In Revision Hip Arthroscopy, Labral Reconstruction Can Address a Deficient Labrum, but Labral Repair Retains Its Role for the Reparable Labrum: A Matched Control Study

Hip Labral Repair versus Reconstruction: Meta-analysis

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

Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy With Labral Reconstruction or Labral Repair and Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Background

Compromise of the acetabular labrum can lead to pain and loss of critical intra-articular fluid pressure. Revision labral preservation poses unique challenges due to adhesions and compromised tissue quality.

Purpose/Hypothesis

The purpose of the study was to evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with either labral reconstruction or labral repair after primary hip arthroscopy for labral tear. It was hypothesized that both procedures would lead to improved PROs.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature was conducted with the following keywords: (revision) AND (hip OR femoroacetabular impingement) AND (arthroscop*) AND (reconstruction OR repair) in PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus in August 2023 using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria, yielding 2002 initial records. Only studies comparing PROMs between revision labral reconstruction or revision labral repair after primary hip arthroscopy for labral tear were included. Background article information was recorded, including article title, author, study design, level of evidence, patient demographics, radiographic information, intraoperative data, PROMs, psychometric thresholds, and secondary surgeries. Secondary surgery in our study was defined as any open or arthroscopic hip surgery secondary to the initial revision surgery. Forest plots were created for pre- and postoperative outcomes present in ≥3 studies. Heterogeneity was calculated using I 2 values.

Results

Four studies, including 215 revision labral reconstructions and 115 revision labral repairs of the hips, were included in this systematic review. All studies were level 3 evidence, and study periods ranged between 2009 and 2019. Mean follow-up for the reconstruction and repair groups ranged from 26.3 to 36.6 months and 30.7 to 56.4 months, respectively. The mean age for the reconstruction and repair groups varied between 27 to 34.6 years and 27.5 to 30 years, respectively. Mean postoperative modified Harris Hip Scores for the reconstruction and repair cohorts ranged from 72.0 to 81.2 and 70.8 to 84.1, respectively (I 2 = 0%). Mean visual analog scale for pain scores for the reconstruction and repair cohorts ranged from 3 to 3.5 and 2.3 to 3.9 (I 2 = 33%). Overall secondary surgery rates ranged from 10.0% to 26.7% in the labral reconstruction cohort, compared with 10.0% to 50.0% in the labral repair cohort. One study reported superior outcomes in the revision labral repair group, with 3 studies finding no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the groups.

Conclusion

Our systematic review showed that patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction demonstrated significant improvement in postoperative outcome measures. Postoperative outcomes were similar to those of a benchmark control group of patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy and labral repair. Labral reconstruction in the revision setting appears to be an effective treatment in clinically indicated patients.

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

Background

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

Hypothesis

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

Study design

Cohort Study.

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

Association of Patient Satisfaction 2 Years After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome With Minimum 10-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes and Survivorship

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have shown that short-term outcomes after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) predict midterm outcomes, but a limited number of studies have evaluated whether short-term outcomes predict long-term outcomes and survivorship.

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether achieving clinically significant outcomes at 2 years after hip arthroscopy for FAIS can predict patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship at 10 years.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS between June 2012 and December 2012 with a minimum 10-year follow-up were identified. Using previously established thresholds, we classified patients who achieved the 2-year Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the visual analog scale (VAS) for satisfaction as the high satisfaction group and patients who did not as the low satisfaction group. Minimum 10-year PROs were then compared between the groups, including scores for the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living and -Sports Specific, the modified Harris Hip Score, the VAS for pain, and the VAS for satisfaction. Reoperation-free survivorship was compared.

RESULTS

Of 120 eligible consecutive patients, 85 patients were included (70.8% follow-up rate), of whom 61.2% were female. The mean age was 34.0 ± 12.8 years, and the mean body mass index was 25.4 ± 4.6. Of the 85 patients, 29 (34.1%) did not achieve PASS for the VAS for satisfaction at 2 years postoperatively compared with 56 (65.9%) who did. The low satisfaction group had significantly worse acetabular chondral grades at the time of surgery (P = .008). At minimum 10-year follow-up, the high satisfaction group showed significantly better HOS-Activities of Daily Living, HOS-Sports Specific, modified Harris Hip Score, VAS pain, and VAS satisfaction scores (P≤ .031). Compared with the low satisfaction group, the high satisfaction group had a significantly lower rate of secondary surgery (1.8% vs 24.1%, respectively; P = .002).

CONCLUSION

Patients who achieved PASS for the VAS for satisfaction at 2 years after hip arthroscopy demonstrated superior minimum 10-year outcomes compared with patients who did not, including greater PRO scores and a higher survivorship rate. The high satisfaction group had lower grade acetabular cartilage damage at the time of surgery compared with those who did not achieve PASS for the VAS for satisfaction at 2 years.

Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy With Labral Reconstruction or Augmentation Demonstrate Favorable Patient Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To review current literature evaluating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction or augmentation.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed with the following key words: (revision) AND (hip OR femoroacetabular impingement) AND (arthroscopy OR arthroscopic) AND (reconstruction OR augmentation OR irreparable). PubMed, Cochrane Trials, and Scopus were queried in October 2022 using the criteria established in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Studies were included if they involved patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction or augmentation and reported preoperative and postoperative PROs at minimum 2-year follow-up. Only original research articles were included. Survivorship was defined as a nonconversion to total hip arthroplasty. Outcomes present in 3 or more studies underwent further statistical analysis with forest plots. Heterogeneity of studies was evaluated using the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

Five studies were reviewed, including 359 revision hip arthroscopies (335 with complete follow-up) with a follow-up that ranged from 2.2 to 5.2 years. Four studies reported on outcomes after revision labral reconstruction and 1 study reported on labral augmentation. Two out of 5 included studies evaluated for statistical significance between preoperative and postoperative outcomes. Three out of 5 studies reported a rate of at least 70% for achieving minimal clinically important difference in at least 1 PRO. At minimum 2-year follow-up, survivorship ranged from 93.5% to 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients that underwent revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction or augmentation demonstrated improvement in PROs with mixed rates of achieving clinical benefit and rates of survivorship at minimum 2-year follow-up ranging from 93.5% to 100%.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of level III to IV studies.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Arthroscopic Hip Labral Reconstruction With Fresh Meniscal Allograft

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Predictors of Achieving the Maximal Outcome Improvement Threshold for Willingness to Undergo Revision Hip Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

The maximal outcome improvement threshold for willingness to undergo revision hip arthroscopy (MOWT) has not been defined yet.

PURPOSE

To determine the percentage MOWT in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy and to identify predictors of achieving the MOWT.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

An anchor question was provided to patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between April 2008 and June 2020 who returned for follow-up between August 2019 and June 2021 at one institution. Patients were included if they underwent revision hip arthroscopy, had answered the anchor question, and had baseline and postoperative minimum 1-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, hip dysplasia, previous hip conditions, or unwillingness to participate. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine the MOWT. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine intraoperative predictors of achieving the MOWT.

RESULTS

In total, 153 patients (163 hips) were included, with 117 female hips (71.8%), a mean patient age of 34.3 ± 12.4 years, and an average follow-up time of 61.6 ± 42.7 months. It was determined that 77.3% of the patients reported that they would choose to undergo the revision hip arthroscopy again. The MOWT for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS was 43.1%, 53%, and 33.4%, respectively. The probability of choosing to undergo revision surgery if the MOWT was achieved was 77.5%, 77.6%, and 79.2%, for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS, respectively. Patients with residual cam-type morphology, which was addressed during the revision, were 2.3 times more likely to achieve the MOWT for the VAS (P = .014).

CONCLUSION

Patients who improved 43.1%, 53%, and 33.4% of their MOWT for the mHHS, NAHS, and VAS, respectively, were likely to be willing to undergo revision hip arthroscopy again. Moreover, the presence of residual cam-type femoroacetabular impingement morphology before their revision surgery was identified as a predictor to achieve the MOWT for the VAS.

[Labral lesions in femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: evidence-based treatment]

BACKGROUND

The acetabular labrum and the adjacent rim cartilage are the primary targets of primary or secondary degeneration processes in the hip joint. Currently, femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) is considered the main mechanical pathology leading to chondrolabral damage. The treatment options for labrum tears range from a debridement/resection, repair to augmentation or transplantation.

AIM

Description of surgical treatment options for pathologic changes of the acetabulare labrum and their results with a focus on FAIS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was performed on https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov using the following key words: hip, labrum, therapy, resection, repair, augmentation, reconstruction.

RESULTS

The different surgical procedures as labrum therapy reduce pain and increase the joint function. Labral repair, augmentation, and reconstruction tend to have better results compared to resection but are associated with a higher rate of postoperative intraarticular adhesions.

DISCUSSION

In addition to reducing pain and improving function, the goal of surgical treatment of labrum lesions should be to maintain the functions of the labrum. The labrum should be preserved, in cases of adequate tissue quality and width. In the setting of resective procedures, the resection should be limited to the unstable parts of the labrum. The results of labral augmentation and reconstruction are promising, allowing these procedures to be considered for patients with ongoing symptoms in the revision situation with labral defects or an insufficient residual labrum.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective cohort study.

Workers' Compensation Patients Improved After Hip Arthroscopy for Labral Tears: A 5-Year Outcome Propensity Score-Matched Study

BACKGROUND

The workers' compensation (WC) status has been associated with inferior outcomes in orthopaedic procedures and is usually excluded from clinical outcome studies. Therefore, comparative studies based on WC status are scarce.

PURPOSE

(1) To determine outcomes of patients with WC claims treated with hip arthroscopy for labral tears at a minimum 5-year follow-up and (2) to compare these findings with a propensity score-matched control group without WC claims.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients were propensity score matched to a control group without WC claims. Data were prospectively collected for all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. Patients were included if they received primary hip arthroscopy for labral tears in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement, had a WC claim, and had preoperative and minimum 5-year follow-up patient-reported outcomes ([PROs]; modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS], Non-Arthritic Hip Score [NAHS], Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale [HOS-SSS], and visual analog scale [VAS] for pain). Clinical outcomes were measured using the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold (MOI).

