Autograft Versus Allograft: The Evidence in Hip Labral Reconstruction and Augmentation

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.

Two-Year Outcomes of Primary Arthroscopic Surgery in Patients with Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Comparative Study of Labral Repair and Labral Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Labral repair has become the preferred method for the arthroscopic treatment of acetabular labral tears that are associated with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) resulting in pain and dysfunction. Labral reconstruction is performed mainly in revision hip arthroscopy but can be utilized in the primary setting for absent or calcified labra. The purpose of this study was to compare the minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and risk of revision or conversion to arthroplasty between primary labral reconstruction and primary labral repair.

METHODS

Patients with FAI who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with labral repair or reconstruction performed by the senior author between 2006 and 2018 were identified from a prospectively enrolled patient outcome registry. Exclusion criteria included confounding injuries, dysplasia, prior ipsilateral hip surgery, or a joint space of <2 mm. Patients who were 18 to 80 years old were eligible for inclusion. Multiple regression with inverse propensity score weighting was conducted to estimate the average treatment effect in the treated (ATT) for labral reconstruction versus labral repair with respect to postoperative PROs and the likelihood of subsequent surgery (revision hip arthroscopy or conversion to arthroplasty). PRO end points included the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living subscale (HOS-ADL), modified Harris hip score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index total score (WOMAC), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary score (SF-12 PCS), and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

A total of 150 hips undergoing primary labral reconstruction and 998 hips undergoing primary labral repair were included. The median follow-up time was 5.3 years in the reconstruction group and 5.8 years in the repair group. Compared with labral repair, labral reconstruction was associated with a higher risk of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) (20% versus 7%; adjusted odds ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2 to 8.8; p = 0.024). Inverse propensity score-weighted multiple regression estimated a significant negative effect of labral reconstruction, relative to labral repair, on the postoperative values for the HOS-ADL (ATT, -3.3; 95% CI, -5.8 to -0.7; p = 0.012) and WOMAC (ATT, 2.6; 95% CI, 0.1 to 5.2; p = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with primary labral reconstruction, primary labral repair resulted in better postoperative HOS-ADL and WOMAC values and decreased conversion to THA. These findings were demonstrated in both the unadjusted group comparisons and multivariable modeling. These data support the use of labral repair in the primary setting of labral tears and the reservation of labral reconstruction for more advanced labral pathology or for revision cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

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

Background

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

Purpose

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

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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.

Clinical results of arthroscopically-assisted lower trapezius transfer using fascia lata autograft for posterior superior irreparable rotator cuff tear

Background

Different interpositional grafts have been proposed to connect between the lower trapezius tendon (LTT) to the humerus during LTT transfer. While studies often mention the successful use of Achilles tendon allograft, there is currently no literature reporting the clinical outcomes of utilizing fascia lata autograft (FLA) in LTT transfer. Therefore, the current study aims to evaluate the clinical and radiologic results of LTT using FLA for posterior superior irreparable rotator cuff tears (PSIRCTs) without arthritis.

Patient and methods

The present study constitutes a retrospective case series involving 22 patients, with a mean follow-up of 35.9 ± 15.9 months. Pain levels were gauged using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), while shoulder function was comprehensively assessed through the Constant and ASES (American Shoulder and Elbow Society) scores. The evaluation of shoulder activities in daily living employed the ADLER (Activities of Daily Living Requiring Active External Rotation) score. Active ROM (Range of Motion) of all directions were obtained, radiologic assessments included key parameters such as AHD (Acromion Humeral Distance) and the Hamada grade. Finally, the integrity of the transferred LTT was evaluated, and a subgroup analysis was undertaken based on Tm trophicity.

Results

By the final follow-up period, VAS, Constant, ASES, and ALDER demonstrated significant improvement. Active ROM significantly improved in (FE) forward elevation to 155° ± 29°, abduction (Abd) to 140° ± 32°, external rotation (ER) at 90° Abd to 68° ± 19°, and ER at the side to 39° ± 17°. AHD and Hamada grade showed no significant arthritic progression. Tm hypertrophy group experienced superior improvements in ER compared to that of the non-hypertrophy group. Complications included re-tear (n = 2), infection (n = 1) and donor-site morbidity (n = 1).

