Update on contribution of hip labral tears to hip pain: A narrative review

Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy With Labral Reconstruction or Labral Repair and Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review

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 I 2 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 (I 2 = 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 (I 2 = 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.

Decreased Hip Labral Width Measured on Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is Associated With Greater Revision Rate After Primary Arthroscopic Labral Repair for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome at 5-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To examine the associations between hip labral width and patient-reported outcomes, clinical threshold achievement rates, and rate of reoperation among patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) who underwent hip arthroscopy and labral repair at minimum 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

Patients were identified from a prospective database who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for treatment of labral tears and FAIS. Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS) were recorded preoperatively and at 5-year follow-up. Achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) was determined using previously established values. Labral width magnetic resonance imaging measurements were performed by 2 independent readers at standardized "clockface" locations. Patients were stratified into 3 groups at each position: lower-width (<½ SD below mean), middle-width (within ½ SD of mean), and upper-width (>½ SD above mean). Multivariable regression was used to evaluate associations of labral width with patient-reported outcomes and reoperation rate.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients (age: 41.0 ± 12.0 years; 68.5% female) were included. Inter-rater reliability for labral width measurements was high at all positions (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.94-0.96). There were no significant intergroup differences in mHHS/NAHS improvement (P > .05) or in achievement rates of MCID/SCB/PASS at each clockface position (P > .05). Eleven patients (15.1%) underwent arthroscopic revision and 4 patients (5.5%) converted to total hip arthroplasty. Multivariable analysis found lower-width groups at 11:30 (odds ratio 1.75, P = .02) and 3:00 (odds ratio 1.59, P = .04) positions to have increased odds of revision within 5 years; however, labral width was not associated with 5-year improvement in mHHS/NAHS, achievement of MCID/PASS/SCB, or conversion to total hip arthroplasty (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Hip labral width <½ SD below the mean measured on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging at 11:30- and 3:00-clockface positions was associated with increased odds of reoperation after arthroscopic labral repair and treatment of FAIS. Labral width was not associated with 5-year improvement of mHHS, NAHS, achievement of clinical thresholds, or conversion to arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Associations Between Hip Pathology, Hip and Groin Pain, and Injuries in Hockey Athletes: A Clinical Commentary

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), particularly cam morphology, is highly prevalent among elite hockey athletes. Moreover, hip and groin pain has become a common issue in hockey, with approximately 50% of European professional athletes reported to experience a hip or groin problem during a season. While most athletes will not miss training or competition due to this, restricted competitive performance and increased risk of reduced physical and psychological well-being are likely. Recent research suggests that the development of cam morphology is related to the repetitive shear stresses experienced at the hip joint during adolescence from skating. This condition likely increases the potential for intra-articular and extra-articular injuries in these athletes later in their careers. Research also indicates that the hip joint mechanics during forward skating substantially increase the possibility of sustaining a labral tear compared to other sports. Such an injury can increase femoral head movement within the joint, potentially causing secondary damage to the iliofemoral ligament, ligamentum teres and joint capsule. These injuries and the high density of nociceptors in the affected structures may explain the high prevalence of hip and groin pain in hockey athletes. Compensatory adaptations, such as reduced hip strength, stability, and range-of-motion (ROM) likely increase the opportunity for core muscle injuries and hip flexor and adductor injuries. Specifically, the limited hip ROM associated with cam morphology appears to exacerbate the risk of these injuries as there will be an increase in pubic symphysis stress and transverse strain during rotational movements. It is hoped that this article will assist practitioners currently working with hockey athletes to develop evidence-informed monitoring strategies and training interventions, aimed at reducing the incidence and severity of hip and groin problems, ultimately enhancing athlete performance and well-being. Therefore, the purpose of this clinical commentary was to examine current evidence on common hip pathologies in hockey athletes, exploring potential associations between hip and groin pain and the biomechanics of hockey activities.

Level of Evidence

5.

Hip microinstability and its association with femoroacetabular impingement: A scoping review

Introduction

Hip microinstability has become a recognized cause of non-arthritic hip pain and disability in young patients. However, its pathophysiology remains unclear. We want to (1) present an overview of the evidence of hip microinstability and of its association with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), (2) map out the type of evidence available, and (3) make recommendations for future research.

Methods

A deductive analysis and extraction method was used to extract information. In addition, diagnostic accuracy statistics were extracted or calculated.

Results

Of the 2,808 identified records, 123 were eligible for inclusion. Different definitions for microinstability exist. A standardized terminology and clear diagnostic criteria are lacking. FAI and microinstability may be associated and may aggravate each other. Conservative treatment strategies for FAI and microinstability are similar. The reported prevalence of microinstability in combination with FAI ranges from 21% to 42% in adults undergoing hip arthroscopy or magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) of the hip.

Conclusion

Hip microinstability and FAI may be associated, occur together, or exacerbate each other. To better address this topic, a standardized terminology for microinstability is essential. Achieving consensus on physical examination and diagnosis is also necessary. Initial efforts to establish uniform diagnostic criteria have been made, but further work is needed. Specifically, randomized controlled trials are required to evaluate the effectiveness of training programmes aimed at reducing symptoms in individuals with microinstability, with or without FAI. Such studies will enable clinicians to manage microinstability with greater confidence within this context.

Gadolinium injected concurrently with anesthetic can result in false-negative diagnostic intra-articular hip injections

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the response to intra-articular hip injections with and without concurrent gadolinium administration. Our secondary outcome was to compare post-operative outcomes between patients with an initial false-negative gadolinium-containing injection and a matched control group.

METHODS

Patients receiving a series of two hip diagnostic intra-articular injections (DIAI), the first with gadolinium for concurrent MRA and the second without gadolinium, were retrospectively identified. Pain response to DIAI, injectate volume, local anesthetic volume, inclusion of corticosteroids, and method of injection were compared between injections. False-negative injection was defined as < 50% pain relief with concurrent gadolinium, but ≥ 50% pain relief with subsequent anesthetic injection without gadolinium. False-negative injections in patients that ultimately underwent primary hip arthroscopy were identified from this cohort and matched in a 3:1 ratio to a control cohort to compare short-term post-operative single assessment numerical evaluation (SANE) outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients underwent a series of anesthetic injections with and without gadolinium and met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Pain response was significantly different in injections performed with and without gadolinium (18% vs. 81%; p < 0.001). There were significant differences in total injectate volume, local anesthetic volume, corticosteroid use, and method of injection between injections, but these variables were not correlated with pain response. Fifteen patients with false-negative responses to injection underwent primary hip arthroscopy and were matched in a 3:1 ratio to a control cohort. There was no difference in short-term post-operative SANE scores between the gadolinium-sensitive and control groups (81.6 vs. 80.0, n.s.).

CONCLUSION

Concurrent administration of intra-articular gadolinium with DIAI may result in a false-negative response to anesthetic. Additionally, in patients with initial false-negative DIAI with gadolinium, short-term post-operative outcomes after hip arthroscopy are similar to a matched cohort.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.