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

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.

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.

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.

Tissue Regrowth and Its Vascularization Through Bone Marrow Stimulation: Microfracture at the Acetabular Rim for Irreparable Labral Tear in a Porcine Model

BACKGROUND

The treatment of irreparable acetabular labral tear remains a great challenge. Whether fibrocartilage-like tissue can regrow with sufficient volume to fill the labral defect area through bone marrow stimulation remains unknown.

PURPOSE

To characterize the healing process and vascularization course of the regrown tissue after microfracture at the acetabular rim for irreparable labral tears in a porcine model.

STUDY DESIGN

Descriptive laboratory study.

METHODS

Twelve pigs randomly underwent unilateral microfracture at the acetabular rim after the resection of a 10 mm-long section of labrum from 10 to 1 o'clock. Pigs were randomly sacrificed at 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively. The regrown tissues were harvested for macroscopic evaluation and histologic assessment. The regrown tissue was zoned into 2 halves to observe the vascular distribution: the capsular half (zone I) and the articular half (zone II). Each zone was divided into 2 parts: the peripheral part (IA and IIA) and the part attached to the acetabulum (IB and IIB).

RESULTS

At 6 weeks, all regrown tissue was hypotrophic with <50% filling of the labral defect. Fibrochondrocytes were concentrated at the interface between the acetabulum and the regrown tissue. The vascularization was equal among each part within the regrown tissue. As compared with regrown tissue at 12 weeks, proteoglycan and collagen type 1 and 2 were more evident within the regrown tissue at 6 weeks. At 12 weeks, tissue disintegration occurred in all regrown tissue with <25% filling of the labral defect area. The vascular structure could barely be observed, with few fibrochondrocytes found at the area adjacent to the acetabulum.

CONCLUSION

Fibrocartilage-like tissue did regrow with well-distributed vascular ingrowth of each part of the regrown tissue through bone marrow stimulation at the early stage. However, insufficient volume of the regrown tissue led to loss of the hip suction seal and subsequent tissue disintegration.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Microfracture at the rim of the acetabulum alone could not restore the morphology and function of the acetabular labrum. Nonetheless, microfracture at the acetabular rim might be a viable adjunct to labral reconstruction, as the well-distributed vascularization through bone marrow stimulation might overcome the obstacle of poor vascular ingrowth of the articular half of the autograft.

Durable Outcomes After Hip Labral Reconstruction at Minimum 5-Year Follow-Up: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To systematically review and report the mid- to long-term patient reported outcomes (PROs) following hip labral reconstruction.

METHODS

A literature search of the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for clinical studies reporting mid- to long-term PROs at minimum five year follow-up following arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction. A quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index of Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) grading system. Data collection included study characteristics, demographics, indications, radiographic metrics, perioperative findings, surgical technique, baseline and most recent PROs, and subsequent surgeries.

RESULTS

Four studies met inclusion criteria, with 182 hips (age range, 27.9 to 38.7 years) undergoing labral reconstruction in primary and revision hip surgery with minimum five year follow-up. There were three level III studies and one level IV study, with an average MINORS score of 16.6. All studies cited labral tissue characteristics as a factor for surgical indications, including the quality and/or size of the labrum. Three studies performed segmental labral reconstructions, while another study utilized a circumferential technique. Varying grafts were selected, including hamstring autograft/allograft, ligamentum teres autograft, iliotibial band autograft, and tensor fascia lata autograft. All studies demonstrated improved PROs from baseline to most recent follow-up, with four studies reporting modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) values that increased from baseline (range, 58.9 to 66.8) to most recent follow-up (range, 80.1 to 86.3). After labral reconstruction, rates of revision arthroscopy ranged from 4.8% to 13.3% and conversion to total hip arthroplasty ranged from 1.6% to 27%.

CONCLUSION

Improved PROs were observed in all studies at minimum 5-year follow-up, suggesting that labral reconstruction can offer durable results beyond short-term follow-up. While surgical indications for all studies included labral tissue characteristics, differing graft selection and surgical techniques were utilized across studies, limiting the ability to determine an optimal treatment approach.

The Vascularization Course of Labral Autograft and Its Effect on Tissue Healing: Acetabular Labral Augmentation Versus Labral Reconstruction in a Porcine Model

BACKGROUND

The preservation of the native labral vascularization is assumed to be the potential advantage of acetabular labral augmentation, the effect of which remains unknown.

PURPOSE

To identify the vascular distribution within the labral autograft and its effect on the healing process between labral augmentation (AUG) and reconstruction (RECON) in a porcine model.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

A total of 36 pigs randomly underwent unilateral labral augmentation or reconstruction (AUG group, n = 18; RECON group, n = 18). The pigs were randomly sacrificed at 6, 12, and 24 weeks postoperatively. The labral autografts were harvested for macroscopic evaluation and histologic assessment. The labral autograft was zoned into 2 halves to observe the vascular distribution: the capsular half (zone I) and the articular half (zone II). Each zone was divided into 2 parts: the peripheral part (IA and IIA) and the part attached to the acetabulum (IB and IIB).

RESULTS

At 6 weeks, there existed more vascular ingrowth in zone I, whereas zone IIB appeared nearly avascular in both groups. At 12 weeks, the area with the greatest vascularity was zone II in the RECON group and zone IA in the AUG group. The vascularity was concentrated at zones IA and IIA in both groups at 24 weeks. The labral autografts were hypertrophic with sufficient filling of the labral defect in both groups at 6 weeks. At 12 weeks, an insufficient volume of the articular half was observed in 3 of 6 labral autografts in the RECON group, while all autografts remained well integrated with the chondrolabral junction in the AUG group. At 24 weeks, unsatisfactory merging of the labral autograft with the cartilage at the articular side was found in 2 of 6 labral autografts in the RECON group, which was not observed in the AUG group despite the sufficient volume of autografts labrum in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Slow vascular ingrowth within the articular half might account for the poor healing of the reconstructed labral autograft. Labral augmentation provides the possibility of better tissue healing because of the preservation of the original chondrolabral junction compared with labral reconstruction.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Labral augmentation might be a feasible alternative to labral reconstruction under the condition of viable labral remnants.