Conclusion

The study highlighted promising clinical outcomes of LTT transfer using FLA, with no significant complications. Along with Achilles tendon allograft, FLA can be a safe and viable alternative interpositional graft choice.

Editorial Commentary: Iliotibial Band Autograft Is a Safe and Effective Technique for Hip Labral Reconstruction

Hip labral reconstruction is indicated for hypoplastic, ossified, or irreparable labral tears in the primary and revision settings. Arthroscopic reconstruction for insufficient labral tissue requires advanced surgical techniques to restore hip biomechanics and re-establish the suction seal. With the growing number of arthroscopic hip procedures being performed, this is an increasingly familiar scenario. In our experience, the iliotibial band (ITB) autograft provides a safe and effective technique for labral reconstruction at 10-year clinical follow-up. Although the harvest requires an additional incision, the graft is incredibly versatile and can be harvested at any size to address the labral deficiency. Despite the concerns for donor-site morbidity, our extensive experience shows this is incredibly rare. In addition, concomitant pathology, such as greater trochanteric bursitis, can be addressed through this incision. Other grafts can be used for labral reconstruction, such as the indirect head of the rectus femoris tendon, but this is often limited to smaller labral defects less than 1 cm. ITB autograft shows excellent mid- to long-term outcomes, and second-look surgeries show excellent incorporation of the ITB autograft. And, in contrast to allograft, autograft tissue has demonstrated lower revision rates. The type of autograft used is per surgeon discretion based on experience and preference. In our hands, ITB is optimal due to proven effectiveness, durability, versatility, and limited donor-site morbidity.

Similar Clinical Outcomes for Arthroscopic Labral Reconstruction in Irreparable Cases Using the Indirect Head of the Rectus Femoris Tendon With an All-Inside Technique for Small Defects and the Iliotibial Band for Large Defects

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes and satisfaction rate of patients who underwent arthroscopic labral reconstruction for an irreparable labral tear with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Additionally, this study aimed to compare 2 different reconstructive techniques for small and large labral defects: the indirect head of the rectus femoris tendon (IHRFT) autograft with an all-inside technique used to repair small defects (≤3 hours) and the iliotibial band (ITB) autograft for large defects (>3 hours).

METHODS

A total of 24 hips treated with the IHRFT were compared with 24 hips treated with the ITB. All patients underwent clinical evaluation before surgery and during the most recent follow-up (42 ± 18 months). The evaluation included patient satisfaction, the modified Harris Hip Score, the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, the Hip Outcome Score, the Hip Outcome Score-sport subscale, the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool, and the visual analog scale pain score.

RESULTS

All clinical scores were significantly improved (P < .001) at the latest follow-up in both groups. The final satisfaction was 7.1 ± 2.8 and 8.8 ± 1.6 for the IHRFT and ITB groups, respectively (P = .006). There was a significant difference in age (41.2 ± 6.0 years for the IHRFT group and 33 ± 8.5 for the ITB group; P = .004) and in surgery time (147.3 ± 39.4 minutes for the ITB group and 105.3 ± 25.7 for the IHRFT group; P < .001). One patient (4.2%) in the IHRFT group underwent total hip arthroplasty after 21.3 months (P = .999).

CONCLUSIONS

At the 2-year follow-up, treating small defects using IHRFT and larger defects using ITB resulted in good patient-reported outcome measures with a low rate of complications and failures. The ITB group reported a higher level of satisfaction at the final follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Editorial Commentary: Arthroscopic Hip Labral Preservation Combined With Bony Correction and Capsular Closure Results in Improved Patient Outcomes

