Poster 109: Clinical and Functional Outcomes following Revision Labral Reconstruction in the Setting of a Prior Labral Reconstruction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: Hip arthroscopy is a minimally invasive surgical technique that has seen a drastic increase in utilization over the last two decades. Labral tears are one of the most common indications for primary hip arthroscopy. However, up to 15.1% of patients who undergo hip arthroscopy end up requiring a subsequent surgery such as a revision hip arthroscopy. During revision hip arthroscopy, labral pathology is addressed in over 75% of cases with a goal of restoring native anatomy to preserve the hip’s suction seal. One such procedure to restore the native labrum physiology is labral reconstruction. Over the years, an increasing number of labral reconstructions have been performed. As a result, there has been a subsequent increase in the number of labral reconstructions requiring revision surgery. To our knowledge, there exists a paucity of data assessing patient outcomes following a revision labral reconstruction in the setting of a prior labral reconstruction. As a result, the aim of the present study was to report the patient reported outcomes (PROs) of patients who underwent a revision labral reconstruction in the setting of a prior labral reconstruction. Methods: A retrospective review of all revision labral reconstruction cases performed by the senior author between 1/1/2010-4/1/2022 was conducted. All revision labral reconstructions performed in the setting of a prior labral reconstruction were identified in the senior author’s post-operative documentation. Patients were included if they were over the age of 18 at the time of follow up, had a revision labral reconstruction in the setting of a prior labral reconstruction and were at least two years out from surgery. Patients were excluded if they had a history of avascular necrosis, Legg-Calve Perthes, or significant acetabular dysplasia (LCEA <20). Patient demographics, radiographic parameters, and patient reported outcomes (PROs)—including 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score (SF-12 PCS), 12-Item Short Form Survey Mental Component Score (SF-12 MCS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Vail Hip Score (VHS), Hip Outcome Score – Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and Hip Outcome Score – Sport (HOS-Sport)—were collected pre- and minimum 24 months postoperatively. Results: A total of 26 patients who underwent revision labral reconstruction in the setting of a prior labral reconstruction were identified and included in the study. The mean age at the time of surgery was 36.6 ± 12.3 years, and most of the patients were female (n=15, 58%), see Table 1. Twenty-one (81%) of patients completed follow up at a mean of 2.6 ± 0.6 years. Five patients had a subsequent surgery, including 4 conversions to total hip arthroplasty and 1 hip resurfacing procedure. The remaining 16 patients demonstrated significant improvement from baseline in SF-12 PCS, WOMAC Total, mHHS, VHS, HOS ADL, and HOS Sport (p<0.05), see Table 2. However, there was no significant improvement from baseline in SF-12 MCS. Conclusions: Patients who undergo revision labral reconstruction in the setting of a prior labral reconstruction demonstrate significant improvement in PROs post-operatively compared to baseline. To our knowledge, the present study is the first to report on outcomes in this population, and the demonstrated results suggest a revision labral reconstruction is a viable option for patients wishing to avoid conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Next steps are to match our cohort to a cohort of primary labral reconstruction patients. This will allow for optimal clinical decision making and aid surgeons in better managing patient expectations.
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 | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».