| Literature DB >> 29423250 |
Jan Weidner1, Michael Wyatt1, Martin Beck1.
Abstract
Preservation of an intact labrum and reconstruction of a deficient or worn acetabular labrum are accepted techniques in modern hip surgery. If the remaining labrum is very thin, its intact tip can be preserved and its volume restored with a ligamentum teres graft. Technique and preliminary results of this augmentation technique are presented. Labral augmentation was performed in 16 hips (11 rights) in 16 patients (7 males, mean age 29 years) during surgical dislocation for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. The acetabular index, lateral center edge angle, asphericity angle and acetabular retroversion index were determined on preoperative X-rays and magnetic resonance imaging. The pre- and postoperative Merle d'Aubigné and Postel score (MdA) was calculated and the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) obtained after 1 year. There were seven Grade 1 and nine Grade 0 hips (Tönnis classification). Mean lateral center edge was 29°. The mean acetabular index was 1.85°. Mean asphericity angle was 62.5°. Mean acetabular retroversion index was 23.4%. Mean MdA improved from 14.5 preoperatively to 17 at 1 year (P < 0.0001). Mean OHS after 1 year was 42. Previous surgery was a risk factor for inferior results: OHS was 44.5 in hips without versus 26 in hips with previous surgery. Mean MdA improved from 15 to 17.5 in patients without previous surgery versus 14 to 16 for the group with previous surgery. Augmentation of the labrum using ligamentum teres shows good clinical results after 1 year. Patients with previous hip surgery had inferior results.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29423250 PMCID: PMC5798085 DOI: 10.1093/jhps/hnx049
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Hip Preserv Surg ISSN: 2054-8397
Beck classification of cartilage damage
| Beck classification of cartilage damage | ||
|---|---|---|
| Grade | Description | Criteria |
| 0 | Normal | Macroscopically sound cartilage |
| 1 | Malacia | Roughening of surface, fibrillation |
| 2 | Debonding | Loss of fixation to subchondral bone, macroscopically sound cartilage; carpet phenomenon |
| 3 | Cleavage | Loss of fixation to subchondral bone, frayed edge, thinning of the cartilage, flap |
| 4 | Defect | Full-thickness defect |
Beck classification of labral damage
| Beck classification of labral damage | ||
|---|---|---|
| Grade | Description | Criteria |
| 0 | Normal | Macroscopically sound labrum |
| 1 | Degeneration | Thinning or localized hypertrophy, fraying, discoloration |
| 2 | Full-thickness tear | Complete avulsion from the acetabular rim |
| 3 | Detachment | Separation between acetabular and labral cartilage, preserved attachment to bone |
| 4 | Ossification | Osseous metaplasia, localized or circumferential |
Fig. 1.The degenerated labrum is detached from the acetabulum. Rim trimming is performed if necessary. The labrum is then augmented with the ligamentum teres graft and reattached with bone anchors.
Fig. 2.Intraoperative photograph showing the detached labrum.
Patient demographics and results of radiographic measurements and clinical scores
| Patient | Age | Gender | Side | FAI | Tönnis grade | Cartilage —Beck | Labrum —Beck | AI (°) | LCE (°) | ARI (%) | AA pre (MRI) (°) | AA pre (X-ray) (°) | AI postop (°) | LCE post (°) | AA post (X-ray) (°) | MdA pre | MdA post | OHS post | Previous surgeries |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 27 | M | Right | Cam | 0 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 26 | 31 | 62 | 40 | 10 | 24 | 37 | 14 | 17 | 42 | Arthroscopy |
| 2 | 18 | F | Right | Mixed | 0 | 0 | 4 | −1 | 28 | 38 | 68 | 43 | 0 | 25 | 42 | 15 | 18 | 35 | 0 |
| 3 | 40 | F | Right | Cam | 1 | 3 | 3 | −1 | 31 | 14 | 73 | 43 | 4 | 27 | 43 | 13 | 11 | 17 | Arthroscopy |
| 4 | 35 | M | Left | Cam | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 26 | 15 | 65 | 55 | 9 | 23 | 51 | 16 | 18 | 45 | 0 |
| 5 | 23 | M | Left | Cam | 1 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 25 | 25 | 80 | 67 | 12 | 23 | 47 | 15 | 17 | Arthroscopy | |
| 6 | 30 | M | Right | Mixed | 1 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 35 | 6 | 59 | 62 | 1 | 33 | 42 | 13 | 18 | 44 | 0 |
| 7 | 16 | F | Right | Mixed | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 42 | 36 | 65 | 40 | 3 | 34 | 40 | 15 | 18 | 48 | 0 |
| 8 | 19 | F | Right | Pincer | 0 | 0 | 1 | −3 | 39 | 32 | 52 | 46 | 4 | 25 | 40 | 14 | 15 | 26 | Arthroscopy, PAO |
| 9 | 29 | F | Left | Cam | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 29 | 20 | 61 | 50 | 7 | 28 | 50 | 14 | 15 | 29 | 0 |
| 10 | 35 | F | Right | Cam | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 29 | 22 | 62 | 59 | 4 | 27 | 42 | 15 | 17 | 47 | 0 |
| 11 | 34 | M | Right | Cam | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 27 | 30 | 63 | 55 | 2 | 26 | 46 | 16 | 18 | 47 | 0 |
| 12 | 26 | M | Right | Mixed | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 36 | 14 | 106 | 56 | 1 | 28 | 50 | 15 | 17 | 46 | 0 |
| 13 | 36 | F | Left | Cam | 0 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 29 | 35 | 56 | 53 | 9 | 23 | 42 | 14 | 18 | 48 | 0 |
| 14 | 26 | F | Right | Mixed | 1 | 0 | 1 | −1 | 36 | 40 | 61 | 54 | 3 | 28 | 45 | 13 | 17 | 36 | 0 |
| 15 | 31 | F | Right | Cam | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 33 | 5 | 55 | 51 | 2 | 27 | 44 | 15 | 17 | 34 | 0 |
| 16 | 31 | M | Left | Cam | 0 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 28 | 20 | 74 | 58 | 8 | 26 | 45 | 14 | 17 | 34 | 0 |
MRI, magnetic resonance imaging.
aOHS not acquired in one patient due to tumor-related neurologic problems newly developed during the follow up period.
Fig. 6.Boxplot of the pre- and postoperative Merle d’Aubigné and Postel score.
Fig. 7.Boxplot diagram comparing the pre- and postoperative MdA score for Group 1 (with previous surgery) and Group 2 (no previous surgery).