Hip labral reconstruction aims to replace an irreparable or insufficient labrum with the goal of restoring the native function of the labrum and thus contribute to hip preservation. Multiple studies have reported success and improved outcomes with labral reconstruction, both in primary and revision settings. The function of the labrum includes providing additional soft-tissue coverage of the femoral head and contributing to regulation of fluid dynamics within the hip joint through the "suction seal." Labral tears and insufficiency alter hip joint biomechanics, which could result in hip microinstability and joint degeneration. Yet, although labral reconstruction is better than a labral-deficient state, labral reconstruction does not restore native hip biomechanics when compared with the native intact labrum. However, concomitant procedures to address bony morphology, hip capsule, cartilage, and adhesions in the revision setting frequently are performed at the time of labral reconstruction, making the true effect of labral reconstruction unknown. Therefore, the labrum should be considered as one of many variables when evaluating individuals with hip pain, and surgeons who perform hip arthroscopy should ensure that appropriate patient selection and additional pathology are adequately addressed in the primary and revision settings.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Editorial Commentary: Irreparable, Symptomatic, Hip Labral Tears Should Be Reconstructed in Patients without Osteoarthritis. However, Comparison of the Two, as Well as Allograft versus Autograft Reconstruction, Is Challenging

Hip acetabular labrum plays a chondroprotective role by maintaining stability, providing a suction seal, and contributing to load distribution. In symptomatic patients without osteoarthritis, arthroscopic labral repair has strong clinical and biomechanical data to support its use. For irreparable tears, the labrum should be reconstructed. Biomechanically, labral reconstruction does not demonstrate superiority when compared to labral repair or the intact native labrum state. However, it is superior to labral excision. One challenge in making these comparisons is the heterogeneity in surgical technique. Labral reconstruction techniques can vary significantly. In terms of reconstruction, allograft offers the advantage of no donor site morbidity, but availability, costs, and risks must be considered. Autograft use is limited by donor site morbidity and increased operative time. Direct comparisons again show no clear evidence to suggest superiority of one over the other.

Can the Acetabular Labrum Be Reconstructed With a Meniscal Allograft? An In Vivo Pig Model

BACKGROUND

No single graft type has been shown to have a benefit in acetabular labral reconstruction. The native labrum and lateral meniscus share many similarities, suggesting that the meniscus may be a promising source of graft material in labral reconstruction.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Using a pig model, we sought to evaluate the healing process of fresh-frozen meniscus allograft for acetabular reconstruction by assessing (1) MRI and macroscopic observations of the meniscus allograft; (2) histologic appearance and immunohistologic evaluation of the meniscus allograft, native meniscus, and labrum; (3) microscopic assessment of the native labrum and meniscus via scanning electron microscopy; and (4) biomechanical assessment of tensile properties.

METHODS

Twelve skeletally mature male miniature Bama pigs (24 hips) were randomly divided into two groups: labral defect group (control) and lateral meniscus allograft group. The selection of Bama pig specimens was based on the similarity of their acetabular labrum to that of the human acetabular labrum, characterized by the presence of fibrocartilage-like tissue lacking blood vessels. The pigs underwent bilateral hip surgery. Briefly, a 1.5-cm-long section was resected in the anterior dorsal labrum, which was left untreated or reconstructed using an allogeneic lateral meniscus. The pigs were euthanized at 12 and 24 weeks postoperatively, and then evaluated by macroscopic observations and MRI measurement to assess the extent of coverage of the labral defect. We also performed a histologic analysis and immunohistologic evaluation to assess the composition and structure of meniscus allograft, native labrum, and meniscus, as well as scanning electron microscopy assessment of the microstructure of the native labrum and meniscus and biomechanical assessment of tensile properties.

RESULTS

Imaging measurement and macroscopic observations revealed that the resected area of the labrum was fully filled in the lateral meniscus allograft group, whereas in the control group, the labral defect remained at 24 weeks. The macroscopic scores of the meniscus allograft group (8.2 ± 0.8) were higher than those of the control groups (4.8 ± 1.0) (mean difference 3.3 [95% CI 1.6 to 5.0]; p < 0.001). Moreover, in the meniscus allograft group, histologic assessment identified fibrocartilage-like cell cluster formation at the interface between the graft and acetabulum; cells and fibers arranged perpendicularly to the acetabulum and tideline structure that were similar to those of native labrum could be observed at 24 weeks. Immunohistochemical results showed that the average optical density value of Type II collagen at the graft-acetabulum interface was increased in the meniscus allograft group at 24 weeks compared with at 12 weeks (0.259 ± 0.031 versus 0.228 ± 0.023, mean difference 0.032 [95% CI 0.003 to 0.061]; p = 0.013). Furthermore, the tensile modulus of the lateral meniscus allograft was near that of the native labrum at 24 weeks (54.7 ± 9.9 MPa versus 63.2 ± 11.3 MPa, mean difference -8.4 MPa [95% CI -38.3 to 21.4]; p = 0.212).

CONCLUSION

In a pig model, lateral meniscus allografts fully filled labral defects in labral reconstruction. Regeneration of a fibrocartilage transition zone at the graft-acetabulum interface was observed at 24 weeks.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The use of an autograft meniscus for labral reconstruction may be a viable option when labral tears are deemed irreparable. Before its clinical implementation, it is imperative to conduct a comparative study involving tendon grafts, which are extensively used in current clinical practice.

The revision hip arthroscopy complex: capsular deficiency, labral deficiency, femoral over-resection and adhesions can result in good survivorship with revision hip arthroscopy

To evaluate the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship of combined arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction/augmentation, capsular reconstruction, femoral neck remplissage and lysis of adhesions. Patients ≥18 years old who underwent this combination of procedures during revision hip arthroscopy and were eligible for minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. PRO scores including Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living scale, HOS-Sports scale, modified Harris Hip Score, Short Form 12, and Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, patient satisfaction and failure rates were analyzed. Seven patients (5 females and 2 males) with average age of 45.0 ± 5.2 (range: 40-54 years) met inclusion criteria. Patients had a median of 1 (range: 1-3) prior hip surgery at an outside institution. All patients had previously undergone femoral osteoplasty, and 85% (6/7) of patients had a labral repair performed. Four patients had no capsule closure performed in their prior procedures. Six patients were available for minimum 2-year follow-up. Two patients converted to total hip arthroplasty: one patient with four prior hip arthroscopies and the other had advanced osteoarthritis with outerbridge grade 3/4 defects requiring microfracture. Mean patient satisfaction was 7 (range: 2-9). At mean follow-up of 3 years, most patients who underwent the combination of labral reconstruction, capsular reconstruction, femoral neck remplissage and lysis of adhesions during revision hip arthroscopy demonstrated improved PROs. This salvage procedure has the potential to restore hip function in patients who have failed an initial hip arthroscopy procedure. In patients with these pathologies present and concomitant joint space narrowing, a total hip arthroplasty may be a more appropriate salvage option.

Single Portal Segmental Labral Reconstruction of the Hip

Many techniques have been described for reconstruction of the acetabular labrum, but the procedure is known to be technically rigorous leading to lengthy procedure times and traction times. Increasing efficiency of the procedure with respect to graft preparation and delivery remain areas for potential improvement. We describe a simplified procedure for arthroscopic segmental labral reconstruction using peroneus longus allograft and a single working portal to shuttle the graft into the joint via suture anchors placed at the terminal extents of the graft defect. This method allows for efficient preparation, placement and fixation of the graft that can be completed in under 15 minutes.

The Cartilage Protective Effect of Labrum Reconstruction Using Meniscus Allograft Compared with Labrum Resection in a Porcine Model

PURPOSE

This study aimed to verify the femoral head cartilage protective effect of labral reconstruction in a porcine model.

METHODS

Twelve pigs (24 hips) were divided into 3 groups: labrum defect group, lateral meniscus (LM) allograft group, and LM allograft wrapped with acellular peritoneum matrix (LM-APM) group before undergoing bilateral hip surgery. The pigs were sacrificed at 12 and 24 weeks postoperatively, while the femoral head cartilage was retrieved and then subjected to imaging measurement, macroscopic observations, and biomechanical and histological assessment.

