| Literature DB >> 32076628 |
David R Maldonado1, Sarah L Chen2, Mitchell J Yelton1, Philip J Rosinsky1, Rafael Walker-Santiago3, Jacob Shapira1, Ajay C Lall1,4, Benjamin G Domb1,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Labral reconstruction has been advocated as an alternative to debridement for the treatment of irreparable labral tears, showing favorable short-term results. However, literature is scarce regarding outcomes and return to sport in the nonelite athletic population.Entities:
Keywords: femoroacetabular impingement; labral reconstruction; labral tear; return to sport
Year: 2020 PMID: 32076628 PMCID: PMC7003179 DOI: 10.1177/2325967119900767
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Orthop J Sports Med ISSN: 2325-9671
Figure 1.Flowchart illustrating the patient selection process.
Patient Demographics
| Results | |
|---|---|
| No. of patients | 32 |
| Age at surgery, y | 40.3 (15.5-58.7) |
| Male sex, n (%) | 18 (56) |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 27.9 (19.6-40.1) |
| Duration of symptoms, mo | 29.0 (2.8-107.8) |
| Follow-up time, mo | 26.4 (12.0-64.2) |
| Lateral center-edge angle, deg | 32.4 ± 6.6 |
| Anterior center-edge angle, deg | 32.0 ± 7.4 |
| Alpha angle, deg | 64.6 ± 15.5 |
| Tönnis angle, deg | 2.7 ± 3.3 |
Values are expressed as mean (range) or mean ± SD, unless otherwise noted.
Intraoperative Findings
| Returned to Sport | Did Not Return |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seldes | >.999 | ||
| 1 | — | 0 | |
| 2 | 9 (36) | 2 (29) | |
| 1 and 2 | 16 (64) | 5 (71) | |
| Acetabular labrum articular disruption | .402 | ||
| 0 | — | — | |
| 1 | 5 (20) | 2 (29) | |
| 2 | 6 (24) | 1 (14) | |
| 3 | 14 (56) | 3 (43) | |
| 4 | — | 1 (14) | |
| Outerbridge (acetabulum) | .785 | ||
| 0 | 1 (4) | — | |
| 1 | 5 (20) | 2 (29) | |
| 2 | 5 (20) | 1 (14) | |
| 3 | 11 (44) | 2 (29) | |
| 4 | 3 (12) | 2 (29) | |
| Outerbridge (femoral head) | .536 | ||
| 0 | 23 (92) | 6 (86) | |
| 1 | — | — | |
| 2 | — | — | |
| 3 | 1 (4) | 1 (14) | |
| 4 | 1 (4) | — | |
| Ligamentum teres percentile class (Domb) | .185 | ||
| 0: 0% | 16 (64) | 3 (43) | |
| 1: 0% to <50% | 4 (16) | — | |
| 2: 50% to <100% | 4 (16) | 4 (57) | |
| 3: 100% | 1 (4) | — | |
| Ligamentum teres Villar class | .599 | ||
| 0: No tear | 16 (64) | 3 (43) | |
| 1: Complete tear | 1 (4) | — | |
| 2: Partial tear | 3 (12) | 1 (14) | |
| 3: Degenerative tear | 5 (20) | 3 (43) |
Values are expressed as n (%) of patients. Dashes indicate not applicable.
Surgical Procedures
| Returned to Sport | Did Not Return |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Labral treatment | |||
| Reconstruction | 25 (100) | 7 (100) | |
| Capsular treatment | .810 | ||
| Repair | 13 (52) | 4 (57) | |
| Release | 12 (48) | 3 (43) | |
| Acetabuloplasty | 25 (100) | 7 (100) | >.999 |
| Femoroplasty | 25 (100) | 7 (100) | >.999 |
| Acetabular microfracture | 2 (8) | 1 (14) | .614 |
| Femoral head microfracture | — | — | >.999 |
| Ligamentum teres debridement | 4 (16) | 3 (43) | .316 |
| Iliopsoas fractional lengthening | 4 (16) | 4 (57) | .084 |
| Trochanteric bursectomy | 6 (24) | — | .296 |
| Gluteus medius repair | 4 (16) | — | .552 |
Values are expressed as n (%) of patients. Dashes indicate not applicable.
Pre- and Postoperative Outcomes
| Outcome | Preoperative | Postoperative | Delta |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| mHHS | 64.3 (58.9 to 69.8) | 86.2 (80.0 to 92.4) | 21.9 (–14 to 50) | <.001 |
| NAHS | 66.6 (60.5 to 72.7) | 87.7 (81.2 to 94.2) | 21.1 (–11.3 to 52.5) | <.001 |
| HOS-SSS | 47.6 (38.6 to 56.7) | 78.9 (67.4 to 90.4) | 28.3 (–30.6 to 77.8) | <.001 |
| VAS | 4.4 (3.7 to 5.1) | 1.8 (1.1 to 2.5) | –2.6 (–8 to 2.6) | <.001 |
| Satisfaction | — | 7.9 (7.0 to 8.8) | — | — |
Outcome scores are expressed as mean (95% CI). HOS-SSS, Hip Outcome Score–Sport Specific Subscale; mHHS, modified Harris Hip Score; NAHS, Nonarthritic Hip Score; satisfaction, satisfaction with surgery results (0-10); VAS, visual analog pain scale (0-10).
Figure 2.Preoperative outcome scores (expressed as mean ± SD). Stars indicate statistical significance (P < .05). HOS-SSS, Hip Outcome Score–Sport Specific Subscale; mHHS, modified Harris Hip Score; NAHS, Nonarthritic Hip Score; PROs, patient-reported outcomes.
Figure 3.Postoperative outcome scores (expressed as mean ± SD). Star indicates statistical significance (P < .05). VAS, visual analog scale.
1-Year Postoperative Level Compared With Preoperative Performance Level
| Postoperative Level | Results |
|---|---|
| Lower | 12 (37.5) |
| Same | 8 (25.0) |
| Higher | 5 (15.6) |
| Not participating at all | 7 (21.9) |
Values are expressed as n (%) of patients.