Hip Labral Augmentation With Tibialis Anterior Tendon Allograft Using the Knotless Pull-Through Technique

Maldonado, David R.; Chen, Jeffrey; Lall, Ajay C.; Walker-Santiago, Rafael; Shapira, Jacob; Rosinsky, Philip J.; Chen, Sarah; Domb, Benjamin G.

doi:10.1016/j.eats.2019.06.010

Cited by 18 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 16 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, these patients often have calcified labra that, with the addition of the required extensive acetabuloplasty, may require advanced labral restoration techniques. 39,42,68…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in the Context of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome, Labral Tear, and Acetabular Overcoverage: Minimum 5-Year Outcomes With a Subanalysis Against Patients Without Overcoverage

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been reported in the short term after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and labral tear in the setting of acetabular overcoverage. Yet, there is a paucity of information in the literature on midterm PROs. Purpose: To (1) report minimum 5-year PROs in patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS and acetabular labral tears in the context of acetabular overcoverage and (2) compare outcomes with those of a propensity-matched control group without acetabular overcoverage. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed on all patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS and labral tears between February 2008 and November 2013. Inclusion criteria were lateral center-edge angle >40° and minimum 5-year follow-up for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and the Hip Outcome Score–Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS). Exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip surgery or conditions, active workers’ compensation claims, or lack of minimum 5-year outcomes. A 1:1 propensity-matched comparison was made between the study group and a control group without acetabular overcoverage (lateral center-edge angle, 25°-40°) based on age at surgery, sex, body mass index, Tönnis grade, laterality, and follow-up time. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, and NAHS. Secondary surgical procedures were recorded. Results: A total of 54 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria for the study group, of whom 45 (83.3%; 45 hips) had a minimum 5-year follow-up and were matched without differences in age at surgery, sex, body mass index, or follow-up time. The study and control groups demonstrated significant and comparable improvements for the mHHS (mean ± SD Δ, 24.06 ± 24.19 vs 26.33 ± 17.27; P = .625), NAHS (Δ, 31.22 ± 25.31 vs 27.15 ± 17.61; P = .399), and HOS-SSS (Δ, 33.16 ± 34.73 vs 34.75 ± 26.15; P = .557). The rates for achieving the MCID were similar for the study and control groups for the mHHS (76.7% vs 84.2%; P = .399), HOS-SSS (79.1% vs 75.8%; P = .731), and NAHS (81.4% vs 84.2%; P = .738). Need for revision surgery was similar ( P = .748). A lower conversion rate to total hip arthroplasty was reported for the study than for the control group (2.2% vs 15.6%; P = .026). Conclusion: In the context of FAIS, labral tears, and acetabular overcoverage, patients who underwent hip arthroscopy reported significant improvement in several PROs at minimum 5-year follow-up. Moreover, outcomes were comparable with those of a propensity-matched control group without acetabular overcoverage. Furthermore, the rate of achieving the MCID for the mHHS, HOS-SSS, and NAHS was similar between these groups.

show abstract

“…Moreover, these patients often have calcified labra that, with the addition of the required extensive acetabuloplasty, may require advanced labral restoration techniques. 39,42,68…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in the Context of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome, Labral Tear, and Acetabular Overcoverage: Minimum 5-Year Outcomes With a Subanalysis Against Patients Without Overcoverage

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To date, there are 2 commonly described techniques for hip labral augmentation in the literature. 7 , 19 In contrast to the technique described by Locks et al., 7 our technique uses tibialis anterior allograft as opposed to iliotibial band allograft or autograft. This simplifies graft preparation, and tibialis anterior allograft has been shown to be equivalent biomechanically to iliotibial band grafts and the native labrum.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 22 Furthermore, relative to the techniques of Locks et al. and Maldonado et al., 19 graft passage into the joint is simplified by use of the kite technique. Rather than securing the free graft end after graft passage into the joint, our technique allows for immediate, anatomic fixation of both graft ends prior to shuttling the graft into the joint.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We prefer a tibialis anterior allograft (AlloSource, Centennial, CO) for labral augmentations, but various autograft and allograft tissues have been described as acceptable alternatives. 7 , 18 , 19 After thawing and measurement to the appropriate length, as noted earlier, the graft is tubularized to 4 to 5 mm in diameter and whipstitched with several No. 2-0 Vicryl sutures (Ethicon, Somerville, NJ), as previously described ( Fig 6 ).…”

Section: Surgical Techniquementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Technical Pearls for Arthroscopic Labral Augmentation of the Hip

