PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of arthroscopic labral debridement with those of labral refixation. METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent labral debridement during a period before the development of labral repair techniques. Patients with labral tears deemed repairable with our current arthroscopic technique were compared with patients who underwent labral refixation with a minimum 1 of year of follow-up. To better match the 2 groups, only patients with labral pathology caused by pincer-type or combined pincer- and cam-type femoroacetabular impingement were included. In the first 36 hips the labrum was debrided (group 1); in the next 39 hips the labrum underwent refixation (group 2). Outcomes were measured preoperatively and postoperatively with the modified Harris Hip Score (HHS), Short Form 12, and visual analog scale for pain. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were obtained to evaluate bony resection (alpha angle) and osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade). RESULTS: The mean age was 31 years in group 1, with a mean follow-up of 21.4 months, and 27 years in group 2, with a mean follow-up of 16.5 months. Preoperative subjective outcomes scores were not significantly different between groups. At the 1-year follow-up visit, subjective outcomes were significantly improved (P < .01) in both groups. HHSs were significantly better for the refixation group (94.3) compared with the debridement group (88.9) at 1 year (P = .029). At most recent follow-up, good to excellent results were noted in 66.7% of hips in the debridement group compared with 89.7% of hips in the refixation group (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Although other variables could have influenced these outcomes, these preliminary results indicate that labral refixation resulted in better HHS outcomes and a greater percentage of good to excellent results compared with the results of labral debridement in an earlier cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of arthroscopic labral debridement with those of labral refixation. METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent labral debridement during a period before the development of labral repair techniques. Patients with labral tears deemed repairable with our current arthroscopic technique were compared with patients who underwent labral refixation with a minimum 1 of year of follow-up. To better match the 2 groups, only patients with labral pathology caused by pincer-type or combined pincer- and cam-type femoroacetabular impingement were included. In the first 36 hips the labrum was debrided (group 1); in the next 39 hips the labrum underwent refixation (group 2). Outcomes were measured preoperatively and postoperatively with the modified Harris Hip Score (HHS), Short Form 12, and visual analog scale for pain. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were obtained to evaluate bony resection (alpha angle) and osteoarthritis (Tönnis grade). RESULTS: The mean age was 31 years in group 1, with a mean follow-up of 21.4 months, and 27 years in group 2, with a mean follow-up of 16.5 months. Preoperative subjective outcomes scores were not significantly different between groups. At the 1-year follow-up visit, subjective outcomes were significantly improved (P < .01) in both groups. HHSs were significantly better for the refixation group (94.3) compared with the debridement group (88.9) at 1 year (P = .029). At most recent follow-up, good to excellent results were noted in 66.7% of hips in the debridement group compared with 89.7% of hips in the refixation group (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Although other variables could have influenced these outcomes, these preliminary results indicate that labral refixation resulted in better HHS outcomes and a greater percentage of good to excellent results compared with the results of labral debridement in an earlier cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Authors: Hermes H Miozzari; Marco Celia; John M Clark; Stefan Werlen; Florian D Naal; Hubert P Nötzli Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Robert E Boykin; Justin D Stull; J Erik Giphart; Coen A Wijdicks; Marc J Philippon Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Arel Gereli; Baris Kocaoglu; Kerem Tekin Ulku; Abdul Veli Ismailoglu; Sena Silay; Mustafa Karahan Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-09-29 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: C Signorelli; T Bonanzinga; N Lopomo; S Zaffagnini; M Marcacci; M Safran Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Ehsan Saadat; Scott D Martin; Thomas S Thornhill; Sarah A Brownlee; Elena Losina; Jeffrey N Katz Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 6.202