Labral Augmentation Research Articles

Poster 196: Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Following Hip Arthroscopy With Labral Repair Versus Labral Augmentation

Poster 196: Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Following Hip Arthroscopy With Labral Repair Versus Labral Augmentation

The Everted Acetabular Labrum: Outcomes of Surgical Management

Background: An everted acetabular labrum (EL) is a pathologic variant in which the labrum is flipped to the capsular side of the acetabular rim. An iatrogenic EL is a known complication of a poorly executed labral repair, and a recent study described the native acetabular EL. Purpose: To analyze surgical outcomes after advancement or reconstruction of an EL in a native hip. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective review of prospectively collected data on primary hip arthroscopic surgeries performed between 2013 and 2023. An EL was identified arthroscopically as a labrum–femoral head gap while off traction in the native hip. All patients with EL who were analyzed in this study underwent arthroscopic labral repair and advancement or labral augmentation or reconstruction. Patients with hip dysplasia also underwent periacetabular osteotomy with or without a derotational femoral osteotomy. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) and the Nonarthritic Hip Score. PROs were obtained preoperatively and up to 24 months after surgery. PROs were compared with those of a case-matched control cohort in a 1:2 ratio. Only patients with PROs available at ≥1 year postoperatively were included in the outcome analysis. Results: A total of 111 patients (129 hips) with EL during the study period were identified, with PROs available in 96 hips. The mean age of patients with EL was 30.5 years, and women made up 87% of the cohort. Of the 129 hips with an EL, an isolated diagnosis of an EL was present in 11.6% of hips. Deficient acetabular coverage (lateral center-edge angle <25°) was seen in 40.6% of EL hips. No difference was seen in iHOT-12 scores between EL and control groups at 12- or 24-month follow-up (P = .18 and .94, respectively). Patients with EL reported a significant improvement of PROs at latest follow-up (P < .001 for iHOT-12 and Nonarthritic Hip Score). Conclusion: Surgical management of a native EL with restoration of the labral seal on the femoral head and correction of concomitant pathologies resulted in significant clinical improvement, with postoperative outcome scores comparable to those of patients without an EL. These findings provide evidence supporting surgical intervention for a native EL.

Labral Augmentation With Either Iliotibial Band Allograft or Dermis Allograft Perform Similarly Regarding Peak Force, Displacement, and Work to Labral Repair in Suction Seal Restoration: A Biomechanical Study

PurposeIn order to investigate if allograft substitutes may be utilized to restore suctional seal properties with labral augmentation, the purpose of the current study was to evaluate the biomechanical properties of the labral suction seal under several scenarios, including: (1)intact labrum, (2)rim preparation, (3)labral repair, (4)labral augmentation with iliotibial band (ITB), (5)labral augmentation with a dermis allograft. MethodsEleven hemi-pelvises were dissected to the level of the labrum and placed in a material testing system (MTS) for biomechanical axial distraction. Each specimen was compressed to 250 newtons (N) and distracted at 10 mm/s while load, crosshead displacement, and time were continuously recorded. For each of the five labral states, three testing repetitions were performed. Peak force (N, newtons), displacement at peak force (mm, millimeter), and work (N-mm, newton, millimeter) were calculated and normalized to the intact state of each specimen. ResultsEleven specimens were tested and eight specimens (age: 58.6±5.4 years, BMI: 28.6±6.8 kg/m2; 4 females; 5 right hips) were included in final analyses. Expressed as a percentage relative to the intact state, the average normalized peak force, displacement at peak force, and work for each labral state were as follows: intact (100.0%±0% for all), rim preparation (89.0%±9.2%, 93.3%±20.6%, 85.1%±9.0%), repair (61.3%±17.9%, 88.4%±36.9%, 58.1%±16.7%), ITB allograft (62.7%±24.9%, 83.9%±21.6%, 59.4%±22.4%), and dermis allograft (57.8%±27.2%, 88.2%±29.5%, 50.0%±20.1%). Regarding peak force, intact state was significantly higher compared to the labral repair, augmentation with ITB, and augmentation with the dermis allograft states (p<0.001). No significant differences were demonstrated between displacement at peak force (p=0.561). Regarding work, both intact state and rim preparation states were significantly higher than the repair, ITB augmentation, and dermis allograft augmentation states (p<0.001). In all outcome measures, the dermis allograft augmentation performed with no statistical difference to the ITB augmentation state. ConclusionLabral repair and labral augmentation with either ITB allograft or the dermis allograft resulted in significantly lower peak force and work to equilibrium compared to the intact and rim prep states. There was no statistical difference between repair and augmentation states as well as no statistical difference between ITB allograft and dermal allograft at time zero. Clinical RelevanceThis study compares biomechanical properties of the suction seal of the hip comparing labral states including intact, rim preparation, repair, and augmentation under which can be used for surgical decision making.

