
==== Front
Hip Pelvis
Hip Pelvis
Hip Pelvis
Hip & Pelvis
2287-3260
2287-3279
Korean Hip Society

39210569
10.5371/hp.2024.36.3.168
hp-36-3-168
Review Article
Hip Labral Repair versus Reconstruction: Meta-analysis
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3383-6946
Tarchichi Jean MD
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9256-9952
Daher Mohammad BS *
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5377-6151
Ghoul Ali MD
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2051-0078
Estephan Michel MD †
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1930-7454
Boulos Karl MD ‡
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7147-5076
Mansour Jad MD †
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hôtel-Dieu de France, Beirut, Lebanon
Department of Orthopaedics, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA*
Division of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada†
Orthopedics Department, LAU Medical Center-Rizk Hospital, Beirut, Lebanon‡
Correspondence to: Jad Mansour, MD https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7147-5076 Division of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC H3A 2B4, Canada E-mail: jad.mansour09@gmail.com
1 9 2024
1 9 2024
1 9 2024
36 3 168178
30 8 2023
5 11 2023
7 11 2023
© Korean Hip Society
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the postoperative outcomes and complications of labral repair with those of labral reconstruction. An electronic search strategy was conducted from 1986 until August 2023 using the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20). The primary objectives included the postoperative clinical outcomes determined by the number of patients who reached minimal clinical important difference (MCID) on the visual analog scale (VAS), modified Harris hip score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Life (HOS-ADL), and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12). In addition, analysis of the rate of revision arthroscopy, the rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), the postoperative VAS, mHHS, HOS-SS, HOS-ADL, iHOT-12, nonarthritic hip score (NAHS), patient satisfaction, lower extremity function scale (LEFS), and the SF-12 (12-item short-form) was also performed. Any differences arising between the investigators were resolved by discussion. Seventeen studies were relevant to the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. A higher rate of patients who reached MCID in the mHHS (P=0.02) as well as a higher rate of revision arthroscopy was observed for labral repair (P=0.03). The remaining studied outcomes were comparable. Despite the greater predictability of success in the reconstruction group, conduct of additional studies will be required for evaluation of the benefits of such findings. In addition, labral reconstruction is more technically demanding than a labral repair.

Hip labrum
Labral repair
Labral reconstruction
Labral refixation
Funding No funding to declare.
==== Body
pmcINTRODUCTION

Apart from where it transitions into the transverse acetabular ligament, the labrum of the hip is a triangular-shaped fibrocartilage structure surrounding most of the acetabulum1). This structure is believed to support proprioception, fluid dynamics maintenance, and hip stability. An ineffective or damaged labrum can lead to development of hip micro-instability, which was recently recognized as a pathological entity2). In fact, labral tears of the hip can be detected in 22% to 55% of individuals with hip and groin pain3).

The popularity of hip arthroscopy has shown a steady increase in the last two decades4,5). In addition, conservation and restoration of normal labral function has been emphasized in performance of labral preservation surgery as a result of enhanced knowledge regarding the role of the acetabular labrum in normal hip joint biomechanics6-8). Arthroscopic debridement has traditionally been used in treatment of labral tears. However, the relevance of repairing labral anatomy and architecture in the effort to reestablish a more stable hip joint is supported by biomechanical studies8,9). This can be achieved either by repair or reconstruction of the damaged labrum.

Regardless of the origin of the tear, arthroscopic labral repair has become the preferred method for treatment of most labral injuries. Excellent short-term results have been achieved with use of multiple primary repair techniques in treatment of athletes, with reported return to sport rates of 94% and 88% for recreational and high school or college athletes, respectively10). High rates of return to the game have also been reported for professional basketball, football, and baseball players11-13) and nearly 70% of patients who received workers’ compensation were able to resume their jobs without restrictions14). Labral reconstruction, first introduced by Philippon et al.15) in 2010, has become an important tool utilized by seasoned hip arthroscopy surgeons. Use of segmental and circumferential techniques in cases of severe labral insufficiency has been reported with good to exceptional results16-18). Despite the remarkable success achieved with labral reconstruction, there is still debate regarding the proper indications17).

