FP3.3 Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Hip Labral Reconstruction Versus Repair in the Primary Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Clicks: 12
ID: 331081
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 #195 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 ICLB03 - The Labral Reconstruction Masterclass: Autografts, Allografts, and Technical Frontiers, Session Room 12 (BMCC Level 3), October 8, 2026, 10:30 - 12:30 Introduction Advancements in understanding the acetabular labrum’s role in hip biomechanics have emphasized preserving its native anatomy. However, severe labral pathology may make labral repair unfeasible in certain cases. The primary aim of the present study is to review existing literature comparing clinical outcomes of arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction versus repair in the primary setting. Methods A search following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Scopus to identify studies comparing clinical outcomes of arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction versus repair for the treatment of labral tears in the primary setting. Meta-analyses comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs), achievement of a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) or patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and revision or conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were performed using a random-effects model. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Six studies (level of evidence III) with 429 hips undergoing reconstruction and 1,278 undergoing repair were included. Indications for reconstruction in the primary setting based on authors’ preferences included nonviable labrum or inadequate remaining labral tissue for repair, labral calcification, labral size >8 mm or <2–3 mm, complex or extensive tears, labral hypotrophy or hypertrophy, tears with severe (or moderate in patients >40 years old) intrasubstance damage, labral ossification, and segmental defects. All studies reported statistically significantly more severe labral and cartilage pathology in the reconstruction group compared to the repair group. Meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference between labral repair and reconstruction in PROs, odds of achieving MCID or PASS for the modified Harris Hip Score and International Hip Outcome Tool, or risk of revision (P >0.05). However, the risk of conversion to THA was statistically significantly higher in the reconstruction group compared to the repair group (P <0.001). Conclusions and Relevance While PROs, achievement of clinically significant outcomes, and risk of revision were not statistically significantly different between primary labral reconstruction and repair, the risk of conversion to THA was significantly higher following primary labral reconstruction. This finding may be related to increased severity of labral and cartilage pathology in patients undergoing reconstruction.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220393453 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Kory B. Dylan Pasko, Muzammil Akhtar, Daniel Razick, Dean Wang
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Journal of hip preservation surgery
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jhps/hnag043.019
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnag043.019
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.