Research

The December 2023 Research Roundup360 looks at: Tissue integration and chondroprotective potential of acetabular labral augmentation with autograft tendon: study of a porcine model; The Irish National Orthopaedic Register under cyberattack: what happened, and what were the consequences?; An overview of machine learning in orthopaedic surgery: an educational paper; Beware of the fungus…; New evidence for COVID-19 in patients undergoing joint replacement surgery.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Approximates Labral Width at the 9-, 12-, and 3-O’Clock Positions in the Setting of Revision Hip Arthroscopy

To compare preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and intraoperative measurements of labral width and determine whether MRI can reliably predict labral width in the setting of revision surgery. Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy with labral repair performed by a single surgeon from January 2008 to December 2015 were identified retrospectively from a prospectively collected database. The width of the labrum was measured intraoperatively at the time of surgery. Two orthopaedic surgeons performed labral width measurements on MRI scans at 3 standardized locations using the clock-face method. Interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities were calculated, and comparisons between intraoperatively measured labral widths and MRI measurements were performed. Fifty-eight patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy were enrolled in the study. The average labral width measurements at the 3-, 12-, and 9-o'clock positions were 7.4 mm (standard deviation [SD], 1.2 mm), 7.5 mm (SD, 1.4 mm), and 6.6 mm (SD, 1.2 mm), respectively, on MRI compared with 6.7 mm (SD, 2.1 mm), 6.5 mm (SD, 2.5 mm), and 7.0 mm (SD, 1.9 mm), respectively, when measured intraoperatively. The average intraoperative measurements were smaller than the MRI measurements at the 3-o'clock (P= .03) and 12-o'clock (P= .01) positions. The inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients between the 2 surgeons exhibited good agreement (0.612) at the 3-o'clock position, fair agreement (0.498) at the 12-o'clock position, and poor agreement (0.171) at the 9-o'clock position. The positive predictive values of the MRI measurements were 72% at the 3-o'clock position, 68% at the 12-o'clock position, and 88% at the 9-o'clock position for identifying a labral width of 6 mm or greater. The results of this study show that MRI-measured labral width and actual labral width measured at the time of revision arthroscopy are usually within 1 mm of each other. Level II, diagnostic study investigating diagnostic test.