RESULTS

A total of 111 from 132 (84.1%) eligible WC patients met the inclusion criteria with an average follow-up time of 80.3 ± 37.3 months. WC cases demonstrated significant improvement from preoperatively to a minimum 5-year follow-up for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS for pain (P < .05). WC patients returned to work at a 66% rate, with an average clearance time of 4.7 months to light duty and 9.5 months to heavy duty. When compared with the control group, the WC group demonstrated lower pre- and postoperative PROs (P < .05); however, WC cases had a greater magnitude of improvement (ΔmHHS [P = .0012], ΔNAHS [P < .001], and ΔHOS-SSS [P = .012]). Rates of achieving MCID and MOI were similar in both groups (P > .05). The WC group went on to receive a future arthroscopy in 19 cases (17.1%), while 10 cases (4.5%) in the control group required revision arthroscopy (P < .001). Patients in both the WC and the control groups converted to total hip arthroplasty at similar rates (13.3% and 15.4%, respectively; P > .05).

CONCLUSION

Patients with WC claims treated with hip arthroscopic surgery showed significant improvement and high rates of returning to work at a minimum 5-year follow-up. Although having lower scores in PROs and achieving PASS rates, no differences were found in MCID and MOI rates. Furthermore, WC patients had a greater magnitude of improvement from preoperatively to a minimum 5-year follow-up after hip arthroscopy. Therefore, even though more studies are needed to determine the causes of inconsistent outcomes in the WC population, hip arthroscopy can effectively treat labral tears in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement, regardless of the WC status.

High Body Mass Index Does Not Adversely Affect Outcomes in High-Level Athletes Undergoing Primary Hip Arthroscopy: A Propensity-Matched Comparison With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

The effect of high body mass index (BMI) on outcomes in athletes has not been established.

PURPOSE

(1) To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores and return to sports (RTS) for high-level athletes with high BMI undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and (2) to compare results with a propensity-matched control group of high-level athletes with a normal BMI.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were collected on all professional, collegiate, and high school athletes who had a high BMI (>30) and who had undergone primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS between January 2010 and December 2018. RTS status and minimum 2-year PROs were collected for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. The percentage of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were also recorded. These patients were propensity matched in a 1:3 ratio to high-level athletes with a normal BMI for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 30 high-level athletes with a high BMI were included with a mean follow-up of 49.4 ± 29.5 months. They demonstrated significant improvement from preoperatively to latest follow-up for mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, and VAS (P < .001). When outcomes were compared with a propensity-matched control group of 90 athletes with a normal BMI, athletes with a high BMI had worse acetabular cartilage injury and were more likely to undergo acetabular microfracture (P < .001). Athletes with a high BMI demonstrated lower postoperative scores for NAHS when compared with athletes with a normal BMI (88.06 ± 9.37 [range, 60-100] and 90.25 ± 10.79 [range, 48.75-100], respectively; P = .049). Athletes with a high BMI also demonstrated worse postoperative scores for HOS-SSS when compared with athletes with a normal BMI (77.22 ± 18.31 [range, 22.22-100] and 82.38 ± 22.79 [range, 2.78-100], respectively; P = .038). Rates of achieving MCID for the high-BMI and normal-BMI groups were comparable in mHHS (90.0% and 77.8%, respectively; P = .185) and HOS-SSS (90.0% and 82.2%, respectively; P = .397). PASS rates were also comparable between the high- and normal-BMI groups for mHHS (90.0% and 87.8%, respectively; P > .999) and HOS-SSS (70.0% and 71.1%, respectively; P = .908). Athletes with a high BMI also returned to sports at a lower rate compared with athletes with a normal BMI, but this did not reach statistical significance (P = .479).

CONCLUSION

Athletes with a high BMI undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS demonstrated significant improvement in PROs and favorable rates achieving clinically meaningful improvement. When compared with a control group of high-level athletes with a normal BMI, they exhibited similar rates of achieving psychometric thresholds and RTS rates. At short-term follow-up, high BMI did not adversely affect outcomes of high-level athletes undergoing primary hip arthroscopy.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Clinical Outcomes and Reoperation Rates After Hip Arthroscopy in Female Athletes With Low Versus Normal Body Mass Index: A Propensity-Matched Comparison With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

The effect of low body mass index (BMI) on outcomes in female athletes is unknown.

PURPOSE

(1) To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes and return to sports for high-level female athletes with low BMI undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and (2) to compare results with those of a propensity-matched control group of high-level female athletes with a normal BMI.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were collected on all professional, collegiate, and high school female athletes who had a low BMI and underwent primary hip arthroscopy between September 2009 and March 2017 at our institute. Return-to-sports status and minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes were collected for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. The percentage of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and maximum outcome improvement satisfaction threshold (MOIST) was also recorded. These patients were propensity matched to high-level female athletes with a normal BMI for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 21 high-level female athletes (25 hips) with a mean ± SD follow-up of 58.9 ± 31.5 months were included. They demonstrated significant improvement from preoperatively to latest follow-up for the mHHS, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscale, and VAS (P < .001). When outcomes were compared with those of the control group, female athletes with low BMI demonstrated lower rates of achieving the MCID for the mHHS (54.5% vs 77.4%; P = .041), PASS for the International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (45.5% vs 72.6%; P = .022), and MOIST for the VAS (31.8% vs 56.5%; P = .047). There were no other significant differences in the rate of achieving the MCID, PASS, or MOIST between the groups (P > .05). Female athletes with low BMI also had higher rates of revision when compared with the control group (27.2% vs 10.6%; P = .049), but there were comparable return-to-sports rates (75.0% vs 74.5%; P > .05).