Compared to labral reconstruction, performance of a repair has been reported to result in more efficient restoration of the hip joint fluid seal in cadaveric hip models19). However, no difference between these two techniques has been demonstrated17,20). There is still controversy regarding labral preservation versus labral reconstruction surgery. Thus, the primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to review the relevant literature and compare the differences in postoperative outcomes between these two treatment modalities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

1. Search Strategy

This study was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) standards. Cochrane, PubMed, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20) searches were updated from 1986 to August 2023. Boolean Operators were used with a combination of the following keywords “labr*” AND “hip” AND “repair” OR “reconstruction” OR “refixation”. Analysis of references from papers and online searches was also performed during the literature search. Extraction of data was performed by one researcher, and selected articles were verified by another. A summary of the article selection process is provided in the PRISMA flowchart (Fig. 1).

Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) clinical studies where patients underwent treatment for labral injuries whether primary or revision; (2) comparative studies: randomized controlled trials, prospective clinical trials, retrospective studies; (3) clinical studies comparing patients who underwent treatment using labral repair or labral reconstruction. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) case reports, narrative or systematic reviews, theoretical research, conference reports, meta-analysis, cadaveric studies, expert comment, and economic analysis.

2. Data Extraction

Study eligibility was determined by two authors independently. Extraction of the analyzed data included basic information (including authors, title, year, journal, study design, sample size, and the different suspected biases). In addition, extracted data consisted of postoperative clinical outcomes including the number of patients who reached minimal clinical important difference (MCID) on the visual analog scale (VAS), modified Harris hip score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Life (HOS-ADL), and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12). The rate of revision arthroscopy, the rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), the postoperative VAS, mHHS, HOS-SS, HOS-ADL, iHOT-12, nonarthritic hip score (NAHS), patient satisfaction, lower extremity function scale (LEFS), and the 12-item short-form (SF-12) were also extracted. Any differences arising between the investigators were resolved by discussion.

3. Risk of Bias Assessment

Assessment of the risk of bias was performed by two authors independently using the ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions21). Studies showing a critical risk of bias were excluded.

4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4 (The Cochrane Collaboration). Standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used for continuous data. Risk ratio (RR) with a 95% CI was used for dichotomous data. Q tests and I2 statistics were used for evaluation of heterogeneity. A result showing P≤0.10 or I2>50% indicated considerable heterogeneity, thus random effects were used. The fixed-effect model was used when P>0.10 or I2<50%. Statistical significance was defined as a P-value of 0.05.

RESULTS

1. Characteristics of the Included Studies

Seventeen studies17,20,22-36) were included in this meta-analysis. All included studies had a retrospective design. The reconstruction group included 919 subjects and the repair group included 1,259 subjects. A summary of the primary characteristics of the included studies is shown in Table 1.

2. MCID

The results of comparison of labral repair and reconstruction showed no statistical difference in the rate of patients who reached MCID for postoperative VAS (P=0.59, odds ratio [OR] 0.90, 95% CI 0.63-1.30, Fig. 2A), HOS-SS (P=0.17, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56-1.11, Fig. 2B), HOS-ADL (P=0.20, OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.29-1.29, Fig. 2C), and iHOT-12 (P=0.43, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58-1.27, Fig. 2D). However, the rate of patients who reached MCID in postoperative mHHS was lower in the labral reconstruction group (P=0.02, OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53-0.95, Fig. 2E).

3. Revision and THA Conversion

The results of comparison of labral repair and reconstruction showed no statistical difference in the rate of conversion to THA (P=0.45, OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.67-2.47, Fig. 3A). However, the rate of arthroscopic revision was lower in the labral reconstruction group (P=0.03, OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31- 0.95, Fig. 3B).

4. Functional Scores

The results of comparison of labral repair and reconstruction showed no statistical difference in mHHS (P=0.10, mean difference –1.35, 95% CI –2.96 to 0.26, Fig. 4A), HOS-SS (P=0.49, mean difference –1.20, 95% CI –4.58 to 2.18, Fig. 4B), HOS-ADL (P=0.59, mean difference –0.76, 95% CI –3.54 to 2.03, Fig. 4C), NAHS (P=0.71, mean difference –0.84, 95% CI –5.27 to 3.59, Fig. 4D), iHOT-12 (P=0.35, mean difference –1.41, 95% CI –4.37 to 1.54, Fig. 4E), and LEFS (P=0.61, mean difference –0.82, 95% CI –4.01 to 2.36, Fig. 4F).