RESULTS

Imaging measurement and macroscopic observations revealed that the defect area of the labrum was filled in LM and LM-APM allograft groups after 24 weeks, whereas the labrum defect remained at 24 weeks in the control group. The femoral head cartilage corresponding to the area of labral resection in the labral defect group had worse macroscopic Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) scores, uneven and discontinuous cartilage on hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining and Safranin O staining, decreased histopathology OARSI Osteoarthritis Cartilage Histopathology Assessment System (OOCHAS) scores, and decreased elastic modulus and hardness at 12 and 24 weeks after surgery compared with the meniscus allograft groups.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that the LM allograft with or without APM for labral reconstruction had a chondroprotective effect on the femoral head in a porcine model.

Outcomes for Treatment of Capsulolabral Adhesions With a Capsular Spacer During Revision Hip Arthroscopy

BACKGROUND

The presence of adhesions is a common source of pain and dysfunction after hip arthroscopic surgery and an indication for revision surgery. The placement of a capsular spacer in the capsulolabral recess after lysis of adhesions has been developed to treat and prevent the recurrence of adhesions.

PURPOSE

To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship at a minimum of 2 years after revision hip arthroscopic surgery with capsular spacer placement for capsular adhesions.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and June 2018, a total of 95 patients (99 hips) aged ≥18 years underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery for the treatment of capsular adhesions with the placement of a capsular spacer. Overall, 53 patients (56 hips) met the inclusion criteria and had a minimum 2-year follow-up, forming the cohort of this study. Exclusion criteria included confounding metabolic bone diseases (eg, Legg-Calve-Perthes disease, Marfan syndrome), labral deficiency, or advanced osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade 2 or 3). Preoperative and postoperative outcome scores (modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS], Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living [HOS-ADL], Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale [HOS-SSS], 12-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-12], and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC]) were collected and compared in addition to the revision rate, conversion to total hip arthroplasty, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

The mean age of the cohort was 32 ± 11 years, with 32 female hips (57%) and a median number of previous hip arthroscopic procedures of 1 (range, 1-5). The arthroplasty- and revision-free survivorship rate at 2 years was 91%. Overall, 5 patients (6 hips; 11%) underwent revision surgery at a mean of 2.4 ± 1.4 years after capsular spacer placement, with symptomatic capsular defects being the most common finding. There were 4 patients (7%) who converted to total hip arthroplasty. For hips not requiring subsequent surgery (n = 46), there was a significant improvement in outcome scores except for the SF-12 Mental Component Summary, with rates of achieving the minimal clinically important difference of 70%, 70%, and 65% for the mHHS, HOS-ADL, and HOS-SSS, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Capsular spacers, as part of a systematic approach including lysis of adhesions with early and consistent postoperative physical therapy including circumduction exercises, resulted in improved PROs as well as high arthroplasty- and revision-free survivorship (91%) at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Capsular spacers should be considered in revision hip arthroscopic procedures when an adequate labral volume remains but adhesions continue to be a concern.

Arthroscopy Confers Excellent Clinical Outcomes in Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome (FAIS) Patients Aged 50 Years and Above

OBJECTIVE

Hip preservation surgery has expanded to include treatment of hip pathology in elderly patients. Most data on efficacy of arthroscopy treatment in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) has been generated from Western populations, while studies in the older Asian FAIS population are lacking. Here, we report efficacy of hip arthroscopy for treatment of Asian patients aged 50 years and above.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from 775 hips that were treated arthroscopically for FAIS between 2016 and 2019. Patients with a history of hip surgery, contralateral surgery during the follow-up period, lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) <25°, Tӧnnis grade ≥2, and incomplete records were excluded. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), International Hip Outcome Tool 12-component form (iHOT-12), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) were compared pre- and post-operation. We also recorded radiographic measures, intraoperative findings, procedures, complications, and subsequent surgical revisions. Finally, we correlated demographics with PRO improvement among the study group.