CONCLUSION

High-level female athletes with low BMI undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome demonstrated significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes and acceptable rates of return to play. When compared with a control group with normal BMI, they exhibited higher rates of revision and lower rates of achieving the MCID for the mHHS, PASS for the International Hip Outcome Tool-12, and MOIST for the VAS.

Favorable Outcomes of Revision Hip Arthroscopy Irrespective of Whether Index Surgery was Performed by the Same Surgeon or a Different Surgeon

The purpose of this study was to compare minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) after revision hip arthroscopy between two different patient cohorts who had undergone primary hip arthroscopy with the same surgeon (SS) and a different surgeon (DS). We hypothesized no difference in clinical outcomes between the groups despite differences in intraoperative findings based on the surgical decision making in a revision setting at a high-volume center.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Circumferential and Segmental Labral Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

[Arthroscopic labrum reconstruction for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: 12 cases report]

To investigate the surgical effect of hip arthroscopic labrum reconstruction. A retrospective study was performed on the clinical data of 12 patients who underwent hip arthroscopic labrum reconstruction in our department from September 2017 to February 2021 and were followed up for 5-46 months, with an average of 21.5 months. All the patients had a hip joint space of more than 2 mm, and Tonnis grade less than level Ⅱ. These 12 patients underwent arthroscopic debridement of hyperplastic synovium, femoral head and neck and/or acetabular osteoplasty, and labrum reconstruction using autograft iliotibial band or gracilis tendon. After the surgery, we conducted follow-up and data collection, recorded the satisfaction of the patients and occurrence of complications, as well as the cartilage lesion of hip joint observed under the arthroscopy. We compared the alpha angle of Dunn X-ray film, center-edge angle (CE angle) of AP X-ray film, modified Harris hip score (mHHS score), hip outcome score (HOS), international hip outcome tool 12 score (iHOT12 Score), and visual analogue scale (VAS scale) before and after the arthroscopic operation, to assess clinical symptom relief and joint function recovery. The 12 patients were followed up for 5-46 (21.5±12.8) months. The VAS scale were (5.3±2.5) and (2.5±1.4) before and after the surgery, showing significant decrease (P=0.018). The mHHS score were (60.6±22.2) and (83.1±5.8) before and after the surgery, showing significant increase (P=0.003). The patient satisfaction was high (7.8±2.0) (range: 0-10). None of the 12 patients had serious complications, revision surgery, or total hip replacement at the end of the last follow-up. Autologous tendon transplantation for reconstruction of acetabular labrum under arthroscopy can improve the clinical symptoms and joint function of patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), which is a safe and effective treatment.

Multicenter Outcomes After Revision Hip Arthroscopy: Comparative Analysis of 2-Year Outcomes After Labral Repair Versus Labral Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of literature evaluating patient outcomes in patients undergoing revision labral repair and labral reconstruction.

PURPOSE

To compare outcomes in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for treatment of labral tears by labral repair or labral reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multicenter database of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy was performed. An a priori power analysis determined that a total of 62 patients were required. Patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for labral tears with completed 2-year outcome scores were included. Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy, labral debridement, concomitant gluteal repair, and patients with hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <20°) were excluded. Patients were grouped into revision labral repair and labral reconstruction groups. Patient demographics and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including Hip Outcome Score - Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score - Sport Subscale, modified Harris Hip Score, international Hip Outcome Tool-12, visual analog scale for pain and satisfaction, and achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients underwent revision labral repair and 55 patients underwent labral reconstruction. Patients undergoing revision labral repair were younger (mean age, 30.0 ± 10.7 years vs 34.4 ± 9.7 years; P = .048), had lower rates of labral degeneration (25.0% vs 62.7%; P = .004), and had lower rates of severe complexity of tears (21.1% vs 66.0%; P = .003). However, the labral repair group had higher rates of articular cartilage damage (62.5% vs 33.3%; P = .009). There were no differences in any preoperative or 2-year postoperative PROs. Furthermore, no differences were seen in achievement of MCID or PASS in any PRO.

CONCLUSION

In this multicenter study on revision hip arthroscopy, patients undergoing revision labral repair were younger and had better labral characteristics but greater cartilage damage compared with patients undergoing labral reconstructions. Despite these differences, patients who underwent labral repair reported similar outcomes to those undergoing labral reconstruction.

