Search

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/m 2 ., 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.

Background: Recent studies identified microinstability in the hip as a pathoetiology of painful hip conditions, and it was proposed that generalized ligamentous laxity conditions may predispose patients to such microinstability., Purpose: To study the relationship of generalized ligamentous laxity with patient characteristics, clinical presentation, intraoperative findings, and surgical treatments in a cohort of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy., Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3., Methods: Registry data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed between February 2014 and November 2017 for patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy and had a documented Beighton score to assess generalized ligamentous laxity. Patients with a history of an ipsilateral hip condition or ipsilateral hip surgery, those with Tönnis grade >1, and those who had simultaneous arthroscopic and open procedures were excluded from the study. Two comparisons were made between patients with low and high Beighton scores: Beighton 0 vs ≥1 (B 0 vs B ≥1) and Beighton 0-3 vs ≥4 (B 0-3 vs B ≥4). Patient demographics, symptomatology, physical examination, and intraoperative findings were compared between these low and high Beighton groups., Results: A total of 1381 patients met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Within this patient population, there were 882 with B 0, 499 with B ≥1, 1120 with B 0-3, and 261 with B ≥4. B 0 was 54.1% female, compared with 84.2% of B ≥1. Similarly, B 0-3 was 58.5% female, while B ≥4 was 92.7% female. The difference in sex makeup was significant between both sets of groups ( P < .0001). The relative risk of having B ≥1 for women versus men was 2.869, and the relative risk of having B ≥4 for women versus men was 6.873. The patients with higher Beighton scores in B ≥1 and B ≥4 had a younger mean age at onset of symptoms ( P < .0001) and lower mean body mass index ( P < .0001) than those in B 0 and B 0-3, respectively. The B ≥1 group had higher preoperative range of motion with internal rotation ( P = .05), external rotation ( P = .017), and flexion ( P < .0001) than B 0 patients, as well as a lower frequency of Trendelenburg gait pattern ( P = .0268). Similarly, the B ≥4 group had higher range of motion than the B 0-3 group with internal rotation ( P = .030), external rotation ( P = .003), flexion ( P < .0001), and abduction ( P = .002). As compared with the lower-score groups, the higher-score groups also had smaller labral size and tear dimension ( P < .0001), and a higher proportion of these patients underwent labral repair, capsular repair, and iliopsoas fractional lengthening., Conclusion: Patients undergoing hip arthroscopy who have generalized ligamentous laxity are overall younger, have a lower body mass index, and are more often female, as compared with patients who have lesser laxity. Patients with higher preoperative Beighton scores had greater hip range of motion and smaller intraoperative labral size and tear dimensions. Additionally, these patients were more likely to undergo labral repair, capsular plication, and iliopsoas fractional lengthening.

Background: Revision hip arthroscopy is increasingly common and often addresses acetabular labrum pathology. There is a lack of consensus on indications or outcomes of revision labral repair versus reconstruction., Purpose: To report clinical outcomes of labral reconstruction during revision hip arthroscopy at minimum 2-year follow-up as compared with pair-matched labral repair during revision hip arthroscopy (control group) and to suggest a decision-making algorithm for labral treatment in revision hip arthroscopy., Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3., Methods: Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction were matched 1:2 with patients who underwent revision arthroscopic labral repair. Patients were matched according to age, sex, and body mass index. Outcome scores, including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale, and a visual analog scale for pain, were collected preoperatively and at minimum 2-year follow-up. At latest follow-up, patient satisfaction on a 0-10 scale and the abbreviated International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) were collected. Complications, subsequent arthroscopies, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty were collected as well., Results: A total of 15 revision labral reconstructions were pair matched to 30 revision labral repairs. The reconstructions had fewer isolated Seldes type I detachments ( P = .008) and lower postoperative lateral center-edge angle, but there were otherwise no significant differences in demographics, radiographics, intraoperative findings, or procedures. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in all outcomes and visual analog scale at minimum 2-year follow-up. The revision repairs trended toward better preoperative scores: mHHS (mean ± SD: 59.3 ± 16.5 vs 54.2 ± 16.0), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (61.0 ± 16.7 vs 51.2 ± 17.6), Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (39.6 ± 25.1 vs 30.5 ± 22.1), and visual analog scale (5.8 ± 1.8 vs 6.2 ± 2.2). At follow-up, the revision repair group had significantly higher mHHS (84.1 ± 14.8 vs 72.0 ± 18.3, P = .043) and iHOT-12 (72.2 ± 23.3 vs 49.0 ± 27.6, P = .023) scores than the reconstruction group. The magnitudes of pre- to postoperative improvement between the groups were comparable. The groups also had comparable rates of complications: 1 case of numbness in each group ( P > .999), subsequent arthroscopies (repair: n = 2, 6.5%; revision: n = 3, 20%; P = .150), and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (1 patient in each group, P > .999)., Conclusion: Labral reconstruction safely and effectively treats irreparable labra in revision hip arthroscopy. However, labral repair is another treatment option for reparable labra, yielding similar magnitude of improvement. A proposed algorithm may assist in surgical decision making to achieve optimal outcomes based on the condition and history of each patient's acetabular labrum.