Revision Hip Arthroscopy After Labral Reconstruction Using Iliotibial Band Autograft: Surgical Findings and Comparison of Outcomes With Labral Reconstructions Not Requiring Revision

摘要

Purpose: To determine the causes of revision hip arthroscopy in patients who underwent labral reconstruction and to compare outcomes of these patients with patients who did not require a revision following reconstruction. Methods: Patients who underwent revision hip arthroscopy after previous labral reconstruction from 2006 to 2014 were included. Patients with less than 2-year follow-up, preoperative joint space of = 2 mm, or who underwent other reconstructive procedures at the time of labral reconstruction were excluded. Each patient was matched by year of surgery, age, gender, and the number of previous surgeries with 2 patients that underwent labral reconstruction but did not require a revision following the reconstruction. Preoperatively and at a minimum 2-year follow-up, outcome scores were collected including the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and HOS-Sports Scale, modified Harris Hip Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC), the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Summary, and the patient satisfaction outcome were collected. Differences between the preoperative and the postoperative outcomes score of each patient in the 2 groups was assessed using the paired t test. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the 2 groups. Results: From 347 patients who underwent iliotibial band autograft labrum reconstruction from 2006 to 2014, 28 hips (8%) in 26 patients (18 females and 8 males) had revision arthroscopy after labral reconstruction. The mean age was 32 years (range: 16-64). The mean number of hip surgeries prior to the labral reconstruction was 1.9 +/- 1.2. The average time from the last labral reconstruction procedure to revision labral reconstruction was 27 months (range: 5-59). Procedures performed at revision included lysis of adhesions (100%), additional femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) correction (50%), ligamentum teres debridement (50%), psoas release (29%), labral augmentation or reconstruction (14%), and others. Following revision surgery after previous labral reconstruction, 4 patients (14%) underwent total hip arthroplasty and 2 (7%) patients required a subsequent revision arthroscopy (age 67 and 23) at 15 months and 16 months. The average follow-up time was 3.6 years +/- 1 year after revision following labral reconstruction and after labral reconstruction in the nonrevision group. No significant difference was detected in the outcome scores and postoperative satisfaction between the 2 groups. The HOS-ADL improved 16 points in the nonrevision group and 19 points in the revision group. Conclusions: Patients who underwent revision surgery after labral reconstruction were mostly female, with 2 or more surgeries prior to reconstruction, and 14% required THA and 7% had recurrent scarring. In those who did not fail, outcomes significantly improved and were similar with patients who did not need revision. Adhesions and residual FAI were the most common findings during revision labral reconstruction.