Limited lumbopelvic mobility does not influence short-term outcomes after primary hip arthroscopy: a propensity-matched controlled study

There is a paucity of literature investigating the effect of lumbopelvic mobility on patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) after primary hip arthroscopy. The purpose of this study was (i) to report minimum 1-year PROs in patients with limited lumbopelvic mobility (LM) who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and (ii) to compare clinical results with a propensity-matched control group of patients with normal lumbopelvic mobility (NM). Data were reviewed for surgeries performed between November 2019 and March 2020. Patients were considered eligible if they received a primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS in the setting of LM (seated to standing change in sacral slope ≤ 10°). LM patients were propensity-matched to a control group of patients with normal lumbopelvic motion (seated to standing change in sacral slope > 10°) for comparison. A total of 17 LM and 34 propensity-matched NM patients were included in the study. LM patients showed significant improvement in all outcome measures and achieved the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) at high rates for modified Harris Hip Score (MCID: 94% and PASS: 82%) and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12; MCID: 94% and iHOT-12: 76%). When LM patients were compared to a propensity-matched control group of NM patients, they demonstrated similar postoperative PROs and rates of achieving MCID/PASS. LM patients who undergo primary hip arthroscopy may expect favorable short-term PROs at minimum 1-year follow-up. These results were comparable to a control group of NM patients.

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.

Minimum 5-Year Outcomes for Revision Hip Arthroscopy With a Prospective Subanalysis Against a Propensity-Matched Control Primary Group

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of midterm outcome data on hip revision arthroscopic surgery.

PURPOSE

(1) To report minimum 5-year patient-reported outcome measurement scores (PROMSs) in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy, (2) to compare minimum 5-year PROMSs with a propensity-matched control group that underwent primary hip arthroscopy, and (3) to compare the rate of achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at minimum 5-year follow-up between the revision group and the propensity-matched control primary group.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected between June 2008 and April 2014. Patients were included who underwent revision hip arthroscopy with preoperative and minimum 5-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patients with Tönnis grade >1 or with hip conditions such as avascular necrosis, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and pigmented villonodular synovitis were excluded. A subanalysis was performed against a propensity-matched control group that underwent primary surgery. Groups were propensity matched in a 1:2 ratio for sex, age, body mass index, and follow-up time.

RESULTS

A total of 127 revision arthroscopies (113 patients) were included, and the mean ± SD follow-up time was 72.8 ± 23.3 months. The revision group was 74.0% female, and the average age and body mass index were 34.9 ± 12.4 years and 24.8 ± 4.2, respectively. The revision group demonstrated improvement for all PROMSs and reached the MCID for the mHHS (66.1%), HOS-SSS (68.4%), NAHS (66.9%), and VAS (80.0%). All revision cases were propensity matched to 254 primary arthroscopy cases. PROMSs in the revision group were lower than those of the control group before and after surgery. Delta values were similar between groups for all PROMSs. There were no differences in rates of achieving the MCID. The relative risk of arthroplasty conversion was 2.6 (95% CI, 1.5-4.6) for the revision group as compared with the primary group.

CONCLUSION

Significant improvement in all PROMSs, including the VAS, and high patient satisfaction at minimum 5-year follow-up were reported after revision hip arthroscopy. A high proportion of patients in the revision cohort reached the MCID for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, NAHS, and VAS, with similar rates and magnitudes of improvement relative to the control group. As expected, these data indicate that patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy have higher PROMSs before and after surgery and lower rates of conversion to arthroplasty.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Arthroscopic Circumferential Acetabular Labral Reconstruction for Irreparable Labra in the Revision Setting: Patient-Reported Outcome Scores and Rate of Achieving the Minimal Clinically Important Difference at a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity in the literature reporting patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after revision hip arthroscopic surgery with circumferential labral reconstruction.

PURPOSE

To report minimum 2-year PRO scores and the rate of achieving the MCID in patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery with circumferential labral reconstruction in the setting of irreparable labral tears.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively reviewed for all patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery between February 2016 and November 2017. Patients were included if they had undergone circumferential labral reconstruction and had preoperative and postoperative scores for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey physical and mental components (SF-12 P and SF-12 M, respectively), Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey physical and mental components (VR-12 P and VR-12 M, respectively), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, fractures, hip dysplasia, or revision labral treatment different from circumferential labral reconstruction. The MCID was calculated. Secondary surgical procedures were documented.

RESULTS

A total of 26 hips (26 patients; 61.5% female) were included. The mean age and body mass index were 33.2 ± 10.4 years and 25.5 ± 4.9, respectively. Significant improvements were reported for the mHHS (17.0 ± 19.5; P = .0002), NAHS (17.9 ± 16.7; P < .0001), HOS-SSS (21.7 ± 23.1; P = .0005), VAS (-2.2 ± 3.0; P = .006), iHOT-12 (25.8 ± 32.5; P = .0007), SF-12 P (8.5 ± 11.2; P = .001), and VR-12 P (8.9 ± 11.6; P = .001). Rates of meeting the MCID for the mHHS, NAHS, HOS-SSS, iHOT-12, and VAS were 76.9%, 80.0%, 65.0%, 62.5%, and 69.2%, respectively. No case of re-revision arthroscopic surgery was documented, but 1 case of conversion to total hip arthroplasty was documented at 38.6 months.

CONCLUSION

In the setting of revision hip arthroscopic surgery and irreparable labral tears, circumferential labral reconstruction resulted in significant improvements in all PRO and VAS scores at a minimum 2-year follow-up with a high rate of achieving the MCID.

