Labral Preservation: Outcomes Following Labrum Augmentation Versus Labrum Reconstruction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between patients with previous surgeries who underwent hip labral augmentation versus labral reconstruction surgery. METHODS: From 2006 to 2014, all patients with previous labral procedures who underwent subsequent labral augmentation by the senior surgeon were included. Patients with joint space ≤2 mm and lateral center edge angle <20° and who refused to participate in follow-up were excluded. Patients who underwent labral augmentation, preserving macroscopically healthy native labral tissue and adding iliotibial band graft to increase labral volume, were compared with a matching group (1:2) of patients who underwent labral reconstruction where damaged or absent native labral tissue was replaced by the graft. Hip Outcome Score-Activity of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), HOS for Sports (HOS-Sport), Short Form-12, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and patient satisfaction with outcome. Nonparametric statistics were used to compare groups. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients (12 males, 21 females) who underwent labral augmentation (LA group) were compared with 66 (24 males, 42 females) labral reconstruction patients (LR group). The average age was 29 ± 10 years in both groups. Six patients (18%) required revision arthroscopy in the LA group, and 9 patients (14%) in the LR group (P = .563). One patient (3%) in the LA group required a total hip arthroplasty, and 3 patients in the LR group (4.5%) had a total hip arthroplasty (P = .99). Of the remaining 26 patients in the LA group and 53 patients in the LR group, minimum 2-year follow-up was available for 21 (81%) and 51 (96%), respectively. Postoperatively the HOS-ADL, HOS-Sport, mHHS, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index were significantly higher in the LA group (P < .05). The percentage of patients who reached minimum clinically important difference was significantly higher in the LA group for HOS-ADL (P = .002) and HOS-Sport (P = .008); however, there was no difference for the mHHS (P = .795). Patient satisfaction was 10 and 8 in the LA group and LR group, respectively (P = .585). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with previous procedures, the labral augmentation technique with preservation of macroscopically healthy native labral fibers resulted in significantly better outcomes compared with the segmental labral reconstruction procedure where damaged or previously removed labrum was replaced by a graft. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative case series.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».