Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 19, 2026
The Transition to an Anterior-Based Muscle Sparing Approach Improves Early Postoperative Function but is Associated with a Learning Curve
Published on: September 7, 2022
Bilateral Hip Arthroscopy: Direct Comparison of Primary Acetabular Labral Repair and Primary Acetabular Labral
Brian J White1, Julie Patterson2, Mackenzie M Herzog3
1Western Orthopaedics, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A..
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.