Clinical Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy for Hip Labrum Calcification in Young and Middle-Aged Patients

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the methods and outcomes of hip arthroscopy for hip labrum calcification, and to discuss the clinical, imaging, and intraoperative findings of hip labrum calcification.

METHODS

This is a therapeutic case series study. From January 2015 to June 2018, 15 patients who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were followed up for at least 2 years for an analysis on the outcomes of arthroscopy in the treatment of hip labrum calcification and the clinical, imaging, and intraoperative findings of the patients. There were eight males and seven females, with an average age of 38.9 ± 8.8 years (range, 23-50 years). The visual analog scale (VAS), the modified Harris hip score (mHSS), and the international hip outcome tool (iHOT-12) were used to evaluate the outcomes of surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 15 patients were followed up for at least 2 years (28.1 ± 2.9 months). The average calcified volume was 118.0 mm³ (range, 19.4-609.2 mm³ ) and calcified volume was related to the preoperative hip function score. Thirteen patients had pain in the groin area (86.7%). Labrum calcifications were located (according to the clock distribution) as follows: 14 patients were anterior and superior (11:00-3:00); 12 cases of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) were observed during operation, including five cases of pincer type, two cases of cam type, and five cases of mixed type. VAS pain score means were 7.73 ± 1.28 before surgery, decreasing to 2.0 ± 0.89 and 1.73 ± 0.79 at 1 and 2 years post-surgery, respectively. mHSS scores were 57.40 ± 6.23 before surgery and 82.10 ± 4.76 and 83.18 ± 4.07, 1 and 2 years post-surgery, respectively; iHOT-12 mean score pre-surgery was 37.67 ± 4.85, increasing to 67.64 ± 5.30 and 72.18 ± 4.49, 1 and 2 years post-surgery, respectively. Compared with preoperative values, postoperative VAS, mHSS, and iHOT-12 scores were significantly improved (P < 0.01); iHOT-12 scores also significantly decreased from 1 to 2 years postoperatively (P = 0.034). No patient had complications.

CONCLUSION

Hip arthroscopy is an effective method for the treatment of hip labrum calcification. The size of calcification influenced preoperative symptoms and function. Long-term irritation from FAI may be one important cause of labrum calcification.

Surgical Treatment of Labral Tears: Debridement, Repair, and Reconstruction

Advances in hip preservation surgery have to lead to increased utilization of hip arthroscopy. With this, there has also been a growth in the understanding of various hip conditions, therefore, leading to an increase in hip conditions amenable to arthroscopic intervention. The acetabular hip labrum has been at the forefront of arthroscopic advances in the hip. The labrum is important for hip stability, provision of the suction seal, and joint proprioception. Given the labrum's central role in hip biomechanics, there is increasing emphasis on labral preservation in the form of debridement and repair. In revision settings, advanced techniques such as labral augmentation and reconstruction may play a role in the management of labral pathology. Appropriate management of the hip labrum at the time of surgery can be an important mediator of the outcome. As such, an understanding of the evolving evidence base and surgical indications and techniques are integral to the treatment and management of labral pathology.

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.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy in the Borderline Dysplastic Population: Reporting Outcomes With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up, With a Subanalysis Against a Propensity-Matched Nondysplastic Control Group

BACKGROUND

Hip arthroscopy in patients with borderline dysplasia continues to be surrounded by controversy. Even more controversial is the management of the failed hip arthroscopy in this population. There is a paucity of studies in contemporary literature regarding outcomes after arthroscopic revision surgery.

PURPOSE

(1) To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores in patients with borderline dysplasia who underwent revision hip arthroscopy and (2) to compare these PRO scores with those of a propensity-matched control group without dysplasia who underwent revision hip arthroscopy.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected between August 2009 and November 2017. Inclusion criteria were revision arthroscopic surgery, capsular plication, and baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up for the following PROs: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patients with Tönnis grade >1 or previous hip conditions were excluded. Two groups were created: a study group with borderline dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA], 18°-25°) and a control group without dysplasia (LCEA, 25°-40°). Groups were propensity-matched in a 1:3 ratio for sex, age, body mass index, and follow-up time.

RESULTS

A total of 22 revision borderline dysplastic hips (21 patients) had a minimum 2-year follow-up during the study period. Patients in this group reported significant improvements for all PROs from baseline and achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the mHHS at a rate of 70%. Moreover, 21 borderline dysplastic hips (21 patients) were matched to 63 control hips (63 patients). Mean LCEA for the study and control groups was 22.6 ± 1.7 and 32.0 ± 5.0, respectively. Both groups reported similar improvement in all PROs. The rate for achieving the MCID for the mHHS and VAS was similar between groups; however, the control group had higher rates of meeting the MCID for the HOS-SSS and NAHS (P = .042 and P = .025, respectively). The rates of conversion to hip arthroplasty were 7.9% (n = 5) in the control group and 23.8% (n = 5) in the borderline dysplasia propensity-matched group (P = .052). The rate of re-revision arthroscopy was 11.1% (n = 7) in the control group and 19.0% (n = 4) on the borderline dysplasia group (P = .350).

