Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 25, 2025
Author Spotlight: Double Posteromedial Approach for Treating Posterior Cruciate Ligament Cysts
Published on: October 20, 2023
Acetabular Labral Repair and Selective Labral Debridement Show No Significant Difference in Clinical Outcomes at a
Tiao Su1, Xinle Huang2, Liu Yang3
1Department of Orthopedics, Guangdong Provincial People's Hospital (Guangdong Academy of Medical Sciences), Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China; Center for Joint Surgery, Southwest Hospital, Army Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Purpose:
To compare the outcomes of arthroscopic labral repair using looped type suture with a matched-pair selective labral debridement with a minimum 2-years follow-up.
Methods:
We identified 378 patients undergoing primary arthroscopic labral repair using loop-suture and selective labral debridement from January 2, 2018, to December 28, 2020. The labral repair group was matched 1:1 to a selective labral debridement control group by age, sex, body mass index, follow-up period, lateral center-edge angle, Tönnis grade, and preoperative joint space. Before surgery, 3-Tesla radial magnetic resonance imaging with a 3-dimensional double-echo steady-state sequence was obtained following failed nonoperative treatment lasting more than 3 months. Follow-up imaging was conducted at a minimum of 2 years. In both groups, the ratio of positive slices in which a disrupted chondrolabral junction was observed between the 2 o'clock and 11 o'clock positions was measured. Patient-reported outcome scores included the Harris Hip Score, visual analog score, Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living Subscale, and Hip Outcome Score of Sport-Specific Subscale.
Results:
In total, 76 patients of the repair group were matched to 76 controls with a minimum 2-years follow-up (repair vs control: 2.6 ± 0.4 vs 2.6 ± 0.4 years, P = .775). The repair group experienced a 2-fold improvement (0.6 ± 0.1 to 0.3 ± 0.1, P＜.001). Although the selective debridement group experienced a 3-fold improvement (0.3 ± 0.1 to 0.1 ± 0.1, P＜.001). Significant improvement of the patient-reported outcome was shown in both groups at final follow-up without significant difference between the 2 groups.
Conclusions:
The mid-term clinical outcomes are comparable between the labral repair using looped type suture and selective labral debridement group. Although a gap between the labrum and articular cartilage may appear in 3-dimensional double-echo steady-state magnetic resonance imaging results after labral repair, it does not correspond with clinical outcomes.
Level Of Evidence:
Level III, retrospective comparative study.