Scheidt

Haber

Bhatia

et al. 2021

Arthroscopy Techniques

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our recent understanding of the importance of the acetabular labral suction seal has placed preserving labral integrity as a guiding principle in hip preservation surgery. In cases with a hypoplastic labrum and intact chondrolabral junction, labral augmentation presents as a viable alternative and an often preferred treatment option over labral reconstruction. At this time, there are few studies that have described the technical pearls of performing labral augmentation of the hip. In this technique guide, we describe, in detail, the kite technique for the introduction, control, and acetabular fixation of a hip labral augmentation graft. Comparable to flying a kite with 2 fly lines and to the previously described kite technique for hip labral reconstruction, the kite technique for labral augmentation is based on the principle that the use of 2 control sutures in a pulley system creates an efficient method to accurately and reproducibly facilitate graft passage and fixation during arthroscopic labral augmentation procedures.

show abstract

“…13,28 Therefore, while the borderline dysplasia and control groups contain patients who underwent labral selective debridement, patients with the same surgical findings in the current day would be treated with a labral restoration alternative. 15,23,29 Moreover, generalized ligamentous laxity was not considered in the analysis. 47 Last, controversy surrounds not only the definition of borderline dysplasia but its treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revision Hip Arthroscopy in the Borderline Dysplastic Population: Reporting Outcomes With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up, With a Subanalysis Against a Propensity-Matched Nondysplastic Control Group

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Hip arthroscopy in patients with borderline dysplasia continues to be surrounded by controversy. Even more controversial is the management of the failed hip arthroscopy in this population. There is a paucity of studies in contemporary literature regarding outcomes after arthroscopic revision surgery. Purpose: (1) To report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores in patients with borderline dysplasia who underwent revision hip arthroscopy and (2) to compare these PRO scores with those of a propensity-matched control group without dysplasia who underwent revision hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Data were prospectively collected between August 2009 and November 2017. Inclusion criteria were revision arthroscopic surgery, capsular plication, and baseline and minimum 2-year follow-up for the following PROs: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score–Sports Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Patients with Tönnis grade >1 or previous hip conditions were excluded. Two groups were created: a study group with borderline dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA], 18°-25°) and a control group without dysplasia (LCEA, 25°-40°). Groups were propensity-matched in a 1:3 ratio for sex, age, body mass index, and follow-up time. Results: A total of 22 revision borderline dysplastic hips (21 patients) had a minimum 2-year follow-up during the study period. Patients in this group reported significant improvements for all PROs from baseline and achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the mHHS at a rate of 70%. Moreover, 21 borderline dysplastic hips (21 patients) were matched to 63 control hips (63 patients). Mean LCEA for the study and control groups was 22.6 ± 1.7 and 32.0 ± 5.0, respectively. Both groups reported similar improvement in all PROs. The rate for achieving the MCID for the mHHS and VAS was similar between groups; however, the control group had higher rates of meeting the MCID for the HOS-SSS and NAHS ( P = .042 and P = .025, respectively). The rates of conversion to hip arthroplasty were 7.9% (n = 5) in the control group and 23.8% (n = 5) in the borderline dysplasia propensity-matched group ( P = .052). The rate of re-revision arthroscopy was 11.1% (n = 7) in the control group and 19.0% (n = 4) on the borderline dysplasia group ( P = .350). Conclusion: After revision hip arthroscopy, significant improvement was obtained for all PROs in patients with borderline dysplasia at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Moreover, outcomes, patient satisfaction, the rate for achieving the MCID for the mHHS and VAS, and the rate for secondary surgery were similar to those of a propensity-matched control group without dysplasia. Nevertheless, there was a nonsignificant trend toward higher secondary procedures in the study group; therefore, arthroscopic revision surgery in the borderline patients should be approached with measured prognosis.

show abstract

Hip Labral Augmentation With Tibialis Anterior Tendon Allograft Using the Knotless Pull-Through Technique

Cited by 18 publications

References 16 publications

Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in the Context of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome, Labral Tear, and Acetabular Overcoverage: Minimum 5-Year Outcomes With a Subanalysis Against Patients Without Overcoverage

Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in the Context of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome, Labral Tear, and Acetabular Overcoverage: Minimum 5-Year Outcomes With a Subanalysis Against Patients Without Overcoverage

Technical Pearls for Arthroscopic Labral Augmentation of the Hip

Revision Hip Arthroscopy in the Borderline Dysplastic Population: Reporting Outcomes With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up, With a Subanalysis Against a Propensity-Matched Nondysplastic Control Group

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About