CONCLUSION

After revision hip arthroscopy, significant improvement was obtained for all PROs in patients with borderline dysplasia at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Moreover, outcomes, patient satisfaction, the rate for achieving the MCID for the mHHS and VAS, and the rate for secondary surgery were similar to those of a propensity-matched control group without dysplasia. Nevertheless, there was a nonsignificant trend toward higher secondary procedures in the study group; therefore, arthroscopic revision surgery in the borderline patients should be approached with measured prognosis.

Arthroscopic acetabular labral reconstruction: a review

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

Primary and Revision Circumferential Labral Reconstruction for Femoroacetabular Impingement in Athletes: Return to Sport and Technique

PURPOSE

To determine return-to-play rates and hip-specific outcomes in athlete hips with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome treated with circumferential labral reconstruction (CLR).

METHODS

All consecutive patients who underwent CLR from January through December 2016 performed by the senior surgeon with complete 2-year outcome scores were identified. The hips of 57 non-athletes who underwent CLR were excluded from analysis, as were 165 patients who underwent labral repair and 4 patients who underwent labral debridement. Outcome measures were completed by patients within 1 week prior to surgery and between 22 and 26 months postoperatively. Thirty patients met the inclusion criteria for this study. All 30 participated in regular, competitive athletic events and had magnetic resonance arthrogram-confirmed labral tears, and nonsurgical measures had failed. Of the 30 patients, 5 (16.7%) participated in cutting sports; 5 (16.7%), asymmetrical or overhead sports; 4 (13.3%), contact sports; 13 (43.3%), endurance sports; and 3 (10.0%), flexibility sports. Moreover, 25 of 30 (83.3%) were high-level athletes. Both primary (n = 23) and revision (n = 7) procedures were included.

RESULTS

As determined by the International Hip Outcome Tool 12 score, 28 of 30 patients (93.3%) met the patient acceptable symptomatic state whereas 30 of 30 (100%) achieved substantial clinical benefit and exceeded the minimal clinically important difference for their operative hip. In addition, 23 of 30 patients (76.6%) met the patient acceptable symptomatic state whereas 30 of 30 (100%) achieved substantial clinical benefit and exceeded the minimal clinically important difference for the operative hip as determined by the visual analog scale pain score. Of 30 patients, 26 (86.7%) were able to return to play. The mean time to return to play was 6.6 months (standard deviation, 2.4 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Two-year outcomes in this population of athletes undergoing CLR for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome show a statistically and clinically significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes, a statistically and clinically significant decrease in pain, and an overall return-to-play rate of 86.7%.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSES

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

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Outcomes for Surgical Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement in Adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To assess the outcomes of modern techniques for arthroscopic surgery in the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement.

RECENT FINDINGS

While initially approached by means of open surgical hip dislocation, recent literature has shown generally good outcomes of arthroscopic treatment for femoroacetabular impingement. Modern advances in hip arthroscopy technique and implants now allow for labral repair or reconstruction when indicated. Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement results in significant improvements in patient pain and function, with low complication rates and high patient satisfaction. A majority of improvements in these patients occur within 1 to 2 years post-operatively. Hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement yields the best results in patients without significant arthritis or hip dysplasia.

Minimum 5-Year Outcomes of Arthroscopic Hip Labral Reconstruction With Nested Matched-Pair Benchmarking Against a Labral Repair Control Group

BACKGROUND

Labral reconstruction has demonstrated short-term benefit for the treatment of irreparable labral tears. Nonetheless, there is a scarcity of evidence for midterm outcomes of this treatment.

HYPOTHESES

Arthroscopic segmental reconstruction in the setting of irreparable labral tears would show improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and high patient satisfaction at minimum 5-year follow-up. Second, primary labral reconstruction (PLRECON) would result in similar improvement in PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up when compared with a matched-pair primary labral repair (PLREPAIR) control group.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data from February 2008 to April 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included if they underwent hip arthroscopy for segmental labral reconstruction in the setting of irreparable labral tear and femoroacetabular impingement, with minimum 5-year follow-up for modified Harris Hip Score, Nonarthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale, patient satisfaction, and visual analog scale for pain. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis osteoarthritis grade >1, prior hip conditions, or workers' compensation claims. PLRECON cases were matched in a 1:3 ratio to a PLREPAIR control group based on age ±5 years, sex, and body mass index ±5 kg/m².

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients were eligible for the study, of which 23 (82.14%) had minimum 5-year follow-up. The authors found significant improvement from preoperative to latest follow-up in all outcome measures recorded: 17.8-point increase in modified Harris Hip Score (P = .002), 22-point increase in Nonarthritic Hip Score (P < .001), 25.4-point increase in Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (P = .003), and a 2.9-point decrease in visual analog scale pain ratings (P < .001). Mean patient satisfaction was 7.1 out of 10. In the nested matched-pair analysis, 17 patients who underwent PLRECON were matched to a control group of 51 patients who underwent PLREPAIR. PLRECON demonstrated comparable survivorship and comparable improvements in all PROs with the exception of patient satisfaction (6.7 vs 8.5, P = .04).

