Autograft Versus Allograft: The Evidence in Hip Labral Reconstruction and Augmentation

Labral augmentation and labral reconstruction have emerged as essential procedures for restoring the anatomic and functional characteristics of the hip joint in patients with a deficient hip labrum or irreparable labral tear.

The purpose of this study was to compare allograft and autograft hip labral reconstruction and augmentation. We hypothesized that autografts would entail fewer revision arthroscopic procedures.

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Patients were identified who underwent labral reconstruction or labral augmentation using iliotibial band (ITB) allograft or ITB autograft performed by a single surgeon between 2011 and 2017. Patient-reported outcome measures collected before surgery and at minimum 2-year follow-up included the following: Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living and Hip Outcome Score Sports-Specific Subscale and, at follow-up, patient satisfaction (range, 1-10, with 10 being very satisfied). Patients followed a standardized rehabilitation protocol after surgery with relative individualization to address each patient's needs. For continuous variables, comparisons between allografts and autografts were made using Student t tests or Mann-Whitney tests. Categorical comparisons were assessed using chi-square or Fisher exact test. Multiple logistic regression was performed to determine the influence of graft choice on risk of revision or THA.

A total of 205 hips met 2-year inclusion criteria. ITB allografts were used for 55 patients (37 augmentations, 18 reconstructions) and ITB autografts for 150 patients (34 augmentations, 116 reconstructions). Females represented a greater proportion of allograft versus autograft patients (71% vs 46%, respectively; P = .001). Overall, autograft patients had larger alpha angles (66.6° vs 59.1°; P = .001) and longer grafts (46 vs 41 mm; P = .03) compared with allograft patients. A total of 13 (23.6%) patients required revision surgery in the allograft group compared with 11 (7.3%) in the autograft group (P < .001). After controlling for sex, procedure (reconstruction vs augmentation), and previous surgery, the odds of revision were higher for allograft patients (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.5-11.6). No significant differences in conversion to THA were observed between groups (allograft = 9%; autograft = 6%; P = .50), even after adjustment for the above covariates (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.6-7.9). No differences in postoperative patient-reported outcome measures or patient satisfaction were observed between groups.

Labral augmentation or reconstruction with autograft has a significantly lower revision rate than labral augmentation or reconstruction with allograft.