Abstract:Background: Compromise of the acetabular labrum can lead to pain and loss of critical intra-articular fluid pressure. Revision labral preservation poses unique challenges due to adhesions and compromised tissue quality. Purpose/hypothesis: The purpose of the study was to evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with either labral reconstruction or labral repair after primary hip arthroscopy for labral tear. It was hypothesized that both procedures would lead to improved PROs. Study design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted with the following keywords: (revision) AND (hip OR femoroacetabular impingement) AND (arthroscop*) AND (reconstruction OR repair) in PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus in August 2023 using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria, yielding 2002 initial records. Only studies comparing PROMs between revision labral reconstruction or revision labral repair after primary hip arthroscopy for labral tear were included. Background article information was recorded, including article title, author, study design, level of evidence, patient demographics, radiographic information, intraoperative data, PROMs, psychometric thresholds, and secondary surgeries. Secondary surgery in our study was defined as any open or arthroscopic hip surgery secondary to the initial revision surgery. Forest plots were created for pre- and postoperative outcomes present in ≥3 studies. Heterogeneity was calculated using I 2 values. Results: Four studies, including 215 revision labral reconstructions and 115 revision labral repairs of the hips, were included in this systematic review. All studies were level 3 evidence, and study periods ranged between 2009 and 2019. Mean follow-up for the reconstruction and repair groups ranged from 26.3 to 36.6 months and 30.7 to 56.4 months, respectively. The mean age for the reconstruction and repair groups varied between 27 to 34.6 years and 27.5 to 30 years, respectively. Mean postoperative modified Harris Hip Scores for the reconstruction and repair cohorts ranged from 72.0 to 81.2 and 70.8 to 84.1, respectively (I 2 = 0%). Mean visual analog scale for pain scores for the reconstruction and repair cohorts ranged from 3 to 3.5 and 2.3 to 3.9 (I 2 = 33%). Overall secondary surgery rates ranged from 10.0% to 26.7% in the labral reconstruction cohort, compared with 10.0% to 50.0% in the labral repair cohort. One study reported superior outcomes in the revision labral repair group, with 3 studies finding no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the groups. Conclusion: Our systematic review showed that patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy with labral reconstruction demonstrated significant improvement in postoperative outcome measures. Postoperative outcomes were similar to those of a benchmark control group of patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy and labral repair. Labral reconstruction in the revision setting appears to be an effective treatment in clinically indicated patients.

Editorial Commentary: Small Labral Size on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Is an Indication for Labral Reconstruction in the Setting of Revision Hip Arthroscopy

Editorial Commentary: Surgeons Planning Hip Labral Arthroscopic Repair Should Have a Backup Plan of Labral Reconstruction or Augmentation Based on Intraoperative Labral Degeneration, Hypoplasia, or Ossification

Editorial Commentary: Extreme Hip Labral Size (Both Small and Large) Shows Inferior Outcomes After Arthroscopic Labral Repair With Femoroacetabular Impingement Treatment

Editorial Commentary: Primary Treatment of Hip Labral, Osseous, Chondral, Capsular, and Extra-Articular Pathology Is Essential: Outcomes Following Revision Are Less Predictable

Editorial Commentary: Irreparable, Symptomatic, Hip Labral Tears Should Be Reconstructed in Patients without Osteoarthritis. However, Comparison of the Two, as Well as Allograft versus Autograft Reconstruction, Is Challenging

Mid- to Long-Term Outcomes in Patients After Hip Arthroscopy With Labral Reconstruction: A Systematic Review

Hip Labral Repair versus Reconstruction: Meta-analysis

Outcomes After Arthroscopic Hip Labral Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy With Labral Reconstruction or Labral Repair and Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Systematic Review

Changes in Hip Labral Size Two Years after Arthroscopic Repair Are Correlated with Preoperative Measurements on Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Editorial Commentary: Indications for Acetabular Labral Debridement Versus Repair and Reconstruction: There is Still a Role for Selective Labral Debridement

Two-Year Outcomes of Primary Arthroscopic Surgery in Patients with Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Comparative Study of Labral Repair and Labral Reconstruction

Editorial Commentary: Iliotibial Band Autograft Is a Safe and Effective Technique for Hip Labral Reconstruction

Editorial Commentary: Magnetic Resonance Imaging May Underestimate Hip Femoral Version Versus Computed Tomography Scan: Both May Be Optimized Using 3-Dimensional Imaging

Editorial Commentary: Arthroscopy with Labral Preservation or Reconstruction Plus Capsular Closure Shows Excellent Outcome in Patients with Borderline Hip Dysplasia and is Less Invasive Than Periacetabular Osteotomy

Long-term Outcomes of Primary Hip Arthroscopy: Multicenter Analysis at Minimum 10-Year Follow-up With Attention to Labral and Capsular Management

No Correlation Between Depth of Acetabuloplasty or Postoperative Lateral Center-Edge Angle on Midterm Outcomes of Hip Arthroscopy With Acetabuloplasty and Labral Repair

Return to Sport and Athletic Function in an Active Population After Primary Arthroscopic Labral Reconstruction of the Hip

Editorial Commentary: Preoperative Paralabral Cysts Do Not Have a Detrimental Effect on 2-Year Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy, but They Can Still Have Predictive Value

Editorial Commentary: Endoscopic Hip Abductor Repair Results in Excellent Outcomes in Challenging Patients: Surgical Indications Require Additional Clarification

Acetabular labral reconstruction using the indirect head of the rectus femoris tendon significantly improves patient reported outcomes