CONCLUSION

Hip arthroscopy with segmental labral reconstruction resulted in significant improvement in PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up. PLRECON reached comparable functional outcomes when compared with a benchmark PLREPAIR control group but demonstrated lower patient satisfaction at latest follow-up.

Clinical and Radiographic Predictors for Unsalvageable Labral Tear at the Time of Initial Hip Arthroscopic Management for Femoroacetabular Impingement

BACKGROUND

The acetabular labrum plays important roles in proprioception, nociception, synovial fluid seal effect, and static and dynamic joint stability and as a shock absorber. Clinical and radiographic risk factors for unsalvageable labral tear in femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) are not well established.

PURPOSE

To identify predictors of unsalvageable labral tear during initial hip arthroscopic management of FAI.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients were included who underwent primary hip arthroscopic treatment for FAI between March 2009 and March 2014. Patients were excluded who had <2-year follow-up, underwent bilateral surgery, or had a history of surgery, osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade 2 or 3), and other diagnoses, including lateral center-edge angle <25° diagnosed as developmental hip dysplasia. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to their labral condition: reconstruction and refixation. Unsalvageable labral tear was defined as any irreparable labral tear, including severe degenerative tear, frayed labrum, labral ossification, flattened labrum, and failed prior repair during surgery. Univariate and multivariate analyses identified risk factors for segmental labral reconstruction. Patient-reported outcome scores and postoperative revision rates were also assessed.

RESULTS

Twenty-five hips (18 male, 7 female) and 126 hips (65 male, 61 female) were included in the reconstruction and refixation groups, respectively. The mean ± SD ages were 52.6 ± 15.0 and 36.5 ± 16.1 years in the reconstruction and refixation groups, respectively. In the reconstruction group, the mean modified Harris Hip Score significantly improved from 67.3 ± 14.9 preoperatively to 95.0 ± 8.1 at final follow-up (P < .001), and the mean Nonarthritic Hip Score improved from 63.0 ± 18.3 preoperatively to 89.5 ± 10.1 at final follow-up (P < .001). In the refixation group, the mean modified Harris Hip Score significantly improved from 69.2 ± 18.6 preoperatively to 93.0 ± 11.2 at final follow-up (P < .001), and the mean Nonarthritic Hip Score improved from 60.7 ± 18.8 preoperatively to 88.6 ± 15.0 at final follow-up (P < .001). No significant difference was noted in patient-reported outcome scores and revision hip arthroscopy rates. The rate of conversion of total hip arthroplasty was higher in the reconstruction group than in the refixation group. Risk factors for unsalvageable labral tear were age ≥45 years (odds ratio [OR], 8.83; P < .007), body mass index ≥23.1 kg/m² (OR, 13.05; P < .001), and vertical center anterior angle ≥36° (OR, 19.03; P < .001). Furthermore, in this study, unsalvageable labral tears were present in cases with at least 2 of the 3 risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Age ≥45 years, body mass index ≥23.1 kg/m², and vertical center anterior angle ≥36° are risk factors for unsalvageable labral tear at initial hip arthroscopic surgery for patients with FAI.

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

PURPOSE

To report clinical outcomes of arthroscopic labral reconstruction in the hip at minimum 2-year follow-up in comparison to a pair-matched labral repair group.

METHODS

Patients were included in this study if they underwent labral reconstruction during hip arthroscopy and had minimum 2-year follow-up data available. Exclusion criteria were active workers' compensation claims or previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions. Reconstruction patients were matched 1:2 to patients that underwent arthroscopic labral repair but otherwise met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Matching criteria were age within 5 years, sex, body mass index within 5, same capsular treatment, and whether there was chondral damage of Outerbridge grade II or greater. Three patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were recorded preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. International Hip Outcome Tool and patient satisfaction were also collected at latest follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty-four reconstruction patients were matched to 68 repair patients. There were no significant differences in age (P = .941), sex (P > .999), body mass index (P = .935), or any other demographics between groups. A statistically significant increase was seen in PROs for both the reconstruction group (Modified Harris Hip Score, P = .002; Hip Outcome Score - Sports Subscale, P<.001; Non-arthritic Hip Score, P<.001) and the repair group (Modified Harris Hip Score, P<.001; Hip Outcome Score - Sports Subscale, P < .001; Non-arthritic Hip Score, P<.001) at minimum 2-year follow-up. Significant decrease was shown for VAS for both groups (reconstruction VAS, P<.001; repair, P<.001) at minimum 2-year follow-up. There were no significant differences in rates of postoperative complications (P>.999), secondary arthroscopy (P>.999), or conversion to total hip arthroplasty (P = .728) between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic labral reconstruction is associated with significant improvement in PROs and a low incidence of secondary surgery within 2-year follow-up. Improvements in PROs, VAS, patient satisfaction, and incidence of secondary procedures were comparable to a match control treated with labral repair. Although there were no differences shown in the 2 groups with respect to complication rate, secondary arthroscopy, or conversion to total hip arthroplasty, the study was not powered to compare these outcome parameters. Based on this evidence, either labral repair or reconstruction may be selected depending upon the clinical scenario.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III; retrospective comparative study.