Safran Nathan, Rath Ehud, Haviv Barak, Atzmon Ran, Amar Eyal
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Orthop J Sports Med. 2021 Feb 16;9(2):2325967120977088. doi: 10.1177/2325967120977088. eCollection 2021 Feb.
With a greater understanding of the importance of the acetabular labrum in the function of the hip, labral repair is preferred over debridement. However, in some scenarios, preservation or repair of the labrum is not possible, and labral reconstruction procedures have been growing in popularity as an alternative to labral resection.
To provide an up-to-date analysis of the literature to determine the overall efficacy of labral reconstruction when compared with labral repair or resection.
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.
PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE databases were searched for literature regarding labral reconstruction in the hip before July 21, 2020. The results were screened and evaluated by 2 reviewers, and a third reviewer resolved any discrepancies. The final studies were evaluated using the MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies) score.
There were 7 comparative studies that fit the inclusion criteria, with 228 hips from 197 patients. The mean follow-up was 34.6 months, and the mean age of all patients was 38.34 years. There were slightly more female patients than male patients (105 vs 92). Arthroscopic reconstruction was performed in 86% of studies (6/7); open surgical techniques, in 14% (1/7). A variety of grafts was used in the reconstructions. The indications for labral reconstruction and outcome measures varied in these publications. Nine patients were lost follow-up, and 6 patients converted to total hip replacement postlabral reconstruction. The assessment of these comparative studies illustrated statistically equivalent results between labral reconstruction and labral repair. Comparisons of labral reconstruction with labral resection also showed statistically equivalent postoperative patient-reported outcome scores; however, the rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty were significantly higher in the population undergoing resection.
The review of current available comparative literature, which consists entirely of level 3 studies, suggests that labral reconstruction does improve postoperative outcomes but does not demonstrate superiority over repair. There may, however, be benefit to performing labral reconstruction over resection owing to the higher rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty in the labral resection group.
随着对髋臼盂唇在髋关节功能中重要性的深入理解,盂唇修复优于清创术。然而,在某些情况下,盂唇的保留或修复是不可能的,盂唇重建手术作为盂唇切除术的替代方法越来越受欢迎。
提供文献的最新分析,以确定与盂唇修复或切除相比,盂唇重建的总体疗效。
系统评价;证据等级,3级。
在PubMed、Embase和MEDLINE数据库中检索2020年7月21日前关于髋关节盂唇重建的文献。结果由2名审阅者进行筛选和评估,第3名审阅者解决任何分歧。最终研究使用MINORS(非随机研究方法学指数)评分进行评估。
有7项比较研究符合纳入标准,共197例患者的228个髋关节。平均随访时间为34.6个月,所有患者的平均年龄为38.34岁。女性患者略多于男性患者(105例对92例)。86%的研究(6/7)采用关节镜重建;14%(1/7)采用开放手术技术。重建中使用了多种移植物。这些出版物中盂唇重建的适应证和结局指标各不相同。9例患者失访,6例患者在盂唇重建后改行全髋关节置换术。这些比较研究的评估表明,盂唇重建和盂唇修复在统计学上结果相当。盂唇重建与盂唇切除的比较也显示,术后患者报告的结局评分在统计学上相当;然而,切除组患者改行全髋关节置换术的比例明显更高。
对现有比较文献的综述(全部为3级研究)表明,盂唇重建确实能改善术后结局,但并不优于修复。然而,由于盂唇切除组改行全髋关节置换术的比例较高,与切除相比,进行盂唇重建可能有益。