5. Pain and Satisfaction

The results of comparison of labral reconstruction and labral repair showed no statistical difference in postoperative VAS (P=0.09, mean difference 0.23, 95% CI –0.04 to 0.49, Fig. 5A), Satisfaction (P=0.35, mean difference –0.40, 95% CI –1.23 to 0.43, Fig. 5B), and SF-12 (P=0.08, mean difference –1.60, 95% CI –3.39 to 0.19, Fig. 5C).

DISCUSSION

Labral injuries of the hip are common, affecting approximately 22%-55% of individuals with hip pain3). Labral injuries have been reported as a cause of micro-instability of the hip and were previously managed with arthroscopic debridement2). However, as the superiority of labral preservation compared with simple debridement has been demonstrated37), two modalities, labral repair and labral reconstruction, have emerged. However, when comparing labral reconstruction to reinsertion there is still no strict consensus regarding the most suitable technique. In this meta-analysis different aspects of labral repair were compared with those of labral reconstruction in the management of labral injuries of the hip and similar outcomes were obtained with use of both modalities.

In fact, improved postoperative outcomes were achieved with performance of labral reconstruction procedures. However, when compared with labral repair, all of the included studies reported similar improvements17,20,22-32,34-36) and one study even reported better postoperative outcomes with labral augmentation33). These similar findings were observed in both primary and revision arthroscopy, in athletes, patients older than 40 years old, and even in patients who underwent bilateral hip arthroscopy17,20,22-32,34-36). In this study, similar postoperative outcomes with no statistically significant differences were observed, except for the higher rate of patients who reached MCID in the mHHS in the labral repair group (P=0.02). In fact, indications for labral reconstruction constitute part of an ongoing debate. Age older than 40 years was regarded as an indication regardless of the quality of labral tissue36) due to more favorable outcomes and a lower rate of revision surgery in labral reconstruction. However, this finding could not be reproduced in another study comparing these two techniques with a population of similar age29). Another indication is the presence of an irreparable labral tear38,39) which is more likely in revision surgeries32). Irreparable labral tissue can be described as severe labral intrasubstance injury, insufficient labral tissue (defined as less 2 mm in width), and labral ossification40). However, no statistically significant difference was observed when these two techniques used in management of irreparable labral injuries were compared24,26,27). In fact, in these three studies, labral repair was compared with labral reconstruction in the setting of irreparable labral injuries showing no difference between patient reported outcomes and complications/revision.

White et al.34,35), who reported a 31% risk of failure in labral repair, which could even reach 50% in a revision setting, proposed performance of a systematic labral reconstruction in the primary setting. However, this high rate of failure in primary cases does not reflect the majority of results reported in the literature26,41,42). A systematic review by Maldonado et al.37) reported no difference in revision arthroscopy between the two techniques. However, the results of our analysis showed a higher rate of revision arthroscopy in the setting of labral repair (P=0.03). Most of the difference observed on the forest plot comparing the rates of revision arthroscopy for labral repair and reconstruction can be attributed to the study by White et al.36) with a weight of 57.2% (Fig. 3B). In addition, in this study36), a population consisting of patients older than 40 years in the repair group were included compared to patients aged 30 years and older in the reconstruction group. In fact, the result after omitting this study from the analysis would not show a statistically significant difference in revision arthroscopy (P=0.94) (Fig. 6). Nevertheless, another study comparing repair and reconstruction in patients older than 40 years in both groups did not report a significant difference in revision rates, thus, a conclusion that labral repair should be avoided in patients older than 40 years cannot be reached29). Therefore, although the rate of revision arthroscopy favored reconstruction, this result may be premature since it was significantly influenced by only one study comparing these two techniques in patients with different demographics. The statistically insignificant difference in the rate of conversion to THA recorded by the same systematic review37) was similar to our findings.

Nevertheless, further evaluation of the benefit of the expected success achieved with use of labral reconstruction compared to its steeper learning curve, the more complex technique, and longer operative time34,41,43-45), will be needed before any conclusion can be reached with regard to its systematic application in the management of labral injuries.

