Dataset Information

Arthroscopic labral reconstruction with gracilis autograft.

ABSTRACT: Despite growing interest in hip arthroscopy and labral preservation, some patients have severely damaged, degenerative, or deficient labrums and may be candidates for arthroscopic labral reconstruction. The ligamentum teres has been used as a graft source for open hip labral grafting, and the iliotibial band has been used in the arthroscopic setting. We present an alternative method of hip labral reconstruction using the gracilis autograft, which does not require post-harvest manipulation. Arthroscopic techniques for graft tensioning and labrum-graft overlap are introduced that may facilitate restoration of labral function in patients with otherwise non-salvageable labrums.

SUBMITTER: Matsuda DK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3678657 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Arthroscopic labral reconstruction with gracilis autograft.

Matsuda Dean K DK

Arthroscopy techniques 20120223 1

Despite growing interest in hip arthroscopy and labral preservation, some patients have severely damaged, degenerative, or deficient labrums and may be candidates for arthroscopic labral reconstruction. The ligamentum teres has been used as a graft source for open hip labral grafting, and the iliotibial band has been used in the arthroscopic setting. We present an alternative method of hip labral reconstruction using the gracilis autograft, which does not require post-harvest manipulation. Arthr ...[more]

PMID: 23766969

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLabral reconstruction has been described as a solution for the irreparable labrum. Initial techniques employed autografts, while more recent procedures have utilized allografts. No study, to our knowledge, has compared graft types.PurposeTo compare outcomes between patients who underwent primary labral reconstruction with a hamstring allograft versus hamstring autograft.HypothesisNo significant differences in outcomes will be found between patients who underwent primary labral reconstruction with an allograft versus autograft.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsData from September 2010 to March 2015 were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were primary hip arthroscopic surgery with labral reconstruction using either a hamstring allograft (ALLO group) or autograft (AUTO group), with minimum 2-year follow-up scores for the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Exclusion criteria were previous ipsilateral hip surgery, previous hip conditions, preoperative Tönnis osteoarthritis grade >1, and workers' compensation claims. Significance was set at P = .05.ResultsTwenty-nine patients (29 hips) were included (85.3% follow-up). There were 17 patients (17 hips) in the ALLO group and 12 patients (12 hips) in the AUTO group. All patient-reported outcome scores demonstrated significant improvements at latest follow-up except for the mHHS for the AUTO group (P = .064). Comparisons between the ALLO and AUTO groups at the preoperative and latest follow-up time points showed no significant differences (preoperative mean [range]: mHHS, 67.5 [33.0-100.0] and 65.8 [29.0-96.0], respectively [P = .826]; NAHS, 65.6 [26.3-92.5] and 58.5 [35.0-79.0], respectively [P = .322]; HOS-SSS, 43.7 [12.5-100.0] and 40.1 [19.0-78.0], respectively [P = .707]) (latest follow-up mean [range]: mHHS, 86.4 [56.0-100.0] and 81.4 [57.0-100.0], respectively [P = .46]; NAHS, 87.7 [60.0-100.0] and 82.4 [56.3-100.0], respectively [P = .396]; HOS-SSS, 81.7 [0.0-100.0] and 70.9 [27.8-100.0], respectively [P = .423]).ConclusionPrimary arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction yielded improvements in patient-reported outcome scores and high patient satisfaction. In this small series, no differences were found in clinical outcomes between hamstring allografts and autografts. Based on these results, hamstring allografts and autografts may be considered comparable graft choices for primary reconstruction. Because of the avoidance of donor site morbidity and the possible increase in patient satisfaction, allografts may be the preferred choice in a surgical setting when they are accessible.

Project description:Purpose To describe patient-reported clinical outcomes and complications of anatomic medial meniscal root reconstruction with gracilis autograft. Methods Data on patients who underwent arthroscopic medial meniscal root reconstruction with gracilis autograft were prospectively collected between 2017 and 2021 and retrospectively reviewed. The inclusion criteria were symptomatic posterior medial meniscal LaPrade type 2 root tears with no more than Outerbridge grade 2 chondrosis of any knee compartment with a minimum follow-up period of 1 year. Patients with ligamentous instability and those with Workers’ Compensation status were excluded. Patient-reported outcomes (12-item Short Form Survey [SF-12], visual analog scale [VAS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index [WOMAC], and Lysholm scores) were collected prospectively and analyzed retrospectively and were scored and recorded both preoperatively and at postoperative intervals. Data were analyzed using cubic spline regression models. The study was approved by the University of South Carolina Institutional Review Board. Results A consecutive series of 27 patients treated by a single surgeon were evaluated. Twenty-one patients were included for data analysis (4 were excluded per criteria and 2 were lost to follow-up) with an average age of 48.1 years (range, 16-63 years). There were 18 female and 3 male patients. The average follow-up time was 25.2 months (range, 12-42 months). At the postoperative time points captured by the data examined, improvements in Lysholm, WOMAC, VAS, and SF-12 physical component summary scores were found to be statistically significant (P < .001, 95% confidence interval). Improvements in SF-12 mental component summary scores, however, did not reach the level of statistical significance (P = .262). Body mass index greater than 35 and age greater than 50 years were not found to be negative predictors of outcomes. Average patient-reported outcomes at 2 years’ follow-up improved from preoperatively as follows: Lysholm score, from 50 to 82.9; WOMAC score, from 53.9 to 87.4; and VAS score, from 5.1 to 1.2. No serious complications were observed. Conclusions Patients undergoing posterior medial meniscal root reconstruction showed statistically significant improvements in Lysholm, WOMAC, SF-12 physical component summary, and VAS scores but not SF-12 mental component summary scores at short-term follow-up. No serious complications or clinical failures occurred, and no patients required revision surgery. Level of Evidence Level IV, case series.

Dataset Information

Arthroscopic labral reconstruction with gracilis autograft.

Publications

Arthroscopic labral reconstruction with gracilis autograft.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets