EP220 Labral Repair versus Reconstruction During Primary Hip Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose To perform a systematic review comparing clinical outcomes of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy with labral repair versus labral reconstruction. Methods A systematic review was conducted in March 2025 according to the PRISMA guidelines by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies that directly compared clinical outcomes of labral repair versus labral reconstruction during primary hip arthroscopy. Additional outcomes included rate of revision hip arthroscopy and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). The search phrase used was: hip arthroscopy labral repair reconstruction. Articles were included if they directly compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between cohorts undergoing labral repair versus reconstruction during primary hip arthroscopy. Studies on revision hip arthroscopy were excluded. Results Six studies (all Level III) met the inclusion and exclusion criteria with a total of 1,628 labral repairs and 679 labral reconstructions. Mean patient age ranged from 29.9 to 48.6 years and from 34.6 to 48.1 years in the repair and reconstruction groups, respectively. Mean follow-up ranged from 2.0 years to 5.8 years and from 2.0 years to 5.6 years in the repair and reconstruction groups, respectively. All studies demonstrated significant improvements in PROs from preoperatively to final follow-up in both groups. Two studies reported superior postoperative outcomes in the labral repair groups in terms of the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores. Four studies reported no significant differences in postoperative PROs between cohorts. Four studies reported no significant differences in revision hip arthroscopy rates between groups. One study reported a significantly lower likelihood of conversion to THA in the labral repair group (p = 0.024). In studies involving patients aged ≥40 years, primary labral reconstruction demonstrated significantly lower failure rates and similar or lower conversion rates to THA compared to labral repair. Conclusion Both labral repair and reconstruction demonstrate significant improvements in PROs at mid-term follow-up. Labral repair generally yields equivalent or superior clinical outcomes and lower rates of conversion to THA, while reconstruction may offer lower failure rates in patients aged ≥40 years.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".