This study has some limitations, mainly the fact that the data used for analysis was pooled and data on individual patients were unavailable, which could limit further comprehensive analyses. In addition, the indications for reconstruction or repair differed between studies, which could limit the validity of the results. Furthermore, all studies were conducted retrospectively and none were randomized. However, only comparative studies were included, thereby reducing the risk of operative and matching bias and the selection process was meticulous and discerning, reducing the heterogeneity of the study as well as the risk of bias. This is the first study comparing labral reconstruction with labral repair in the management of labral injuries of the hip. In addition, 17 studies were included in this meta-analysis, which is sufficient to obtain reliable results.

CONCLUSION

This study represents the first meta-analysis comparing labral repair with labral reconstruction. Compared with the reconstruction group, a higher rate of patients who reached MCID in mHHS was observed in the repair group. However, a higher rate of arthroscopic revision was also observed. In addition, greater long-term success was achieved with use of labral reconstruction. Nevertheless, similar outcomes were obtained with use of both repair and reconstruction and the latter showed an association with a steeper learning curve and challenging maneuvers. Conduct of additional studies will be required for evaluation of the benefits of the high success rate in labral reconstruction when confronted with its associated complexities.

Fig. 1 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart for the article selection process.

Fig. 2 (A) Forest plot showing the rate of patients who reached MCID in postoperative VAS in labral reconstruction and repair. (B) Forest plot showing the rate of patients who reached MCID in postoperative HOS-SS in labral reconstruction and repair. (C) Forest plot showing the rate of patients who reached MCID in postoperative HOS-ADL in labral reconstruction and repair. (D) Forest plot showing the rate of patients who reached MCID in postoperative iHOT-12 in labral reconstruction and repair. (E) Forest plot showing the rate of patients who reached MCID in postoperative mHHS in labral reconstruction and repair. MCID: minimal clinical important difference, VAS: visual analog scale, HOS-SS: Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale, HOS-ADL: Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Life, iHOT-12: International Hip Outcome Tool-12, mHHS: modified Harris hip score, M-H: Mantel-Haenszel, CI: confidence interval.

Fig. 3 (A) Forest plot showing the rate of conversion to THA in labral reconstruction and repair. (B) Forest plot showing the rate of arthroscopic revision in labral reconstruction and repair. THA: total hip arthroplasty, M-H: Mantel-Haenszel, CI: confidence interval.

Fig. 4 (A) Forest plot showing the postoperative mHHS in labral reconstruction and repair. (B) Forest plot showing the postoperative HOS-SS in labral reconstruction and repair. (C) Forest plot showing the postoperative HOS-ADL in labral reconstruction and repair. (D) Forest plot showing the postoperative NAHS in labral reconstruction and repair. (E) Forest plot showing the postoperative iHOT-12 in labral reconstruction and repair. (F) Forest plot showing the postoperative LEFS in labral reconstruction and repair. mHHS: modified Harris hip score, HOS-SS: Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale, HOS-ADL: Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Life, NAHS: nonarthritic hip score, iHOT-12: International Hip Outcome Tool-12, LEFS: lower extremity function scale, SD: standard deviation, IV: inverse variance, CI: confidence interval.

Fig. 5 (A) Forest plot showing the postoperative VAS in labral reconstruction and repair. (B) Forest plot showing the postoperative satisfaction with labral reconstruction and repair. (C) Forest plot showing the postoperative SF-12 in labral reconstruction and repair. VAS: visual analog scale, SF-12: 12-item short-form, SD: standard deviation, IV: inverse variance, CI: confidence interval.

Fig. 6 Forest plot showing the rate of arthroscopic revision in labral reconstruction and repair without the study by White et al.36). M-H: Mantel-Haenszel, CI: confidence interval.

