scholarly journals The Use of Double-Loaded Suture Anchors for Labral Repair and Capsular Repair During Hip Arthroscopy

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. e213-e217 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Slikker ◽  
Geoffrey S. Van Thiel ◽  
Jaskarndip Chahal ◽  
Shane J. Nho
2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 4-7
Author(s):  
Charles N. Brooks ◽  
Richard E. Strain ◽  
James B. Talmage

Abstract The primary function of the acetabular labrum, like that of the glenoid, is to deepen the socket and improve joint stability. Tears of the acetabular labrum are common in older adults but occur in all age groups and with equal frequency in males and females. The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, is silent about rating tears, partial or complete excision, or repair of the acetabular labrum. Provocative tests to detect acetabular labrum tears involve hip flexion and rotation; all rely on production of pain in the groin (typically), clicking, and/or locking with passive or active hip motions. Diagnostic tests or procedures rely on x-rays, conventional arthrography, computerized tomography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA), and hip arthroscopy. Hip arthroscopy is the gold standard for diagnosis but is the most invasive and most likely to result in complications, and MRA is about three times more sensitive and accurate in detecting acetabular labral tears than MRI alone. Surgical treatment for acetabular labrum tears usually consists of arthroscopic debridement; results tend to be better in younger patients. In general, an acetabular labral tear, partial labrectomy, or labral repair warrants a rating of 2% lower extremity impairment. Evaluators should avoid double dipping (eg, using both a Diagnosis-related estimates and limited range-of-motion tests).


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 232596712098198
Author(s):  
Ryan P. McGovern ◽  
John J. Christoforetti ◽  
Benjamin R. Kivlan ◽  
Shane J. Nho ◽  
Andrew B. Wolff ◽  
...  

Background: While previous studies have established several techniques for suture anchor repair of the acetabular labrum to bone during arthroscopic surgery, the current literature lacks evidence defining the appropriate number of suture anchors required to effectively restore the function of the labral tissue. Purpose/Hypothesis: To define the location and size of labral tears identified during hip arthroscopy for acetabular labral treatment in a large multicenter cohort. The secondary purpose was to differentiate the number of anchors used during arthroscopic labral repair. The hypothesis was that the location and size of the labral tear as well as the number of anchors identified would provide a range of fixation density per acetabular region and fixation method to be used as a guide in performing arthroscopic repair. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We used a multicenter registry of prospectively collected hip arthroscopy cases to find patients who underwent arthroscopic labral repair by 1 of 7 orthopaedic surgeons between January 2015 and January 2017. The tear location and number of anchors used during repair were described using the clockface method, where 3 o’clock denoted the anterior extent of the tear and 9 o’clock the posterior extent, regardless of sidedness (left or right). Tear size was denoted as the number of “hours” spanned per clockface arc. Chi-square and univariate analyses of variance were performed to evaluate the data for both the entire group and among surgical centers. Results: A total of 1978 hips underwent arthroscopic treatment of the acetabular labrum; the most common tear size had a 3-hour span (n = 820; 41.5%). Of these hips, 1645 received labral repair, with most common repair location at the 12- to 3-o’clock position (n = 537; 32.6%). The surgeons varied in number of anchors per repair according to labral size ( P < .001 for all), using 1 to 1.6 anchors for 1-hour tears, 1.7 to 2.4 anchors for 2-hour tears, 2.1 to 3.2 anchors for 3-hour tears, and 2.2 to 4.1 for 4-hour tears. Conclusion: Variation existed in the number of anchor implants per tear size. When labral repair involved a mean clockface arc >2 hours, at least 2 anchor points were fixated.


Author(s):  
Guillaume D. Dumont ◽  
Matthew J. Pacana ◽  
Adam J. Money ◽  
Thomas J. Ergen ◽  
Allen J. Barnes ◽  
...  

AbstractFemoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) is commonly associated with acetabular labral tears. Correction of impingement morphology and suture anchor repair of labral tears have demonstrated successful early and midterm patient-reported outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the posterior and anterior extent and size of labral tears in patients with FAIS undergoing arthroscopic labral repair, and to evaluate the number of suture anchors required to repair these tears. The design of this study was retrospective case series (Level 4). A single surgeon's operative database was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients undergoing primary arthroscopic hip labral repair between November 2014 and September 2019. Patient-specific factors and radiographic measurements were recorded. Arthroscopic findings including labral tear posterior and anterior extents, and the number of suture anchors utilized for the repair were recorded. Linear regression was performed to identify factors associated with labral tear size. The number of suture anchors used relative to labral tear size was calculated. Three-hundred and thirteen patients were included in the study. The mean posterior and anterior extent for labral tears were 11:22 ± 52 and 2:20 ± 34 minutes, respectively. Mean tear size was 2 hours, 58 minutes ± 45 minutes. The mean number of suture anchors utilized for labral repair was 3.1 ± 0.7. The mean number of anchors per hour of labral tear was 1.1 ± 0.3. Increased age, lateral center edge angle, and α angle were associated with larger labral tears. Our study found that acetabular labral tears associated with FAIS are, on average, 3 hours in size and centered in the anterosuperior quadrant of the acetabulum. Arthroscopic labral repair required 1.1 anchors per hour of tear size, resulting in a mean of 3.1 anchors per repair. Level of Evidence IV


2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (14) ◽  
pp. 3437-3445 ◽  
Author(s):  
Itay Perets ◽  
Danil Rybalko ◽  
Brian H. Mu ◽  
David R. Maldonado ◽  
Gary Edwards ◽  
...  

