Timothy J Jackson1, Jon E Hammarstedt2, S Pavan Vemula2, Benjamin G Domb3. 1. Orthopedic Medical Associates, Pasadena, California, U.S.A. 2. American Hip Institute, Westmont, Illinois, U.S.A. 3. American Hip Institute, Westmont, Illinois, U.S.A.; Hinsdale Orthopaedics, Westmont, Illinois, U.S.A.; Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.. Electronic address: DrDomb@americanhipinstitute.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether an acetabular labral repair technique would be superior to another repair technique based on clinical outcomes measured by patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores. METHODS: We identified 465 patients who underwent labral base repair or circumferential suture repair from February 2008 to February 2012. The type of repair performed was based on labral size and tear type. The 2 groups were pair matched for age within 5 years, sex, crossover sign within 15%, coxa profunda, Workers' Compensation status, and microfracture (femur, acetabulum, or none). Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. PROs included a visual analog scale score and the modified Harris Hip Score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, and Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale. RESULTS: One hundred ten patients met the inclusion criteria for labral base repair and were pair matched on a 1:1 basis with 110 patients who underwent circumferential suture repair. The mean follow-up period was 30 months for both groups, with a range of 19.2 to 60 months for the labral base repair group and 19.2 to 67 months for the circumferential suture repair group. Radiographic data were similar between groups with respect to the lateral center-edge angle (P = .906), acetabular inclination (P = .329), anterior center-edge angle (P = .208), alpha angle (P = .387), and joint space width (P = .388). All preoperative PRO scores were statistically similar. Both groups showed significant improvements in all PROs. There were no statistical differences in postoperative PRO scores at latest follow-up (modified Harris Hip Score, P = .215; Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, P = .839; Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale, P = .561; Non-Arthritic Hip Score, P = .333; visual analog scale score, P = .373; and satisfaction, P = .483). There were similar rates of revision (n = 10 for both groups) and conversion to arthroplasty (n = 2 for both groups). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of PRO scores at 2 years' follow-up, there is no difference in outcomes based on the type of labral repair performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
PURPOSE: To determine whether an acetabular labral repair technique would be superior to another repair technique based on clinical outcomes measured by patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores. METHODS: We identified 465 patients who underwent labral base repair or circumferential suture repair from February 2008 to February 2012. The type of repair performed was based on labral size and tear type. The 2 groups were pair matched for age within 5 years, sex, crossover sign within 15%, coxa profunda, Workers' Compensation status, and microfracture (femur, acetabulum, or none). Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. PROs included a visual analog scale score and the modified Harris Hip Score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, and Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale. RESULTS: One hundred ten patients met the inclusion criteria for labral base repair and were pair matched on a 1:1 basis with 110 patients who underwent circumferential suture repair. The mean follow-up period was 30 months for both groups, with a range of 19.2 to 60 months for the labral base repair group and 19.2 to 67 months for the circumferential suture repair group. Radiographic data were similar between groups with respect to the lateral center-edge angle (P = .906), acetabular inclination (P = .329), anterior center-edge angle (P = .208), alpha angle (P = .387), and joint space width (P = .388). All preoperative PRO scores were statistically similar. Both groups showed significant improvements in all PROs. There were no statistical differences in postoperative PRO scores at latest follow-up (modified Harris Hip Score, P = .215; Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, P = .839; Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale, P = .561; Non-Arthritic Hip Score, P = .333; visual analog scale score, P = .373; and satisfaction, P = .483). There were similar rates of revision (n = 10 for both groups) and conversion to arthroplasty (n = 2 for both groups). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of PRO scores at 2 years' follow-up, there is no difference in outcomes based on the type of labral repair performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Authors: Carlos Suarez-Ahedo; Timothy J Martin; John P Walsh; Sivashankar Chandrasekaran; Parth Lodhia; Benjamin G Domb Journal: Arthrosc Tech Date: 2016-09-26
Authors: Sivashankar Chandrasekaran; John P Walsh; David E Hartigan; Parth Lodhia; Carlos Suarez-Ahedo; Benjamin G Domb Journal: Arthrosc Tech Date: 2017-05-22
Authors: Victor Ortiz-Declet; Brian Mu; Austin W Chen; Jody Litrenta; Leslie C Yuen; Stephanie M Rabe; Benjamin G Domb Journal: Arthrosc Tech Date: 2017-12-04