Labral Reconstruction via Capsular Augmentation Maintains Perfusion to the Acetabular Labrum and Locally Transferred Autograft: An in Vivo Laser Doppler Flowmetry Analysis.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of arthroscopic labral repair with capsular augmentation on blood flow in vivo with use of laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) to measure microvascular perfusion of the labrum and autograft tissue. The present prospective case series included patients ≥18 years old who underwent arthroscopic acetabular labral repair with capsular augmentation; all procedures were performed by a single surgeon between 2018 and 2022. The LDF probe measured microvascular blood flow flux within 1 mm3 of the surrounding labral and capsular tissue of interest. Mean baseline measurements of flux were compared with readings immediately following capsular elevation and after completing labral augmentation. Blood flux changes were expressed as the percent change from the baseline measurements. The present study included 41 patients (24 men [58.5%] and 17 women [41.5%]) with a mean age (and standard deviation) of 31.3 ± 8.4 years, a mean BMI of 24.6 ± 3.4 kg/m2, a mean lateral center-edge of angle 35.3° ± 4.9°, a mean Tönnis angle of 5.8° ± 5.8°, and a mean arterial pressure of 93.7 ± 10.9 mm Hg. Following capsular elevation, the mean percent change in capsular blood flow flux was significantly different from baseline (-9.24% [95% confidence interval (CI), -18.1% to -0.04%]; p < 0.001). Following labral augmentation, the mean percent change in labral blood flow flux was significantly different from baseline both medially (-22.3% [95% CI, -32.7% to -11.9%]; p < 0.001) and laterally (-32.5% [95% CI, -41.5% to -23.6%]; p = 0.041). There was no significant difference between the changes in medial and lateral perfusion following repair (p = 0.136). Labral repair with capsular augmentation sustains a reduced blood flow to the native labrum and capsular tissue at the time of fixation. The biological importance of this reduction is unknown, but these findings may serve as a benchmark for other labral preservation techniques and support future correlations with clinical outcomes. Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Tissue Integration and Chondroprotective Potential of Acetabular Labral Augmentation with Autograft Tendon: Study of a Porcine Model.

The aim of this study was to explore the tissue healing process and changes in articular cartilage following acetabular labral augmentation in a porcine model. The labrum was resected unilaterally from 10 o'clock to 1 o'clock on the capsular side in 36 pigs. Eighteen pigs underwent labral augmentation (AUG group) using autologous Achilles tendon. No additional procedures were performed in the remaining pigs (control group). The pigs were killed at 6, 12, or 24 weeks postoperatively for histological assessment and measurement of the inflammatory cytokines interleukin (IL)-6, IL-1β, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α in synovial fluid. All autografts were well placed in the labral defect in the AUG group, and good integration of the autograft with the remnant chondrolabral junction was observed at 24 weeks; only scar tissue was observed in the control group at 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Fibrochondrocytes were concentrated at the transition between the autograft and native labrum at early time points, and the cells within the autograft labrum were predominantly fibrochondrocytes at 24 weeks. Rough and irregular articular cartilage surfaces were observed in 3 of the 6 samples in the AUG group at 24 weeks; the others appeared smooth. Focal cartilage erosion (predominantly in the acetabulum) occurred in all samples in the control group at 12 and 24 weeks. The Mankin score at 24 weeks was significantly lower in the AUG group than in the control group (mean [95% confidence interval]: 2.33 [1.06 to 3.6] versus 9 [8.06 to 9.94], p < 0.001). Likewise, the concentrations of all cytokines (in pg/mL) were significantly lower in the AUG group than in the control group at 24 weeks (IL-6: 166.6 [155.22 to 177.94] versus 245.9 [242.66 to 249.14], p < 0.001; IL-1β: 122.1 [116.4 to 127.83] versus 282.9 [280.29 to 285.51], p < 0.001; and TNF-α: 56.22 [53.15 to 59.29] versus 135 [131.66 to 138.24], p < 0.001). Autograft tendon used for labral augmentation was able to integrate well with the native labrum, which may help to preserve the articular cartilage. Labral augmentation with autograft tendon may be a feasible option in cases of viable labral remnants.