Background: Revision hip arthroscopy is increasingly common and often addresses acetabular labrum pathology. There is a lack of consensus on indications or outcomes of revision labral repair versus reconstruction. Purpose: To report clinical outcomes of labral reconstruction during revision hip arthroscopy at minimum 2-year follow-up as compared with pair-matched labral repair during revision hip arthroscopy (control group) and to suggest a decision-making algorithm for labral treatment in revision hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction were matched 1:2 with patients who underwent revision arthroscopic labral repair. Patients were matched according to age, sex, and body mass index. Outcome scores, including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score–Sport-Specific Subscale, and a visual analog scale for pain, were collected preoperatively and at minimum 2-year follow-up. At latest follow-up, patient satisfaction on a 0-10 scale and the abbreviated International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) were collected. Complications, subsequent arthroscopies, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty were collected as well. Results: A total of 15 revision labral reconstructions were pair matched to 30 revision labral repairs. The reconstructions had fewer isolated Seldes type I detachments ( P = .008) and lower postoperative lateral center-edge angle, but there were otherwise no significant differences in demographics, radiographics, intraoperative findings, or procedures. Both groups demonstrated significant improvements in all outcomes and visual analog scale at minimum 2-year follow-up. The revision repairs trended toward better preoperative scores: mHHS (mean ± SD: 59.3 ± 16.5 vs 54.2 ± 16.0), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (61.0 ± 16.7 vs 51.2 ± 17.6), Hip Outcome Score–Sport-Specific Subscale (39.6 ± 25.1 vs 30.5 ± 22.1), and visual analog scale (5.8 ± 1.8 vs 6.2 ± 2.2). At follow-up, the revision repair group had significantly higher mHHS (84.1 ± 14.8 vs 72.0 ± 18.3, P = .043) and iHOT-12 (72.2 ± 23.3 vs 49.0 ± 27.6, P = .023) scores than the reconstruction group. The magnitudes of pre- to postoperative improvement between the groups were comparable. The groups also had comparable rates of complications: 1 case of numbness in each group ( P > .999), subsequent arthroscopies (repair: n = 2, 6.5%; revision: n = 3, 20%; P = .150), and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (1 patient in each group, P > .999). Conclusion: Labral reconstruction safely and effectively treats irreparable labra in revision hip arthroscopy. However, labral repair is another treatment option for reparable labra, yielding similar magnitude of improvement. A proposed algorithm may assist in surgical decision making to achieve optimal outcomes based on the condition and history of each patient’s acetabular labrum.


2021 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Dillon C. O’Neill ◽  
Kelly M. Tomasevich ◽  
Alexander J. Mortensen ◽  
Joseph Featherall ◽  
Suzanna M. Ohlsen ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 885-893 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ardavan A. Saadat ◽  
Ajay C. Lall ◽  
Muriel R. Battaglia ◽  
Mitchell R. Mohr ◽  
David R. Maldonado ◽  
...  

Background: Recent studies identified microinstability in the hip as a pathoetiology of painful hip conditions, and it was proposed that generalized ligamentous laxity conditions may predispose patients to such microinstability. Purpose: To study the relationship of generalized ligamentous laxity with patient characteristics, clinical presentation, intraoperative findings, and surgical treatments in a cohort of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Registry data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed between February 2014 and November 2017 for patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy and had a documented Beighton score to assess generalized ligamentous laxity. Patients with a history of an ipsilateral hip condition or ipsilateral hip surgery, those with Tönnis grade >1, and those who had simultaneous arthroscopic and open procedures were excluded from the study. Two comparisons were made between patients with low and high Beighton scores: Beighton 0 vs ≥1 (B 0 vs B ≥1) and Beighton 0-3 vs ≥4 (B 0-3 vs B ≥4). Patient demographics, symptomatology, physical examination, and intraoperative findings were compared between these low and high Beighton groups. Results: A total of 1381 patients met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Within this patient population, there were 882 with B 0, 499 with B ≥1, 1120 with B 0-3, and 261 with B ≥4. B 0 was 54.1% female, compared with 84.2% of B ≥1. Similarly, B 0-3 was 58.5% female, while B ≥4 was 92.7% female. The difference in sex makeup was significant between both sets of groups ( P < .0001). The relative risk of having B ≥1 for women versus men was 2.869, and the relative risk of having B ≥4 for women versus men was 6.873. The patients with higher Beighton scores in B ≥1 and B ≥4 had a younger mean age at onset of symptoms ( P < .0001) and lower mean body mass index ( P < .0001) than those in B 0 and B 0-3, respectively. The B ≥1 group had higher preoperative range of motion with internal rotation ( P = .05), external rotation ( P = .017), and flexion ( P < .0001) than B 0 patients, as well as a lower frequency of Trendelenburg gait pattern ( P = .0268). Similarly, the B ≥4 group had higher range of motion than the B 0-3 group with internal rotation ( P = .030), external rotation ( P = .003), flexion ( P < .0001), and abduction ( P = .002). As compared with the lower-score groups, the higher-score groups also had smaller labral size and tear dimension ( P < .0001), and a higher proportion of these patients underwent labral repair, capsular repair, and iliopsoas fractional lengthening. Conclusion: Patients undergoing hip arthroscopy who have generalized ligamentous laxity are overall younger, have a lower body mass index, and are more often female, as compared with patients who have lesser laxity. Patients with higher preoperative Beighton scores had greater hip range of motion and smaller intraoperative labral size and tear dimensions. Additionally, these patients were more likely to undergo labral repair, capsular plication, and iliopsoas fractional lengthening.


2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 2137-2144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian J. White ◽  
Julie Patterson ◽  
Alexandra M. Scoles ◽  
Ali T. Lilo ◽  
Mackenzie M. Herzog

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document