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

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.

Prospective Single-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Pericapsular Injection Versus Lumbar Plexus Peripheral Nerve Block for Hip Arthroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Hip arthroscopy has become the standard for the operative treatment of symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement. Given the high levels of postoperative pain associated with hip arthroscopy, optimal analgesia is critical to ensure patient comfort and safety after discharge. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: Our purpose was to perform a single-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing the use of pericapsular injection versus lumbar plexus blockade for postoperative pain control after arthroscopic surgery on the hip. We hypothesized that pericapsular injection would provide equivalent pain relief to that of lumbar plexus blockade while minimizing adverse effects and alleviating the dependence on a qualified individual to administer. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A total of 64 consecutive patients undergoing hip arthroscopy were prospectively assessed over a 6-month period between 2017 and 2018. Patients were randomly allocated to 1 of 2 groups: 32 patients received a lumbar plexus blockade by a single anesthesiologist, while 32 patients received a pericapsular injection of 30 mL of ropivacaine and 12 mg of morphine. Postoperative pain in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) as measured using the numeric rating scale, time to discharge, PACU morphine equivalents, and adverse effects were collected by PACU staff. Postoperative day 1 and 2 narcotic use was obtained through a telephone call with the patient on postoperative day 3. RESULTS: We found no statistically significant difference in PACU pain scores at all time points, although there was a trend toward lower pain for patients receiving a pericapsular injection. PACU and short-term narcotic demand did not vary across the 2 arms. Time to discharge from the PACU did not differ. There were no major adverse events reported for either intervention. CONCLUSION: Pericapsular injection provides equivalent analgesia when compared with lumbar plexus blockade. It is a safe intervention that allows for efficient postoperative analgesia for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03244631.

Primary and Revision Circumferential Labral Reconstruction for Femoroacetabular Impingement in Athletes: Return to Sport and Technique.

PURPOSE: To determine return-to-play rates and hip-specific outcomes in athlete hips with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome treated with circumferential labral reconstruction (CLR). METHODS: All consecutive patients who underwent CLR from January through December 2016 performed by the senior surgeon with complete 2-year outcome scores were identified. The hips of 57 non-athletes who underwent CLR were excluded from analysis, as were 165 patients who underwent labral repair and 4 patients who underwent labral debridement. Outcome measures were completed by patients within 1 week prior to surgery and between 22 and 26 months postoperatively. Thirty patients met the inclusion criteria for this study. All 30 participated in regular, competitive athletic events and had magnetic resonance arthrogram-confirmed labral tears, and nonsurgical measures had failed. Of the 30 patients, 5 (16.7%) participated in cutting sports; 5 (16.7%), asymmetrical or overhead sports; 4 (13.3%), contact sports; 13 (43.3%), endurance sports; and 3 (10.0%), flexibility sports. Moreover, 25 of 30 (83.3%) were high-level athletes. Both primary (n = 23) and revision (n = 7) procedures were included. RESULTS: As determined by the International Hip Outcome Tool 12 score, 28 of 30 patients (93.3%) met the patient acceptable symptomatic state whereas 30 of 30 (100%) achieved substantial clinical benefit and exceeded the minimal clinically important difference for their operative hip. In addition, 23 of 30 patients (76.6%) met the patient acceptable symptomatic state whereas 30 of 30 (100%) achieved substantial clinical benefit and exceeded the minimal clinically important difference for the operative hip as determined by the visual analog scale pain score. Of 30 patients, 26 (86.7%) were able to return to play. The mean time to return to play was 6.6 months (standard deviation, 2.4 months). CONCLUSIONS: Two-year outcomes in this population of athletes undergoing CLR for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome show a statistically and clinically significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes, a statistically and clinically significant decrease in pain, and an overall return-to-play rate of 86.7%. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Primary Circumferential Acetabular Labral Reconstruction: Achieving Outcomes Similar to Primary Labral Repair Despite More Challenging Patient Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of acetabular labral tears with moderate or severe intrasubstance damage or segmental defects remains a substantial challenge. Circumferential labral reconstruction with iliotibial band allograft is a relatively new technique that has been proposed to restore stability and eliminate high-stress junction points. PURPOSE: To compare outcomes between hips treated with primary allograft circumferential labral reconstruction and primary labral repair. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: All consecutive hips between 2014 and 2015 that underwent primary reconstruction or primary repair by the senior surgeon were included and compared. Hips that had a prior intra-articular procedure were excluded. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores and visual analog scales were completed by patients within 1 week before surgery and between 22 and 26 months postoperatively. PROs included the modified Harris Hip Score, the International Hip Outcome Tool, and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey for physical health. Pain and satisfaction were assessed with visual analog scales. Crude and inverse probability of treatment weighting comparisons of PROs between groups were performed. RESULTS: A total of 162 hips met the inclusion criteria for this study, including 99 labral repairs and 63 complete labral reconstructions. Patients who underwent labral reconstruction were, on average, older (43.4 vs 29.5 years; P < .01), had a slightly higher body mass index (24.6 vs 23.0; P < .01), had hips with a higher Tönnis grade (grade 1 or 2: 25% vs 9%; P < .01), had higher preoperative pain scores (49.9 vs 41.5; P = .01), and had hips with more severe pathology (68% vs 5%; P < .01) as compared with patients with labral repair hips. Five (5%) labral repair hips and 5 (8%) labral reconstruction hips failed treatment ( P = .48). Among hips that did not fail (n = 94 repairs, n = 58 reconstructions), all demonstrated statistically significant improvements in PROs, and there was no statistical difference in PROs between groups after weighting ( P > .05). CONCLUSION: Primary circumferential labral reconstruction is a viable treatment option with promising short-term outcomes for hips that demonstrate moderate or severe labral damage. Despite less favorable preoperative characteristics, labral reconstruction offers similar outcomes when compared with labral repair in hips with less severe pathology.