Brian J White1, Julie Patterson2, Mackenzie M Herzog3. 1. Western Orthopaedics, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.. Electronic address: prismresearchconsulting@gmail.com. 2. Centura Health Research Center, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A. 3. Professional Research Institute for Sports Medicine, LLC, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Directly compare primary acetabular labral repair versus primary acetabular labral reconstruction using a self-controlled cohort study design. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary labral repair in one hip and primary labral reconstruction using iliotibial band allograft in the other hip by a single surgeon between August 2009 and November 2014 were identified. One patient with inflammatory arthritis was excluded. Patient-reported outcome data included change in Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), average pain using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), and patient satisfaction (1: very dissatisfied, 10: very satisfied). Failure was defined as subsequent intra-articular hip surgery. Data were analyzed using McNemar's and Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests. RESULTS: Overall, 29 patients (58 hips) were included in the analysis. There were 23 females and 6 males. The average age at time of surgery was 32.6 years (range: 14.9-51.6 years). Follow-up was obtained from all 29 patients (100%) at a mean of 56 months (range = 27-85 months) postoperative for repaired hips and 40 months (range = 22-61 months) postoperative for reconstructed hips. No labral reconstruction hips failed, and 9 (31%) labral repair hips failed (P < .01). Among those that did not fail treatment, there was no difference in MHHS change (32.2 ± 15.4 vs 29.6 ± 15.4; P = .63), LEFS change (26.6 ± 16.5 vs 23.9 ± 17.8; P = .61), VAS pain change (-3.2 ± 2.4 vs -3.6 ± 2.1; P = .47), or satisfaction (8.6 ± 2.0 vs 8.7 ± 2.4; P = .59) between the repair and reconstruction groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients, hips that underwent primary labral repair were more likely to fail treatment than hips that underwent labral reconstruction (31% vs 0%, respectively). Among hips that did not fail treatment, patient-reported outcome scores were similar between groups. Excellent clinical results can be obtained with both forms of labral-preserving treatment but were more predictably observed with primary labral reconstruction in this cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
PURPOSE: Directly compare primary acetabular labral repair versus primary acetabular labral reconstruction using a self-controlled cohort study design. METHODS:Patients who underwent primary labral repair in one hip and primary labral reconstruction using iliotibial band allograft in the other hip by a single surgeon between August 2009 and November 2014 were identified. One patient with inflammatory arthritis was excluded. Patient-reported outcome data included change in Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS), Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS), average pain using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), and patient satisfaction (1: very dissatisfied, 10: very satisfied). Failure was defined as subsequent intra-articular hip surgery. Data were analyzed using McNemar's and Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests. RESULTS: Overall, 29 patients (58 hips) were included in the analysis. There were 23 females and 6 males. The average age at time of surgery was 32.6 years (range: 14.9-51.6 years). Follow-up was obtained from all 29 patients (100%) at a mean of 56 months (range = 27-85 months) postoperative for repaired hips and 40 months (range = 22-61 months) postoperative for reconstructed hips. No labral reconstruction hips failed, and 9 (31%) labral repair hips failed (P < .01). Among those that did not fail treatment, there was no difference in MHHS change (32.2 ± 15.4 vs 29.6 ± 15.4; P = .63), LEFS change (26.6 ± 16.5 vs 23.9 ± 17.8; P = .61), VAS pain change (-3.2 ± 2.4 vs -3.6 ± 2.1; P = .47), or satisfaction (8.6 ± 2.0 vs 8.7 ± 2.4; P = .59) between the repair and reconstruction groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients, hips that underwent primary labral repair were more likely to fail treatment than hips that underwent labral reconstruction (31% vs 0%, respectively). Among hips that did not fail treatment, patient-reported outcome scores were similar between groups. Excellent clinical results can be obtained with both forms of labral-preserving treatment but were more predictably observed with primary labral reconstruction in this cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Authors: Parth Lodhia; Mark O McConkey; Jordan M Leith; David R Maldonado; Matthew J Brick; Benjamin G Domb Journal: Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med Date: 2021-02
Authors: David R Maldonado; Sarah L Chen; Mitchell J Yelton; Philip J Rosinsky; Rafael Walker-Santiago; Jacob Shapira; Ajay C Lall; Benjamin G Domb Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2020-02-05
Authors: Chace Shaw; Hunter Warwick; Kevin H Nguyen; Thomas M Link; Sharmila Majumdar; Richard B Souza; Thomas P Vail; Alan L Zhang Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 3.102
Authors: David R Maldonado; Ajay C Lall; Rafael Walker-Santiago; Philip Rosinsky; Jacob Shapira; Jeffrey W Chen; Benjamin G Domb Journal: J Hip Preserv Surg Date: 2019-03-01