The Vascularization Course of Labral Autograft and Its Effect on Tissue Healing: Acetabular Labral Augmentation Versus Labral Reconstruction in a Porcine Model

Background: The preservation of the native labral vascularization is assumed to be the potential advantage of acetabular labral augmentation, the effect of which remains unknown. Purpose: To identify the vascular distribution within the labral autograft and its effect on the healing process between labral augmentation (AUG) and reconstruction (RECON) in a porcine model. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 36 pigs randomly underwent unilateral labral augmentation or reconstruction (AUG group, n = 18; RECON group, n = 18). The pigs were randomly sacrificed at 6, 12, and 24 weeks postoperatively. The labral autografts were harvested for macroscopic evaluation and histologic assessment. The labral autograft was zoned into 2 halves to observe the vascular distribution: the capsular half (zone I) and the articular half (zone II). Each zone was divided into 2 parts: the peripheral part (IA and IIA) and the part attached to the acetabulum (IB and IIB). Results: At 6 weeks, there existed more vascular ingrowth in zone I, whereas zone IIB appeared nearly avascular in both groups. At 12 weeks, the area with the greatest vascularity was zone II in the RECON group and zone IA in the AUG group. The vascularity was concentrated at zones IA and IIA in both groups at 24 weeks. The labral autografts were hypertrophic with sufficient filling of the labral defect in both groups at 6 weeks. At 12 weeks, an insufficient volume of the articular half was observed in 3 of 6 labral autografts in the RECON group, while all autografts remained well integrated with the chondrolabral junction in the AUG group. At 24 weeks, unsatisfactory merging of the labral autograft with the cartilage at the articular side was found in 2 of 6 labral autografts in the RECON group, which was not observed in the AUG group despite the sufficient volume of autografts labrum in both groups. Conclusion: Slow vascular ingrowth within the articular half might account for the poor healing of the reconstructed labral autograft. Labral augmentation provides the possibility of better tissue healing because of the preservation of the original chondrolabral junction compared with labral reconstruction. Clinical Relevance: Labral augmentation might be a feasible alternative to labral reconstruction under the condition of viable labral remnants.

Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predicts Intraoperative Labral Width at the 9-O’clock and 12-O’clock Positions in Primary Hip Arthroscopy

PurposeTo determine whether preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can reliably predict labral width in primary hip arthroscopy.MethodsPatients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy with labral repair performed by a single surgeon from January 2008 to December 2015 were identified retrospectively from a prospectively collected database. The width of the labrum was measured intraoperatively at the time of surgery. Two orthopaedic surgeons performed labral width measurements on MRI at 3 standardized locations using the clock-face method at 2 time points, 4 weeks apart. Interobserver and intraobserver reliabilities were calculated, and comparisons were performed between intraoperatively measured labral widths and MRI measurements at the 3 positions.ResultsFifty-eight patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy were enrolled in the study. The average labral width measurements at the 3-, 12-, and 9-o’clock positions were 6.8 mm (standard deviation [SD], 1.1), 6.9 mm (SD, 1.3 mm), and 6.2 mm (SD, 0.9 mm), respectively, on MRI compared with 7.2 mm (SD, 1.5 mm), 7.8 mm (SD, 2.3 mm), and 7.3 mm (SD, 1.6 mm), respectively, when measured intraoperatively. The intraoperative measurements were larger than the MRI measurements at all 3 locations, with significant differences at the 12-o’clock (P = .008) and 9-o’clock (P < .001) positions. The positive predictive value of the MRI measurements was 92% at the 3-o’clock position, 89% at the 12-o’clock position, and 94% at the 9-o’clock position for identifying a labral width of 6 mm or greater.ConclusionsMeasuring labral width on MRI yielded, on average, a value that is smaller than the intraoperatively measured width in primary hip arthroscopy procedures. MRI can predict a labral width of 6 mm or greater in at least 89% of cases, which will assist in operative planning.Clinical RelevanceThe clinical implications of this research include identifying the rare patients in whom more advanced hip arthroscopy procedures may be indicated, such as labral augmentation, in instances of inadequate labral volume that will adequately restore the biomechanics of the suction seal.

