Labral Preservation: Outcomes Following Labrum Augmentation Versus Labrum Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".