RESULTS

A total of 57 hips met the inclusion and exclusion requirements and were therefore included in the final analysis. After the follow-up period (3.3 years), most patients exhibited significantly higher PROs than preoperative values, HOS-ADL (65.0-81.7), iHOT-12 (44.3-69.1), mHHS (58.9-81.7), and VAS (5.8-2.2; all p < 0.001). Shorter symptom duration was significantly correlated with improved HOS-ADL (p = 0.015), and mHHS score (p = 0.022). The overall rate of complications and rate of revisions were 5.3% and 7.0%, respectively, and none of the patients required total hip arthroplasty (THA).

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic surgery confers significant clinical outcomes in most FAIS patients in the Asian population who are aged 50 years and above. These benefits are accompanied by either a low revision rate or conversion to THA, while shorter symptom duration is positively correlated with improved HOS-ADL and mHHS scores.

Editorial Commentary: Proper Indications for Primary Labral Resection and Reconstruction Versus Primary Labral Repair Remain Vague and Undefined

Primary labral reconstruction for complex hip pathologies has shown outcomes and complication rates similar to those of labral repair. As surgeons become more proficient and versatile in their hip arthroscopy techniques, we are seeing increasing feedback supporting reconstructions in the primary setting. Patients with severe pincer impingement, hypotrophic labrums, labral ossification, or irreparable degenerative tearing demonstrate notable improvement and satisfaction after primary labral reconstruction. However, there still is benefit to retaining native labral tissue when feasible. Biomechanical studies show loss of suction seal and increased contact pressures with labral reconstructions versus repairs. Although primary labral reconstruction is a necessary skill and treatment option particularly for the complex hip, the pendulum may be starting to swing too far away from repairs or augmentations. Proper indications for primary labral reconstruction continue to evolve and are not yet black and white in the literature. Regardless, surgeons may rest assured that patients are demonstrating appropriate improvement and safety with either preferred surgical option.

Hip Labral Reconstruction With a Polyurethane Scaffold: Restoration of Femoroacetabular Contact Biomechanics

Background:

Many advances have been made in hip labral repair and reconstruction and in the restoration of the suction seal.

Purpose/Hypothesis:

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical effects of segmental labral reconstruction with a synthetic polyurethane scaffold (PS) in comparison with segmental labrectomy. Our hypothesis was that reconstruction with a icroporous polyurethane implant would normalize joint kinetics of the hip and restore the suction seal.

Study Design:

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods:

We used 10 hips from 5 fresh-frozen pelvises with an intact acetabular labrum without osteoarthritis. Using an intra-articular pressure measurement system, the contact area, contact pressure, and peak force were assessed for the following conditions: intact labrum, partial anterosuperior labrectomy, and PS reconstruction. For each condition, all specimens were analyzed in 4 positions (90° of flexion, 90° of flexion and internal rotation, 90° of flexion and external rotation, and 20° of extension) and underwent a labral seal test. The relative change from the intact condition was determined for all conditions and positions.

Results:

Compared with the intact labrum, labrectomy resulted in a significant decrease in the contact area (P < .001) and a significant increase in the peak force (P < .001) and contact pressure (P < .001) across all positions. Compared with labrectomy, PS reconstruction resulted in a significant increase in the contact area (P < .001) and a significant decrease in the contact pressure (P ≤ .02) and peak force (P < .001) across all positions. Compared with the intact labrum, PS reconstruction restored the contact area and peak force to normal values in all positions (P > .05), whereas the contact pressure was significantly decreased compared with labrectomy (P < .05) but did not return to normal values. The labral seal was lost in all specimens after labrectomy but was restored in 80% of the specimens after PS reconstruction.

Conclusion:

Femoroacetabular contact biomechanics significantly worsened after partial labrectomy; reconstruction using a PS restored the contact area and peak force to the intact state and improved the contact pressure increases seen after partial labrectomy. The contact area and peak force were normalized, and the labral seal was re-established in most cases.

Clinical Relevance:

This study provides biomechanical evidence for the use of a scaffold for labral reconstruction.

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

BACKGROUND

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

PURPOSE

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

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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