Sivashankar Chandrasekaran1, Nader Darwish2, Brian H Mu3, Danil A Rybalko4, Itay Perets5, Carlos Suarez-Ahedo6, Edwin O Chaharbakhshi7, Ajay C Lall8, Benjamin G Domb9. 1. Melbourne Orthopaedic and Trauma Institute, Melbourne, Australia. 2. Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A.; American Hip Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 3. Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, U.S.A.; American Hip Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.; Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 4. University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, U.S.A. 5. Hadassah Hebrew University Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel. 6. National Rehabilitation Institute of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico. 7. American Hip Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.; Loyola Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois, U.S.A. 8. American Hip Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 9. American Hip Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.. Electronic address: DrDomb@americanhipinstitute.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report clinical outcomes of arthroscopic labral reconstruction in the hip at minimum 2-year follow-up in comparison to a pair-matched labral repair group. METHODS: Patients were included in this study if they underwent labral reconstruction during hip arthroscopy and had minimum 2-year follow-up data available. Exclusion criteria were active workers' compensation claims or previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions. Reconstruction patients were matched 1:2 to patients that underwent arthroscopic labral repair but otherwise met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Matching criteria were age within 5 years, sex, body mass index within 5, same capsular treatment, and whether there was chondral damage of Outerbridge grade II or greater. Three patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were recorded preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. International Hip Outcome Tool and patient satisfaction were also collected at latest follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-four reconstruction patients were matched to 68 repair patients. There were no significant differences in age (P = .941), sex (P > .999), body mass index (P = .935), or any other demographics between groups. A statistically significant increase was seen in PROs for both the reconstruction group (Modified Harris Hip Score, P = .002; Hip Outcome Score - Sports Subscale, P<.001; Non-arthritic Hip Score, P<.001) and the repair group (Modified Harris Hip Score, P<.001; Hip Outcome Score - Sports Subscale, P < .001; Non-arthritic Hip Score, P<.001) at minimum 2-year follow-up. Significant decrease was shown for VAS for both groups (reconstruction VAS, P<.001; repair, P<.001) at minimum 2-year follow-up. There were no significant differences in rates of postoperative complications (P>.999), secondary arthroscopy (P>.999), or conversion to total hip arthroplasty (P = .728) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic labral reconstruction is associated with significant improvement in PROs and a low incidence of secondary surgery within 2-year follow-up. Improvements in PROs, VAS, patient satisfaction, and incidence of secondary procedures were comparable to a match control treated with labral repair. Although there were no differences shown in the 2 groups with respect to complication rate, secondary arthroscopy, or conversion to total hip arthroplasty, the study was not powered to compare these outcome parameters. Based on this evidence, either labral repair or reconstruction may be selected depending upon the clinical scenario. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; retrospective comparative study.
PURPOSE: To report clinical outcomes of arthroscopic labral reconstruction in the hip at minimum 2-year follow-up in comparison to a pair-matched labral repair group. METHODS:Patients were included in this study if they underwent labral reconstruction during hip arthroscopy and had minimum 2-year follow-up data available. Exclusion criteria were active workers' compensation claims or previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions. Reconstruction patients were matched 1:2 to patients that underwent arthroscopic labral repair but otherwise met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. Matching criteria were age within 5 years, sex, body mass index within 5, same capsular treatment, and whether there was chondral damage of Outerbridge grade II or greater. Three patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were recorded preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. International Hip Outcome Tool and patient satisfaction were also collected at latest follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-four reconstruction patients were matched to 68 repair patients. There were no significant differences in age (P = .941), sex (P > .999), body mass index (P = .935), or any other demographics between groups. A statistically significant increase was seen in PROs for both the reconstruction group (Modified Harris Hip Score, P = .002; Hip Outcome Score - Sports Subscale, P<.001; Non-arthritic Hip Score, P<.001) and the repair group (Modified Harris Hip Score, P<.001; Hip Outcome Score - Sports Subscale, P < .001; Non-arthritic Hip Score, P<.001) at minimum 2-year follow-up. Significant decrease was shown for VAS for both groups (reconstruction VAS, P<.001; repair, P<.001) at minimum 2-year follow-up. There were no significant differences in rates of postoperative complications (P>.999), secondary arthroscopy (P>.999), or conversion to total hip arthroplasty (P = .728) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic labral reconstruction is associated with significant improvement in PROs and a low incidence of secondary surgery within 2-year follow-up. Improvements in PROs, VAS, patient satisfaction, and incidence of secondary procedures were comparable to a match control treated with labral repair. Although there were no differences shown in the 2 groups with respect to complication rate, secondary arthroscopy, or conversion to total hip arthroplasty, the study was not powered to compare these outcome parameters. Based on this evidence, either labral repair or reconstruction may be selected depending upon the clinical scenario. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; retrospective comparative study.
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: David R Maldonado; Cammille C Go; Joseph R Laseter; Ajay C Lall; Michael R Kopscik; Benjamin G Domb Journal: J Hip Preserv Surg Date: 2019-07-23