Labral lesions in femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: evidence-based treatment

The acetabular labrum and the adjacent rim cartilage are the primary targets of primary or secondary degeneration processes in the hip joint. Currently, femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) is considered the main mechanical pathology leading to chondrolabral damage. The treatment options for labrum tears range from adebridement/resection, repair to augmentation or transplantation. Description of surgical treatment options for pathologic changes of the acetabulare labrum and their results with a focus on FAIS. Aliterature search was performed on https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov using the following key words: hip, labrum, therapy, resection, repair, augmentation, reconstruction. The different surgical procedures as labrum therapy reduce pain and increase the joint function. Labral repair, augmentation, and reconstruction tend to have better results compared to resection but are associated with ahigher rate of postoperative intraarticular adhesions. In addition to reducing pain and improving function, the goal of surgical treatment of labrum lesions should be to maintain the functions of the labrum. The labrum should be preserved, in cases of adequate tissue quality and width. In the setting of resective procedures, the resection should be limited to the unstable parts of the labrum. The results of labral augmentation and reconstruction are promising, allowing these procedures to be considered for patients with ongoing symptoms in the revision situation with labral defects or an insufficient residual labrum.

Midterm Outcomes After Hip Labral Augmentation in Revision Hip Arthroscopy

Background: Labral augmentation has emerged as an essential procedure to address a deficient or irreparable labrum while preserving native labral tissue and restoring the hip suction seal mechanism. Purpose: To evaluate midterm outcomes of arthroscopic hip labral augmentation for labral insufficiency after previous hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Patients were identified from a prospectively collected database who underwent arthroscopic hip labral augmentation between January 2011 and January 2017 with a minimum 3-year follow-up. Pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome scores were compared and included the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey physical and mental component summaries, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Hip Outcome Score (HOS) (Activities of Daily Living [ADL] and Sport). Postoperative Tegner Activity Scale and patient satisfaction (1-10) scores were also evaluated. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) between the preoperative and minimum 3-year follow-up scores were calculated. Results: A total of 88 patients (39 men, 49 women) underwent revision hip arthroscopy with labral augmentation. The average age was 32.8 ± 11 years. Of these, 77 patients (88%) were available for the minimum 3-year follow-up. The survivorship (absence of conversion to total hip arthroplasty) at 3 years and 5 years was 93% at both time points, with a mean survival time of 8.5 years (95% CI, 8.0-8.9). Eleven patients (14%) required revision arthroscopic surgery for continued pain. Revisions occurred at a mean of 2.6 ± 1.4 years after augmentation. The mean follow-up was 5.2 ± 1.2 years (range, 3-9 years). For patients not requiring subsequent surgery (n = 61), all patient-reported outcome measures significantly improved, which included a 20-point increase in HOS-ADL (MCID, 82%; PASS, 72%) and mHHS (MCID, 78%; PASS, 70%). The median postoperative Tegner score was 4 (range, 1-10). The median postoperative patient satisfaction score was 9 out of 10 (range, 1-10). Conclusion: Arthroscopic hip labral augmentation is a successful treatment option for patients with labral insufficiency after previous hip arthroscopy, demonstrating improved patient-reported outcomes and survivorship of 93% at 3 years and 5 years. This technique provides a valuable labral preservation option when addressing hip labral pathology when viable native labral tissue remains.

Autograft Versus Allograft: The Evidence in Hip Labral Reconstruction and Augmentation

