Bilateral Hip Arthroscopy: Direct Comparison of Primary Acetabular Labral Repair and Primary Acetabular Labral Reconstruction

Graft Options in Hip Labral Reconstruction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The last decade has seen a boom in hip arthroscopy with refined indications. Improved understanding of pathoanatomy and disease progression has allowed for the development of advanced techniques. Labral reconstruction has been developed to substitute a non-functional or absent labrum. It has become an important technique in the armamentarium of high-volume arthroscopic hip surgeons.

RECENT FINDINGS

Basic science studies have improved understanding of hip biomechanics in the presence and absence of a labrum with a labral reconstruction allowing for reconstitution of normalcy. Current techniques have shown success with autograft and allograft tissue options. While autograft tissue allows for easy access intra-operatively and maintains patient biology, donor site morbidity is possible. Allografts negate donor site morbidity and allow for an abundance of tissue but can be resource-intensive and face availability concerns. Recent studies support outcomes of labral reconstructions using both autograft and allograft. Promising results have also allowed for performing labral reconstruction in a primary setting. Labral reconstruction can be successfully performed using both autograft and allograft. Patient biology should be respected, and native hip biomechanics restored. The literature is plentiful for appropriate surgical decision-making allowing the surgeon with multiple graft choices depending on training, experience, and resources.

Editorial Commentary: Arthroscopic Treatment for Diminutive Hip Labral Size: Go Big or Go Home?

The diminutive (or hypoplastic or hypotrophic) hip labrum presents a unique surgical challenge in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome for many hip arthroscopists. Insufficient labral tissue leads to increased risk for suture cutout or overeversion, with resulting loss of suction seal when attempting arthroscopic repair. Although some surgeons have demonstrated clinical improvement after performing primary refixation of the diminutive labrum, others have reported inferior outcomes for patients with labral width <4 mm compared with patients having normal or larger labral width. Alternative treatment methods, including labral reconstruction or labral augmentation with autograft or allograft, may be effective, based on select single-surgeon studies. As further research is needed to fully evaluate outcomes of these techniques, hip arthroscopists should recognize the difficult task at hand and be prepared to use assorted treatment options to augment a diminutive labrum. Larger labra can maintain contact with the femoral head after repair, and techniques such as labral base fixation can help to preserve this interaction and recreate the suction seal.

Comparison of Suction Seal and Contact Pressures Between 270° Labral Reconstruction, Labral Repair, and the Intact Labrum

PURPOSE

To biomechanically compare the suction seal, contact area, contact pressures, and peak forces of the intact native labrum, torn labrum, 12- to 3-o'clock labral repair, and 270° labral reconstruction in the hip.

METHODS

A cadaveric study was performed using 8 fresh-frozen hemipelvises with intact labra and without osteoarthritis. Intra-articular pressure maps were produced for each specimen using an electromechanical testing system under the following conditions: (1) intact labrum, (2) labral tear, (3) labral repair between the 12- and 3-o'clock positions, and (4) 270° labral reconstruction using iliotibial band allograft. Specimens were examined in neutral position, 20° of extension, and 60° of flexion. In each condition, contact pressure, contact area, and peak force were obtained. Repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to identify differences in biomechanical parameters among the 3 conditions. Qualitative differences in suction seal were compared between labral repair and labral reconstruction using the Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

Repeated-measures analysis of variance for contact area in neutral position, extension, and flexion showed statistically significant differences between the normalized study states (P < .05). Post hoc analysis showed significantly larger contact areas measured in labral repair specimens than in labral reconstruction specimens in the extension and flexion positions. Region-of-interest analysis for the normalized contact area in the extension and flexion positions, as well as normalized contact pressures in neutral position, showed statistically significant differences between the labral states (P < .05). Finally, 8 labral repairs (100%) versus only 1 labral reconstruction (12.5%) retained the manually tested suction seal (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this in vitro biomechanical model, 270° labral reconstruction resulted in decreased intra-articular contact area and loss of suction seal when compared with labral repair. Clinically, labral reconstruction may not restore the biomechanical characteristics of the native labrum as compared with labral repair.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Labral reconstruction may result in lower intra-articular hip contact area and loss of suction seal, affecting the native biomechanical function of the acetabular labrum. Further biomechanical studies and clinical studies are necessary to determine whether there are any long-term consequences of 270° labral reconstruction.

Letters to the Editor Highlight Current Controversies

In 2018, Letters to the Editor of Arthroscopy were heated and helped point out the broiling topics in our field including ankle arthroscopy distraction technique versus no-distraction and dorsiflexion, knee anterolateral ligament reconstruction versus lateral extraarticular tenodesis, hip labral primary repair versus primary reconstruction, and shoulder stabilization technique cost-effectiveness.