Secondary Hip Labral Reconstruction Yields Inferior Minimum 2-Year Functional Outcomes to Primary Reconstruction Despite Comparable Intraoperative Labral Characteristics

Abstract

PurposeTo compare intraoperative labral characteristics and minimum 2-year functional outcomes of allograft labral reconstruction in primary versus revision hip arthroscopy across multiple orthopedic centers. MethodsA 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 were also 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 ANOVA was performed on continuous variables. Chi-squared test was performed on categorical variables. Achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) was also assessed. ResultsIn 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 = 0.001). 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 = 0.160, P = 0.783, P = 0.357, 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 = 0.030). Patients undergoing primary reconstruction were more likely to reach MCID, PASS, and nearly normal SCB (92 vs 66.7%, P = 0.024; 68.0 vs. 40.7%, P = 0.021; 76.0 vs 48.1%, P = 0.014, respectively). ConclusionsPrimary and secondary allograft labral reconstruction show clinical improvement, but primary reconstruction demonstrates better outcomes and higher percentage of patients reaching MCID, PASS and nearly normal SCB than reconstruction in the revision setting. Level of EvidenceIII, retrospective comparative prognostic case-control study.