Background: Labral augmentation and labral reconstruction have emerged as essential procedures for restoring the anatomic and functional characteristics of the hip joint in patients with a deficient hip labrum or irreparable labral tear. Hypothesis/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare allograft and autograft hip labral reconstruction and augmentation. We hypothesized that autografts would entail fewer revision arthroscopic procedures. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients were identified who underwent labral reconstruction or labral augmentation using iliotibial band (ITB) allograft or ITB autograft performed by a single surgeon between 2011 and 2017. Patient-reported outcome measures collected before surgery and at minimum 2-year follow-up included the following: Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living and Hip Outcome Score Sports-Specific Subscale and, at follow-up, patient satisfaction (range, 1-10, with 10 being very satisfied). Patients followed a standardized rehabilitation protocol after surgery with relative individualization to address each patient's needs. For continuous variables, comparisons between allografts and autografts were made using Student t tests or Mann-Whitney tests. Categorical comparisons were assessed using chi-square or Fisher exact test. Multiple logistic regression was performed to determine the influence of graft choice on risk of revision or THA. Results: A total of 205 hips met 2-year inclusion criteria. ITB allografts were used for 55 patients (37 augmentations, 18 reconstructions) and ITB autografts for 150 patients (34 augmentations, 116 reconstructions). Females represented a greater proportion of allograft versus autograft patients (71% vs 46%, respectively; P = .001). Overall, autograft patients had larger alpha angles (66.6° vs 59.1°; P = .001) and longer grafts (46 vs 41 mm; P = .03) compared with allograft patients. A total of 13 (23.6%) patients required revision surgery in the allograft group compared with 11 (7.3%) in the autograft group (P < .001). After controlling for sex, procedure (reconstruction vs augmentation), and previous surgery, the odds of revision were higher for allograft patients (OR, 4.1; 95% CI, 1.5-11.6). No significant differences in conversion to THA were observed between groups (allograft = 9%; autograft = 6%; P = .50), even after adjustment for the above covariates (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.6-7.9). No differences in postoperative patient-reported outcome measures or patient satisfaction were observed between groups. Conclusion: Labral augmentation or reconstruction with autograft has a significantly lower revision rate than labral augmentation or reconstruction with allograft.

Restoration of Labral Function in Primary Hip Arthroscopy From Labral Repair to Labral Reconstruction

AbstractThe function and importance of the labrum in hip biomechanics has been established. A labral tear is the most common pathology in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy, and adequate management is critical for favorable outcomes. Although labral debridement was initially performed for arthroscopic labral tear management, there has been a shift toward labral restoration techniques. Currently, restoration with labral repair remains the gold standard for labral tear treatment, particularly in the primary setting. When compared to labral debridement, the literature has shown that labral repair has more favorable outcomes.Irreparable labral tears, although unusual in the primary setting, present a challenge. Labral reconstruction and augmentation are recent advancements in this scenario of hip arthroscopy that can help restore labral function.Two alternatives of labral reconstruction have been described: segmental and circumferential. Clinical data for segmental labral reconstruction has reported good outcomes at short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. Similarly, arthroscopic circumferential reconstruction has shown good to excellent results at short-term follow-up. As the name suggests, only a segment of the labrum is reconstructed during segmental reconstruction. In a circumferential reconstruction, the entire labrum is taken down from the most anterior to the most posterior aspect of the transverse acetabular ligament and is reconstructed using an auto or allograft. A benefit of circumferential labral reconstruction is the removal of the entire damaged labral tissue, a potential source of pain. However, there is no clear evidence that demonstrates the superiority of one method over the other.Labral graft reinforcement via tissue augmentation or labral augmentation is an interesting option because it preserves the native chondrolabral junction. Labral augmentation can also be used for hypoplastic labrum that intraoperatively demonstrates a deficient suction-seal.

Circumferential and Segmental Arthroscopic Labral Reconstruction of the Hip Utilizing the Knotless Pull-Through Technique with All-Suture Anchors

Appropriate labral tear management is one of the principal priorities of hip-preservation surgery. The labrum’s role in the stability and biomechanics of the hip and preservation of the suction seal has been thoroughly demonstrated. Favorable patient-reported outcomes with labral reconstruction and, more recently, labral augmentation have shown that these are viable reconstructive procedures in the setting of irreparable labra. A wide variety of grafts have been used for these advanced labral restoration techniques. The present Technical Note will describe a detailed arthroscopic circumferential labral reconstruction using the pull-through technique with knotless all-suture anchors. The benefits of such can be applied to both segmental and circumferential labral reconstruction procedures, as well as labral augmentation, based on the intraoperative findings and preference of the surgeon.

