Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy With Labral Reconstruction or Labral Repair and Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review
Authors: Park Nancy , Klug Trevan , Patel Seema , Surucu Serkan , Lee Michael S. , Kardestuncer Kian , Norman Mackenzie , Zhu Justin , Pettinelli Nicholas J. , Modrak Maxwell , Jimenez Andrew E. 
Published: September 2024

Background:

Compromise of the acetabular labrum can lead to pain and loss of critical intra-articular fluid pressure. Revision labral preservation poses unique challenges due to adhesions and compromised tissue quality.

Purpose/Hypothesis:

The purpose of the study was to evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with either labral reconstruction or labral repair after primary hip arthroscopy for labral tear. It was hypothesized that both procedures would lead to improved PROs.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A systematic review of the literature was conducted with the following keywords: (revision) AND (hip OR femoroacetabular impingement) AND (arthroscop*) AND (reconstruction OR repair) in PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus in August 2023 using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria, yielding 2002 initial records. Only studies comparing PROMs between revision labral reconstruction or revision labral repair after primary hip arthroscopy for labral tear were included. Background article information was recorded, including article title, author, study design, level of evidence, patient demographics, radiographic information, intraoperative data, PROMs, psychometric thresholds, and secondary surgeries. Secondary surgery in our study was defined as any open or arthroscopic hip surgery secondary to the initial revision surgery. Forest plots were created for pre- and postoperative outcomes present in ≥3 studies. Heterogeneity was calculated using I2 values.

Results:

Four studies, including 215 revision labral reconstructions and 115 revision labral repairs of the hips, were included in this systematic review. All studies were level 3 evidence, and study periods ranged between 2009 and 2019. Mean follow-up for the reconstruction and repair groups ranged from 26.3 to 36.6 months and 30.7 to 56.4 months, respectively. The mean age for the reconstruction and repair groups varied between 27 to 34.6 years and 27.5 to 30 years, respectively. Mean postoperative modified Harris Hip Scores for the reconstruction and repair cohorts ranged from 72.0 to 81.2 and 70.8 to 84.1, respectively ( I2 = 0%). Mean visual analog scale for pain scores for the reconstruction and repair cohorts ranged from 3 to 3.5 and 2.3 to 3.9 ( I2 = 33%). Overall secondary surgery rates ranged from 10.0% to 26.7% in the labral reconstruction cohort, compared with 10.0% to 50.0% in the labral repair cohort. One study reported superior outcomes in the revision labral repair group, with 3 studies finding no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the groups.

Conclusion:

Our systematic review showed that patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction demonstrated significant improvement in postoperative outcome measures. Postoperative outcomes were similar to those of a benchmark control group of patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy and labral repair. Labral reconstruction in the revision setting appears to be an effective treatment in clinically indicated patients.