Secondary Hip Labral Reconstruction Yields Inferior Minimum 2-Year Functional Outcomes to Primary Reconstruction
Matthew R Yuro1, Mark Kurapatti1, Dominic S Carreira2
1Peachtree Orthopedics, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
Purpose:
To compare intraoperative labral characteristics and minimum 2-year functional outcomes of allograft labral reconstruction in primary versus revision hip arthroscopy across multiple orthopaedic centers.
Methods:
A retrospective multicenter hip arthroscopy registry was queried for patients with completed labral reconstruction surgeries from January 2014 to March 2023 with completed 2-year international Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) reports. Age, sex, and major intraoperative variables also were collected. Patients were placed in cohorts based on whether their arthroscopic allograft labral reconstruction was a primary procedure or secondary procedure (reconstruction following failed hip arthroscopy). One-way analysis of variance was performed on continuous variables. χ2 test was performed on categorical variables. Achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) also was assessed.
Results:
In total, 77 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and had complete information. The primary reconstruction group (n = 50) was significantly older than the secondary reconstruction group (n = 27) (47.5 ± 10.5 vs 39.1 ± 8.8 years; P = .001). In both cohorts, most patients had labral bruising, advanced labral degeneration, and/or grade III complexity of labral tearing. There was no difference in any recorded intraoperative findings (P = .160, P = .783, P = .357, respectively). Each cohort experienced significant improvement in iHOT-12 scores (P < .0001). However, patients undergoing secondary labral reconstruction reported inferior iHOT-12 scores (60.1 ± 29.2 vs 74.8 ± 27.0; P = .030). Patients undergoing primary reconstruction were more likely to reach MCID, PASS, and nearly normal SCB (92 vs 66.7%, P = .024; 68.0 vs 40.7%, P = .021; 76.0 vs 48.1%, P = .014, respectively).
Conclusions:
Primary and secondary allograft labral reconstruction show clinical improvement, but primary reconstruction demonstrates better outcomes and greater percentage of patients reaching MCID, PASS, and nearly normal SCB than reconstruction in the revision setting.
Level Of Evidence:
Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic case-control study.
More Related Videos
05:07Author Spotlight: Implementing the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Concept in Rehabilitation Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Published on: March 1, 2024
07:45The Use of Mixed Reality in Custom-Made Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A First Case Report
Published on: August 4, 2022