Revision Hip Arthroscopy in the Native Hip: A Review of Contemporary Evaluation and Treatment Options.

Hip arthroscopy is a reproducible and efficacious procedure for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Despite this efficacy, clinical failures are observed, clinical entities are challenging to treat, and revision hip arthroscopy may be required. The most common cause of symptom recurrence after a hip arthroscopy that leads to a revision arthroscopy is residual cam morphology as a result of inadequate femoral osteochondroplasty and restoration of head–neck offset, though several other revision etiologies including progressive chondral and labral pathologies also exist. In these cases, it is imperative to perform a comprehensive examination to identify the cause of a failed primary arthroscopy as to assess whether or not a revision hip arthroscopy procedure is indicated. When a secondary procedure is indicated, approaches may consist of revision labral repair, complete labral reconstruction, or labral augmentation depending on labral integrity. Gross instability or imaging-based evidence of microinstability may necessitate capsular augmentation or plication. If residual cam or pincer morphology is present, additional resection of the osseous abnormalities may be warranted. This review article discusses indications, the evaluation of patients with residual symptoms after primary hip arthroscopy, and the evaluation of outcomes following revision hip arthroscopy through an evidence-based discussion. We also present a case example of a revision hip arthroscopy procedure to highlight necessary intraoperative techniques during a revision hip arthroscopy.

Midterm Outcomes Following Hip Labral Augmentation

Objectives:Arthroscopic hip labral preservation techniques have evolved over the last decade. Arthroscopic hip labral augmentation with iliotibial band (ITB) autograft placed into a labral defect with viable circumferential fibers is a novel treatment option to restore the hip suction seal and improve functionality. The purpose of this study is to determine midterm (3-5 year follow up) outcomes of arthroscopic hip labral augmentation procedure.Methods:Patients who underwent arthroscopic hip labral augmentation from August 2011 to March 2017 were prospectively evaluated. Pre- and post-operative patient reported outcome scores were compared and included SF12 PCS, SF12 MCS, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS) (Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Sport). Post-operative Tegner Activity Scale and patient satisfaction (1 – 10) were also evaluated.Results:One hundred and six patients underwent arthroscopic hip labral augmentation with minimum 3-year follow-up. Mean follow-up was 5-year follow-up (range, 3 to 9.2 years). All patient reported outcomes improved after labral augmentation (SF12 PCS 39±8 vs. 50±10, p>0.01; mHHS 59±15 vs. 79±21, p<0.01; WOMAC 31±16 vs. 16±17, p<0.01; HOS ADL 64±17 vs. 84±21, p<0.01; HOS Sport 41±22 vs. 71±29, p<0.01). Median post-operative Tegner score was 4. Median post-operative patient satisfaction was 9 out of 10 (range, 1-10). In terms of survivorship, 12 patients (11%) required revision surgery and 6 (5.7%) converted to total hip arthroplasty (THA).Conclusions:Arthroscopic hip labral augmentation is a successful treatment option for patients that have viable circumferential fibers present at the time of arthroscopy. This technique continues to show improved patient reported outcomes and is another hip labral preservation technique that may help reestablish the intra-articular fluid suction seal.

Hip Labral Reconstruction with Capsular Autograft Augmentation

Multiple treatment options are available for patients presenting with a torn or deficient acetabular labrum. Biomechanical studies have demonstrated that the acetabular labrum may play a role in decreasing the risk of osteoarthritis and in maintaining long-term hip kinematics and stability. As such, repair or reconstruction of the labrum is often preferred over resection or debridement. In instances of a hypoplastic labrum, labral reconstruction or augmentation may be necessary even in a primary setting. Although reconstruction is a technique that should be in any hip arthroscopist’s toolkit, allografts can be expensive and may not always be available when needed. In this Technical Note, we describe a labral augmentation with capsular autograft that diminishes donor-site morbidity associated with fascia lata autografts. This technique enables incorporation of healthy capsular tissue that allows for the recreation of the suction seal while avoiding some of the technically challenging aspects and costs of the conventional allograft labral reconstruction.

