and might delay the onset of osteoarthritis, the microinstability fostered by labral damages seems less important than underlying dysplasias/impingements. This narrative review details recent findings on: (i) the various mechanisms of pain associated with labral tears; (ii) few evidence for hip microinstability induced by isolated labral tears; (iii) how to best detect labral tears, both clinically (including through IROP test) and on imaging (MRI, MRA, computed tomography arthrography, ultrasound). Some authors suggested to use pull-out tests during surgery, but pulling of hips do not seem to increase much diagnostic performances of ultrasounds. Ultrasound-guided intra-articular and peri-articular injections may tell how often hip pain is exclusively induced by peri-capsular injuries secondary to the acetabular dysplasia/femoro-acetabular impingements already responsible for labral tears. Further works could tell whether labral repair, tendinous debridement, plication of capsule, and/or focal denervation, may induce lasting reliefs of pain induced by the chronic contraction of surrounding muscles (rectus femoris, gluteus minimus, psoas), whose deep aponeuroses mix with the superficial fibres of the thick hip capsule.

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.

Arthroscopic Debridement Versus Refixation of the Acetabular Labrum Associated With Femoroacetabular Impingement: Updated Mean 7-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Short- and midterm follow-up studies suggest that arthroscopic labral refixation/preservation leads to superior outcomes compared with labral excision/debridement.

PURPOSE

To update the previous early (16 months) and midterm (mean, 42 months) follow-up of this cohort, which reported better patient-reported outcome measures and lower failure rates in the repair/refixation group.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

The authors identified patients who underwent labral debridement/focal labral excision during a period before the development of labral repair techniques. A consecutive group of patients within the labral debridement group thought to be repairable with the authors' current arthroscopic techniques were compared with a group of consecutive patients who underwent labral repair/refixation. In 46 hips, the labrum was focally excised/debrided consistent with pincer- or combined pincer- and cam-type impingement; in 54 hips, the labrum was repaired/refixed. Subjective outcomes were measured with the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain preoperatively and postoperatively.

RESULTS

The mean age was 34.0 years in the debridement group and 28.3 years in the repair/refixation group, with a mean follow-up of 7.3 years (range, 2-13.6 years). At the mean follow-up of 7.3 years, subjective outcomes were significantly improved (P < .01) for both groups compared with preoperative scores. The mHHS (P = .008), SF-12 score (P = .012), and VAS pain score (P = .002) were all significantly better for the repair/refixation group compared with the debridement group. Although most recent outcomes for both groups fell slightly at the mean follow-up of 7.3 years in comparison with the 16-month and 3.5-year follow-ups, these differences were not significant. However, the failure rate in the debridement group did get significantly worse (P = .014). Good to excellent results were 47.7% in the debridement group and 86.3% in the refixation group (P < .001), and failure rates were 30.4% (debridement) and 13% (refixation) (P = .033). There were 4 revisions in the debridement group and 3 revisions in the refixation group.

CONCLUSION

Longer term, >7-year follow-up comparing focal labral excision/debridement with repair/refixation revealed better patient-reported outcomes and lower failure rates in the labral repair/refixation cohort. Additionally, despite an absolute decrease in patient-related outcome scoring and number of good/excellent results in both groups compared with the 3.5-year report, there was a significantly greater increase in failure rates over time for the excision/debridement group with better maintenance of good to excellent results in the repair/refixation group.

The Application of Arthroscopic Techniques in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Hip-Related Conditions in China

The hip joint is the largest weight-bearing joint in the body and is surrounded by dense capsules and thick muscles. Hip arthroscopic techniques are suitable for the treatment of hip-related conditions. These minimally invasive techniques have rapidly developed in China since 2007. Moreover, they have been used in the treatment of gluteal muscle contracture, snapping hip syndrome, femoral acetabular impingement, acetabular labral injury, hip labral calcification, synovial chondroma, osteoid osteoma, synovitis, osteonecrosis of the femoral head, and developmental dysplasia of the hip. This technique has showed its advantage in the total debridement of lesions, precision treatment, and less trauma. However, we lack understanding of the overall development of arthroscopic techniques in China. This review illustrates the recent development of hip arthroscopic techniques in China and related research progress.

Complications of hip preserving surgery

Preoperative evaluation of the pathomorphology is crucial for surgical planning, including radiographs as the basic modality and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and case-based additional imaging (e.g. 3D-CT, abduction views).

Hip arthroscopy (HAS) has undergone tremendous technical advances, an immense increase in use and the indications are getting wider. The most common indications for revision arthroscopy are labral tears and residual femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).

Treatment of borderline developmental dysplastic hip is currently a subject of controversy. It is paramount to understand the underlining problem of the individual hip and distinguish instability (dysplasia) from FAI, as the appropriate treatment for unstable hips is periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) and for FAI arthroscopic impingement surgery.

PAO with a concomitant cam resection is associated with a higher survival rate compared to PAO alone for the treatment of hip dysplasia. Further, the challenge for the surgeon is the balance between over- and undercorrection.

Femoral torsion abnormalities should be evaluated and evaluation of femoral rotational osteotomy for these patients should be incorporated to the treatment plan.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:472-486. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.210019

Mid- to Long-Term Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To assess mid- to long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of hip arthroscopy as well as the rates of secondary surgery and to identify indications for surgery and noted predictors of failure.

METHODS

A systematic review of the current literature was performed with the terms "hip arthroscopy," "outcomes," "patient-reported outcomes," "mid-term," "5-year," "long-term," and "10-year" in the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases in April of 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Data for study characteristics, patient demographics, follow-up time, indications for surgery, PROs, predictors of failure or unfavorable PROs, and rates of secondary hip preservation surgery and conversion to total hip arthroplasty were collected.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles were included. Four studies were level III and 9 were level IV. In total, 1571 hips were included, and the average follow-up time ranged from 60 to 240 months. The most common indications for hip arthroscopy were labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Twelve studies reported on PROs and all reported improvement at latest follow-up. The most reported on scores were the modified Harris Hip Score, Harris Hip Score, and the Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale. When grouped based on average follow-up time, the conversion rates at the 5- and 10-year time points ranged from 3.0% to 17.9% and 2.4% to 32.5%, respectively. One study with 20-year follow-up reported a conversion rate of 41.0%. Osteoarthritis and increased age were the most cited predictors for secondary surgery or decreased PROs.

CONCLUSIONS

At mid- to long-term follow-up, patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy demonstrated improvement in several PROs. There was great variability in rates for revision surgery and conversion to total hip arthroplasty. The most common indications for hip arthroscopy were labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Osteoarthritis and increased age were the most cited predictors for unfavorable outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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.