Multicenter Outcomes After Revision Hip Arthroscopy: Comparative Analysis of 2-Year Outcomes After Labral Repair Versus Labral Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of literature evaluating patient outcomes in patients undergoing revision labral repair and labral reconstruction. PURPOSE: To compare outcomes in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for treatment of labral tears by labral repair or labral reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multicenter database of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy was performed. An a priori power analysis determined that a total of 62 patients were required. Patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy for labral tears with completed 2-year outcome scores were included. Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy, labral debridement, concomitant gluteal repair, and patients with hip dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <20°) were excluded. Patients were grouped into revision labral repair and labral reconstruction groups. Patient demographics and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including Hip Outcome Score - Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score - Sport Subscale, modified Harris Hip Score, international Hip Outcome Tool-12, visual analog scale for pain and satisfaction, and achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients underwent revision labral repair and 55 patients underwent labral reconstruction. Patients undergoing revision labral repair were younger (mean age, 30.0 ± 10.7 years vs 34.4 ± 9.7 years; P = .048), had lower rates of labral degeneration (25.0% vs 62.7%; P = .004), and had lower rates of severe complexity of tears (21.1% vs 66.0%; P = .003). However, the labral repair group had higher rates of articular cartilage damage (62.5% vs 33.3%; P = .009). There were no differences in any preoperative or 2-year postoperative PROs. Furthermore, no differences were seen in achievement of MCID or PASS in any PRO. CONCLUSION: In this multicenter study on revision hip arthroscopy, patients undergoing revision labral repair were younger and had better labral characteristics but greater cartilage damage compared with patients undergoing labral reconstructions. Despite these differences, patients who underwent labral repair reported similar outcomes to those undergoing labral reconstruction.

Multicenter Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy: Comparative Analysis of Patients Undergoing Concomitant Labral Repair and Ligamentum Teres Debridement Versus Isolated Labral Repair.

BACKGROUND: Increased attention has been directed toward the ligamentum teres (LT) and its association with acetabular coverage, labral pathology, and hip microinstability; however, few studies have evaluated whether LT pathology influences the rate of clinically significant outcome improvement after hip arthroscopy. PURPOSE: To determine if patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) undergoing labral repair and concomitant LT debridement achieve outcomes similar to patients without LT pathology undergoing labral repair. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained multicenter database for hip arthroscopy. Included were patients with FAIS who underwent primary labral repair and who had preoperative and minimum 2-year postoperative outcome scores. Patients diagnosed with concomitant partial LT tear were identified and matched 1:3 according to age, sex, and body mass index (BMI) to patients without LT pathology. The following clinical outcomes were compared between groups: modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sport Subscale, International Hip Outcome Tool, and visual analog scale for pain and satisfaction. Achievement of the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state was also compared between groups. RESULTS: This study included 124 patients with FAIS with labral tear and concomitant partial LT tear and 372 patients with labral tear and no LT pathology. The age, BMI, and sex of the matched cohort were 38.0 ± 12.0 years (mean ± SD), 24.3 ± 3.6 kg/m2, and 62.0% female, respectively. No significant difference in age, BMI, sex, workers' compensation status, or duration of pain was observed at baseline. Analysis of radiographic parameters indicated that patients who underwent isolated labral repair had a lower preoperative Tönnis angle (4.8° ± 4.4° vs 6.3° ± 5.4°; P = .006). There were no significant differences between groups on any pre- or postoperative outcome measure, and there were no significant differences in the proportion of patients who achieved the minimal clinically important difference or patient acceptable symptomatic state on any outcome measure. CONCLUSION: Patients with labral tear and concomitant partial LT tear experienced similar preoperative scores and achieved similar outcomes as patients with isolated labral tears after hip arthroscopy.