The Effect of Rim Preparation, Labral Augmentation, and Labral Reconstruction on the Suction Seal of the Hip

To evaluate the biomechanical properties of the labral suction seal in the native labrum and after rim preparation, labral augmentation, and labral reconstruction. Eight hemi-pelvises were dissected to the level of labrum and mounted for biomechanical testing. Each specimen was tested in axial distraction starting with the native labrum and then sequentially following rim preparation from 12 to 3 o'clock, labral augmentation, and segmental labral reconstruction using the iliotibial band allograft. In each condition, the specimens were compressed to 250 N and then distracted at 10 mm/s with force and displacement continuously recorded. Each test was repeated 3 times, and the mean peak force, displacement at peak force, and work were calculated. Data were reported as a percentage of the intact values to account for sex and size differences. Statistical testing was performed via a repeated-measures analysis of variance with a post hoc Tukey analysis. Peak loads occurred within 2.21 to 3.11 mm of displacement. The mean peak force, displacement at peak force, and work relative to the intact condition were the following: rim preparation (91.1% ± 8.5%, 94.4% ± 14.3%, 93.4% ± 23.5%, respectively), augmentation (66.1% ± 27.6%, 78.2% ± 16.3%, 55.7% ± 30.7%, respectively), and reconstruction (55.6% ± 25.7%, 64.7% ± 31.4%, 38.7% ± 27.2%, respectively). There was no significant difference in peak force following the rim preparation (P= .807), but peak force was significantly decreased after augmentation and reconstruction (P= .010 and P < .001, respectively). There was no significant difference in displacement at peak force following rim preparation or augmentation (P= .936 and P= .125, respectively), but displacement at peak force was significantly decreased after reconstruction (P= .005). The work from the suction seal was significantly less in both augmentation and reconstruction states compared to the intact labrum (P= .004 and P < .001, respectively) and rim preparation (P= .017 and P < .001, respectively). The results show that the suction seal is not significantly changed following rim preparation. Relative to the rim preparation, labral augmentation may re-create the labral suction seal better than labral reconstruction. This study provides a biomechanical basis for surgical decision making and clinical management of patients with labral tears of the hip.

Technical Pearls for Arthroscopic Labral Augmentation of the Hip

Our recent understanding of the importance of the acetabular labral suction seal has placed preserving labral integrity as a guiding principle in hip preservation surgery. In cases with a hypoplastic labrum and intact chondrolabral junction, labral augmentation presents as a viable alternative and an often preferred treatment option over labral reconstruction. At this time, there are few studies that have described the technical pearls of performing labral augmentation of the hip. In this technique guide, we describe, in detail, the kite technique for the introduction, control, and acetabular fixation of a hip labral augmentation graft. Comparable to flying a kite with 2 fly lines and to the previously described kite technique for hip labral reconstruction, the kite technique for labral augmentation is based on the principle that the use of 2 control sutures in a pulley system creates an efficient method to accurately and reproducibly facilitate graft passage and fixation during arthroscopic labral augmentation procedures.

Arthroscopic Treatment of Hip Dislocation After Previous Hip Arthroscopy: Capsular Reconstruction With Labral Augmentation

The hip capsule and acetabular labrum are critical structures that function to protect and stabilize the hip joint. As the use of hip arthroscopy increases, there is increasing interest in the integrity of the hip capsule and labrum in optimizing postoperative function and outcomes. In this report, we describe the surgical technique for capsular reconstruction with dermal allograft and labral augmentation with tibialis anterior allograft for the treatment of gross instability after hip arthroscopy. This technique may be applied in situations with large capsular defects and deficient labral tissue.