In search of labral restoration function with hip arthroscopy: outcomes of hip labral reconstruction versus labral repair: a systematic review

• Published in: HIP International 2021-11, Vol.31 (6), p.704-713
• Main Authors: Maldonado, David R, Kyin, Cynthia, Chen, Sarah L, Rosinksy, Philip J, Shapira, Jacob, Meghpara, Mitchell B, Lall, Ajay C, Domb, Benjamin G
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroscopy; Femoracetabular Impingement - diagnostic imaging; Femoracetabular Impingement - surgery; Follow-Up Studies; Hip Joint - diagnostic imaging; Hip Joint - surgery; Humans; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1120-7000; 1724-6067
• DOI: 10.1177/1120700020965162

Purpose: To perform a systematic review comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients who underwent hip arthroscopy with labral repair versus labral reconstruction in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and labral tears. Methods: A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed in May 2020 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and checklist. Articles were included in the analysis if they compared PROs between a labral repair and labral reconstruction cohort. For all PROs, the standardised mean difference (SMD) was calculated to compare the effect size of labral repair and labral reconstruction. Results: 10 comparative studies, with 582 reconstruction cases and 631 repair cases, were included in this analysis. The mean age for the reconstruction and the repair groups ranged from 27.0 years to 52.6 years and 27.5 years to 47.0 years, respectively. The mean follow-up for the reconstruction and the repair groups ranged from 24.0 months to 66.0 months and 24.0 months to 71.0 months, respectively. The modified Harris Hip Scores (mHHS) was favourable in 8 reconstruction studies (range 80.4–95.0) and 9 repair studies (range 84.1–93.0). Average NAHS scores for the repair and reconstruction cohorts ranged from 77.9–88.6 and 73.9–92.4, respectively. Additionally, the effect sizes regarding NAHS and mHHS scores were large (SMD > 0.8) in both the reconstruction and repair groups for the majority of studies. Finally, reconstruction patients underwent a subsequent total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a slightly higher rate. Conclusions: In the setting of FAIS and labral tears, patients who underwent hip arthroscopy may expect significant improvement in PROs at short-term follow-up with either labral repair or labral reconstruction. Although, not statistically significant, the repair group trended towards higher scores and exhibited a lower risk of conversion to THA.