Selective Debridement With Labral Preservation Using Narrow Indications in the Hip: Minimum 5-Year Outcomes With a Matched-Pair Labral Repair Control Group


Background: Arthroscopic labral debridement in the hip can be an effective treatment for labral tears but has demonstrated inferior outcomes compared with labral repair. Thus, the role for labral debridement has become unclear. Hypothesis/Purpose: The purpose was to evaluate the outcomes of a selective debridement with labral preservation (SDLP) group with a minimum 5-year follow-up. It was hypothesized that, with narrow indications, SDLP would produce statistically improved patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores, comparable with those of a matched-pair labral repair control group.

Study design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: Data were collected on all patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery between February 2008 and September 2011. Exclusion criteria were acetabular or femoral head Outerbridge grade 4 chondral damage, preoperative Tnnis grade ≥2, workers' compensation claims, previous hip conditions, severe dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle <18°), or previous ipsilateral hip surgery. Patients who underwent arthroscopic labral debridement and had preoperative and minimum 5-year PRO scores, including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) as well as the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, were included. In a nested matched-pair comparison, the SDLP group was matched 1:1 to an arthroscopic labral repair control group based on age ±5 years, body mass index ±5 kg/m2, sex, and Seldes tear type.

Results: One hundred twenty-five hips were eligible for inclusion, of which 101 (80.8%) hips had a minimum 5-year follow-up. All PRO scores were significantly improved ( P < .001) at latest follow-up (mHHS, 63.4 to 82.4; NAHS, 57.4 to 83.6; HOS-SSS, 44.2 to 74.5). The mean VAS score decreased from 5.8 to 2.3 ( P < .001). The mean patient satisfaction score was 8.1. Four (4.0%) patients underwent second-look arthroscopic surgery (mean, 18.5 months), and 14 (13.9%) patients converted to total hip arthroplasty (mean, 46.9 months). In the matched-pair comparison, 69 in the SDLP group were matched 1:1 with those undergoing labral repair. Outcomes at latest follow-up of the SDLP group were comparable with those of the control group, respectively: mHHS, 83.0 vs 86.1 ( P = .084); NAHS, 85.0 vs 85.4 ( P = .415); HOS-SSS, 74.8 vs 76.8 ( P = .219); VAS, 2.3 vs 2.0 ( P = .277); international Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12), 73.8 vs 76.4 ( P = .136); Short Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12) mental, 57.4 vs 55.1 ( P = .031); SF-12 physical, 48.7 vs 48.9 ( P = .357); Veterans RAND Health Survey-12 (VR-12) mental, 61.6 vs 59.8 ( P = .160); VR-12 physical, 50.1 vs 50.2 ( P = .340); and patient satisfaction, 8.0 vs 8.3 ( P = .211).

Conclusion: In select cases of stable labral tears, SDLP may allow the preservation of a functional labrum. At a minimum 5-year follow-up, SDLP using narrow indications produced favorable outcomes comparable with a matched-pair labral repair group.

Read More