Table 1 Main Characteristics of the Included Studies

Study	Methods	Participant (n)		Mean age (yr)	Follow-up (mo)	
Reconstruction	Repair	Reconstruction	Repair	
Bodendorfer et al.23) (2021)	Retrospective	55	40		34.4	30	24	
Bodendorfer et al.22) (2022)	Retrospective	104	312		43.2	42	24	
Chandrasekaran et al.24) (2019)	Retrospective	34	68		37.3	38.4	40	
Domb et al.25) (2019)	Retrospective	17	51		36.1	36	60	
Domb et al.26) (2020)	Retrospective	37	111		45.6	45.6	24	
Jimenez et al.28) (2021)	Retrospective	17	35		22.6	NA	24	
Jimenez et al.27) (2022)	Retrospective	30	30		28.5	29.9	24	
Maldonado et al.29) (2021)	Retrospective	53	106		48	48.6	24	
Matsuda and Burchette30) (2013)	Retrospective	8	46		41.9	55.4	24	
Nakashima et al.31) (2019)	Retrospective	25	126		52.6	36.5	24	
Perets et al.32) (2018)	Retrospective	15	30		27	27.5	40	
Philippon et al.33) (2018)	Retrospective	66	33		29	29	40	
Scanaliato et al.17) (2018)	Retrospective	58	94		43.4	29.5	24	
Scanaliato et al.20) (2022)	Retrospective	62	68		38.3	29.9	60	
White et al.34) (2016)	Retrospective	79	7		34.6	27.8	31	
White et al.35) (2018)	Retrospective	29	20		33.3	32	56	
White et al.36) (2020)	Retrospective	230	82		41.3	47	50	
NA: not available.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
==== Refs
References

1 Seldes RM Tan V Hunt J Katz M Winiarsky R Fitzgerald RH Jr Anatomy, histologic features, and vascularity of the adult acetabular labrum Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001 382 232 40 https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200101000-00031 10.1097/00003086-200101000-00031 11153993
2 Safran MR 2019 Microinstability of the hip-gaining acceptance J Am Acad Orthop Surg 27 12 22 https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00664 10.5435/JAAOS-D-17-00664 30475277
3 Reiman MP Mather RC 3rd Hash TW 2nd Cook CE 2014 Examination of acetabular labral tear: a continued diagnostic challenge Br J Sports Med 48 311 9 https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2012-091994 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091994 23902774
4 Bozic KJ Chan V Valone FH 3rd Feeley BT Vail TP 2013 Trends in hip arthroscopy utilization in the United States J Arthroplasty 28 8 Suppl 140 3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.039 10.1016/j.arth.2013.02.039 23916639
5 Palmer AJ Malak TT Broomfield J 2016 Past and projected temporal trends in arthroscopic hip surgery in England between 2002 and 2013 BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med 2 e000082 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2015-000082 10.1136/bmjsem-2015-000082 27900161
6 Bsat S Frei H Beaulé PE 2016 The acetabular labrum: a review of its function Bone Joint J 98-B 730 5 https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.98B6.37099 10.1302/0301-620X.98B6.37099 27235512
7 Haddad B Konan S Haddad FS 2014 Debridement versus re-attachment of acetabular labral tears: a review of the literature and quantitative analysis Bone Joint J 96-B 24 30 https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.96B1.32425 10.1302/0301-620X.96B1.32425 24395306
8 Nepple JJ Philippon MJ Campbell KJ 2014 The hip fluid seal--part II: the effect of an acetabular labral tear, repair, resection, and reconstruction on hip stability to distraction Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22 730 6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-2875-y 10.1007/s00167-014-2875-y 24509878
9 Philippon MJ Nepple JJ Campbell KJ 2014 The hip fluid seal--part I: the effect of an acetabular labral tear, repair, resection, and reconstruction on hip fluid pressurization Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22 722 9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-2874-z 10.1007/s00167-014-2874-z 24519614
10 Weber AE Kuhns BD Cvetanovich GL Grzybowski JS Salata MJ Nho SJ 2017 Amateur and recreational athletes return to sport at a high rate following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement Arthroscopy 33 748 55 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2016.10.015 10.1016/j.arthro.2016.10.015 28049597
11 Frangiamore SJ Mannava S Briggs KK McNamara S Philippon MJ 2018 Career length and performance among professional baseball players returning to play after hip arthroscopy Am J Sports Med 46 2588 93 https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546518775420 10.1177/0363546518775420 29799269
12 Menge TJ Bhatia S McNamara SC Briggs KK Philippon MJ 2017 Femoroacetabular impingement in professional football players: return to play and predictors of career length after hip arthroscopy Am J Sports Med 45 1740 4 https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546517700118 10.1177/0363546517700118 28422531
13 Begly JP Buckley PS Utsunomiya H Briggs KK Philippon MJ 2018 Femoroacetabular impingement in professional basketball players: return to play, career length, and performance after hip arthroscopy Am J Sports Med 46 3090 6 https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546518801320 10.1177/0363546518801320 30325651
14 Lee S Cvetanovich GL Mascarenhas R 2016 Ability to return to work without restrictions in workers compensation patients undergoing hip arthroscopy J Hip Preserv Surg 4 30 8 https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnw037 10.1093/jhps/hnw037 28630718
15 Philippon MJ Briggs KK Hay CJ Kuppersmith DA Dewing CB Huang MJ 2010 Arthroscopic labral reconstruction in the hip using iliotibial band autograft: technique and early outcomes Arthroscopy 26 750 6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2009.10.016 10.1016/j.arthro.2009.10.016 20511032
16 Chandrasekaran S Darwish N Close MR Lodhia P Suarez-Ahedo C Domb BG 2017 Arthroscopic reconstruction of segmental defects of the hip labrum: results in 22 patients with mean 2-year follow-up Arthroscopy 33 1685 93 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2017.03.015 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.03.015 28571722
17 Scanaliato JP Christensen DL Salfiti C Herzog MM Wolff AB 2018 Primary circumferential acetabular labral reconstruction: achieving outcomes similar to primary labral repair despite more challenging patient characteristics Am J Sports Med 46 2079 88 https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546518775425 10.1177/0363546518775425 29847149
18 White BJ Stapleford AB Hawkes TK Finger MJ Herzog MM 2016 Allograft use in arthroscopic labral reconstruction of the hip with front-to-back fixation technique: minimum 2-year follow-up Arthroscopy 32 26 32 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2015.07.016 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.07.016 26422708
19 Cadet ER Chan AK Vorys GC Gardner T Yin B 2012 Investigation of the preservation of the fluid seal effect in the repaired, partially resected, and reconstructed acetabular labrum in a cadaveric hip model Am J Sports Med 40 2218 23 https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546512457645 10.1177/0363546512457645 22962293
20 Scanaliato JP Green CK Salfiti CE Patrick CM Wolff AB 2022 Primary arthroscopic labral management: labral repair and complete labral reconstruction both offer durable, promising results at minimum 5-year follow-up Am J Sports Med 50 2622 8 https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465221109237 10.1177/03635465221109237 35850143
21 Sterne JA Hernán MA Reeves BC 2016 ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions BMJ 355 i4919 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919 10.1136/bmj.i4919 27733354
22 Bodendorfer BM Alter TD Carreira DS 2022 Multicenter outcomes after primary hip arthroscopy: a comparative analysis of two-year outcomes after labral repair, segmental labral reconstruction, or circumferential labral reconstruction Arthroscopy 38 352 61 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2021.05.013 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.05.013 34052367
23 Bodendorfer BM Alter TD Wolff AB 2021 Multicenter outcomes after revision hip arthroscopy: comparative analysis of 2-year outcomes after labral repair versus labral reconstruction Am J Sports Med 49 2968 76 https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465211030511 10.1177/03635465211030511 34339329
