EP2.3 Arthroscopic Repair versus Augmentation of the Hypoplastic Labrum: The [redacted] Study Group Experience

Clicks: 10
ID: 331066
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #284 of 444 articles by views in Journal of hip preservation surgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 444 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Introduction There is high interest but a paucity of only single-center studies on whether the hypoplastic labrum should be treated with primary repair versus graft augmentation. Purpose To report multicenter comparative outcomes following arthroscopic primary repair versus augmentation of hypoplastic labrums in patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Methods A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from five centers was performed of patients with hypoplastic labrae treated with labral repair versus augmentation. Inclusion criteria were patients with FAIS that underwent primary unilateral hip arthroscopy with diagnosis of hypoplastic labrum defined as labral height <4 mm. Analysis of labral repair and labral augmentation cohorts included demographics, clinical and radiographic findings, concurrent procedures, and 2-year minimum outcomes as determined with International Hip Outcome Tool short form (iHOT-12) scores. The Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID), Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were analyzed via chi-square tests. Results 49 patients comprised the labral repair group and 26 patients comprised the labral reconstruction group. There were no significant differences in postoperative iHOT-12 scores (p= 0.74) and change in scores (p=0.19), with both groups demonstrating significant improvement. The repair group patients were younger than those in the reconstruction group with mean age 34 and 43 years, respectively (p=0.004). Mean Alpha angles were 57° and 69°, respectively (p=0.025). Labral bruising was more prominent in the reconstruction group (p=0.002). The proportions of patients in the augmentation cohort that met the MCID, SCB, and PASS are 96%, 77%, and 85%, respectively, and for the repair cohort, 86%, 69%, and 73%, respectively. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients that met these thresholds (χ2(1, N = 75) = 1.94, p = .16; χ2(1, N = 75) = 0.48, p = .49; and χ2(1, N = 75) = 1.20, p = .27). Conclusions Hypoplastic labrums in FAIS may successfully be treated with repair or augmentation with similarly successful outcomes. Older age, larger Alpha angle, and labral bruising may factor into individualized decision-making towards augmentation, but obligatory graft augmentation in all patients appears unnecessary, resulting in cost-savings and less risk of traction-related complications.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220390263 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Dean K. Matsuda, RobRoy L. Martin, Jake Silk, Andrew B. Wolff, Shane Nho, Dominic S. Carreira, John Joseph Christoforetti
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Journal of hip preservation surgery
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jhps/hnag043.284
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnag043.284
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.