2025 ISAKOS Biennial Congress ePoster
Labral Revision Reconstruction In The Hip: Minimum 5-Year Outcomes With A Nested Matched Control
Ady Haim Kahana Rojkind, MD, Des Plaines, IL UNITED STATES
Yasemin E. Kingham, BA, Des Plaines, IL UNITED STATES
Krishi Rana, BA, Des Plaines, Illinois UNITED STATES
Roger Quesada Jimenez, MD, Des Plaines, Illinois UNITED STATES
Benjamin G. Domb, MD, Des Plaines, Illinois UNITED STATES
American Hip Institute Research Foundation, Des Plaines, Illinois, UNITED STATES
FDA Status Cleared
Summary
Both primary and revision labral reconstruction exhibit significant clinical improvements.
ePosters will be available shortly before Congress
Abstract
Purpose
In existing literature, revision hip arthroscopy has frequently been associated with poorer outcomes when compared to primary procedures. Despite this prevalence, there has been limited discourse directly comparing outcomes between primary and revision labral reconstructions. This nested study aims to present minimum 5-year patient reported outcomes (PROs) of revision arthroscopic labral reconstruction following failed primary arthroscopy through comparison with a matched primary reconstruction control group. Though we anticipated significant improvement in PROs within the revision cohort, we further anticipated they will be inferior to the improvements observed in the control.
Methods
Data from patients that underwent a labral reconstruction between May 2009 and January 2019 was retrospectively reviewed. Patients were included within the study if they underwent a revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction and possessed 5-year minimum follow-up for modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12), patient satisfaction, and visual analog scale for pain (VAS). Patients were excluded from the study based on Tonnis grade > 1, pre-existing hip conditions, or ongoing workers’ compensation claims. The propensity match for revision reconstruction patients was performed in a 1:1 ratio to a benchmark control group of patients who underwent primary reconstruction.
Results
46 hips undergoing revision labral reconstruction were matched 1:1 to 46 hips undergoing primary labral reconstruction. At a minimum of 5-years follow-up, both groups showed significant improvement in all PROs (p < .0001). However, revision reconstruction did not demonstrate differential postoperative outcomes nor illustrated lower rates for achieving MCID, PASS, or SCB in any PRO when compared to the control group (p > 0.5).
Conclusion
Both primary and revision labral reconstruction exhibit significant clinical improvements. Further, there is no statistical indication that primary reconstruction yields superior outcomes nor do a higher proportion of patients achieve clinically significant thresholds.