Acetabular Labral Debridement/Segmental Resection Versus Reconstruction in the Comprehensive Treatment of Symptomatic Femoroacetabular Impingement.
Purpose: To perform a systematic review comparing outcomes of labral debridement/segmental resection with labral reconstruction as part of a comprehensive treatment strategy for femoroacetabular impingement.
Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to established PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The study groups were divided into labral debridement/segmental resection (group 1) and labral reconstruction (group 2). Multiple search engines were queried (PubMed, Medline) for this analysis.
Results: After an exhaustive search of the available literature, 20 publications were included. Twelve studies explored outcomes after labral debridement/resection in a total of 400 hips, whereas 7 studies reported on outcomes after labral reconstruction in a total of 275 hips. One additional matched-pair control study compared labral resection (22 hips) with reconstruction (11 hips). The surgical intervention was a revision in 0% to 100% for group 1 versus 5% to 55% for group 2. A direct anterior approach was not performed in group 2, and cam-type impingement appeared to make up a larger percentage of group 1. The Tönnis grade ranged from 0 to 1 for group 1 versus 0.3 to 1.1 for group 2. Joint replacements were performed in 0% to 30% and 0% to 25%, respectively. The modified Harris Hip Score was the most widely used patient-reported outcome measure and suggested that labral reconstruction was not inferior to labral debridement/segmental resection.
Conclusions: Clinical outcomes after labral debridement/segmental resection versus labral reconstruction were found to be comparable. In the setting of unsalvageable labral pathology, labral reconstruction was used more frequently as a revision option whereas debridement may be more commonly used in the index setting.