24 Chandrasekaran S Darwish N Mu BH 2019 Arthroscopic reconstruction of the irreparable acetabular labrum: a match-controlled study Arthroscopy 35 480 8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2018.09.024 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.09.024 30612775
25 Domb BG Battaglia MR Perets I 2019 Minimum 5-year outcomes of arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction with nested matched-pair benchmarking against a labral repair control group Am J Sports Med 47 2045 55 https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546518825259 10.1177/0363546518825259 31307222
26 Domb BG Kyin C Rosinsky PJ 2020 Circumferential labral reconstruction for irreparable labral tears in the primary setting: minimum 2-year outcomes with a nested matched-pair labral repair control group Arthroscopy 36 2583 97 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2020.02.014 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.02.014 32109574
27 Jimenez AE Lee MS Owens JS 2022 Revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction for irreparable labral tears in athletes: minimum 2-year outcomes with a benchmark control group Am J Sports Med 50 1571 81 https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465221085030 10.1177/03635465221085030 35438028
28 Jimenez AE Monahan PF Owens JS 2021 Return to sports and minimum 2-year outcomes of primary arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction for irreparable tears in high-level athletes with a propensity-matched benchmarking against a labral repair control group Am J Sports Med 49 3261 9 https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465211032593 10.1177/03635465211032593 34468218
29 Maldonado DR Ouyang VW Owens JS 2021 Labral tear management in patients aged 40 years and older undergoing primary hip arthroscopy: a propensity-matched case-control study with minimum 2-year follow-up Am J Sports Med 49 3925 36 https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465211046915 10.1177/03635465211046915 34652244
30 Matsuda DK Burchette RJ 2013 Arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction with a gracilis autograft versus labral refixation: 2-year minimum outcomes Am J Sports Med 41 980 7 https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546513482884 10.1177/0363546513482884 23548806
31 Nakashima H Tsukamoto M Ohnishi Y 2019 Clinical and radiographic predictors for unsalvageable labral tear at the time of initial hip arthroscopic management for femoroacetabular impingement Am J Sports Med 47 2029 37 https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546519856018 10.1177/0363546519856018 31233328
32 Perets I Rybalko D Mu BH 2018 In revision hip arthroscopy, labral reconstruction can address a deficient labrum, but labral repair retains its role for the reparable labrum: a matched control study Am J Sports Med 46 3437 45 https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546518809063 10.1177/0363546518809063 30419171
33 Philippon MJ Bolia IK Locks R Briggs KK 2018 Labral preservation: outcomes following labrum augmentation versus labrum reconstruction Arthroscopy 34 2604 11 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2018.04.021 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.04.021 30173800
34 White BJ Patterson J Herzog MM 2016 Revision arthroscopic acetabular labral treatment: repair or reconstruct? Arthroscopy 32 2513 20 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2016.07.024 10.1016/j.arthro.2016.07.024 27720304
35 White BJ Patterson J Herzog MM 2018 Bilateral hip arthroscopy: direct comparison of primary acetabular labral repair and primary acetabular labral reconstruction Arthroscopy 34 433 40 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2017.08.240 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.08.240 29100774
36 White BJ Patterson J Scoles AM Lilo AT Herzog MM 2020 Hip arthroscopy in patients aged 40 years and older: greater success with labral reconstruction compared with labral repair Arthroscopy 36 2137 44 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2020.04.031 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.04.031 32360267
37 Maldonado DR Kyin C Chen SL 2021 In search of labral restoration function with hip arthroscopy: outcomes of hip labral reconstruction versus labral repair: a systematic review Hip Int 31 704 13 https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700020965162 10.1177/1120700020965162 33090881
38 Herickhoff PK Safran MR 2018 Surgical decision making for acetabular labral tears: an international perspective Orthop J Sports Med 6 2325967118797324 https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967118797324 10.1177/2325967118797324 30263897
39 Rosinsky PJ Kyin C Maldonado DR 2021 Determining clinically meaningful thresholds for the Nonarthritic Hip Score in patients undergoing arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome Arthroscopy 37 3113 21 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2021.03.059 10.1016/j.arthro.2021.03.059 33865933
40 Wolff AB Grossman J 2016 Management of the acetabular labrum Clin Sports Med 35 345 60 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csm.2016.02.004 10.1016/j.csm.2016.02.004 27343389
41 Domb BG Hartigan DE Perets I 2017 Decision making for labral treatment in the hip: repair versus débridement versus reconstruction J Am Acad Orthop Surg 25 e53 62 https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00144 10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00144 28195988
42 Westermann RW Day MA Duchman KR Glass NA Lynch TS Rosneck JT 2019 Trends in hip arthroscopic labral repair: An American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery database study Arthroscopy 35 1413 9 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2018.11.016 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.11.016 30979629
43 Maldonado DR Lall AC Walker-Santiago R 2019 Hip labral reconstruction: consensus study on indications, graft type and technique among high-volume surgeons J Hip Preserv Surg 6 41 9 https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnz008 10.1093/jhps/hnz008 31069094
44 Domb BG Stake CE Lindner D El-Bitar Y Jackson TJ 2014 Revision hip preservation surgery with hip arthroscopy: clinical outcomes Arthroscopy 30 581 7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2014.02.005 10.1016/j.arthro.2014.02.005 24642106
45 Perets I Hartigan DE Chaharbakhshi EO Walsh JP Close MR Domb BG 2017 Circumferential labral reconstruction using the knotless pull-through technique-surgical technique Arthrosc Tech 6 e695 8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eats.2017.01.014 10.1016/j.eats.2017.01.014 28706819
