Primary Arthroscopic Labral Management: Labral Repair and Complete Labral Reconstruction Both Offer Durable, Promising Results at Minimum 5-Year Follow-up

Abstract

Background: Increased understanding of the acetabular labrum’s role in hip joint biomechanics has led to a greater focus on the conservation and restoration of normal labral anatomic characteristics; however, labral repair is often not possible in the setting of severe intrasubstance damage or deficiency. Purpose: To compare 5-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes between hips treated with primary complete arthroscopic labral reconstruction and those treated with primary labral repair. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: All hips that underwent primary labral repair or reconstruction by the senior surgeon between January 2015 and December 2015 were included. Hips that had undergone a previous intra-articular procedure were excluded. Visual analog scales and patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments were completed by patients within 1 week before surgery as a baseline measurement, between 22 and 26 months postoperatively for 2-year outcomes, and between 58 and 62 months for 5-year outcomes. PRO scores collected included the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool, and the visual analog scale for pain and satisfaction. Pain and satisfaction were assessed using visual analog scales. Results: A total of 68 primary labral repairs and 62 primary complete labral reconstructions were included in the final analysis. Patients in the reconstruction cohort were older (38.3 vs 29.9 years; P < .001), had a higher incidence of severe labral tearing (62.90% vs 5.88%; P < .001), required a greater number of concomitant procedures (P < .001), and were more likely to have Beck grade III or IV chondral damage (12.94% vs 1.47%; P < .001). Both groups demonstrated statistically significant increases in outcome scores at minimum 5-year follow-up. Patients who underwent labral reconstruction had a significantly greater increase in mHHS from the preoperative assessment to latest follow-up compared with patients undergoing labral repair (27.43 vs 17.13; P = .04). No statistically significant differences between the 2 cohorts were found in achievement of minimal clinically important difference, Patient Acceptable Symptom State, maximum outcome improvement, and substantial clinical benefit at latest follow-up (P > .05). In total, 2 patients in the repair cohort and 3 patients in the reconstruction cohort required revision arthroscopy (P = .574). Further, 1 patient from each group converted to arthroplasty (P = .947). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that primary complete labral reconstruction is a viable surgical option for hips with moderate to severe labral pathology. At minimum 5-year follow-up, labral reconstruction produced similar outcomes to labral repair despite less favorable preoperative patient characteristics in the reconstruction cohort.