Tears of the acetabular labrum appear to be common with the prevalence of asymptomatic tears in the general population approaching 66% and 70% based on cadaveric dissection and magnetic resonance imaging, respectively. Despite this prevalence, there is no currently accepted justification for performing labral repair in an asymptomatic patient despite the many postulated biomechanical benefits that an intact labrum imparts to the hip joint. Representing a smaller proportion of all tears, symptomatic tears of the acetabular labrum present a therapeutic challenge. Current treatment modalities range from conservative measures to open surgical intervention. Conservative measures have typically included: activity modification, the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), physical therapy (PT), core strengthening and improvement of sensory motor control. In the past two decades, technological advances in the form of surgical instrumentation and traction devices have facilitated less invasive arthroscopic techniques to diagnose and treat hip problems and as such is now the preferred treatment modality for many orthopedic surgeons treating patients with hip pathology. Determining which patients, using age and arthritic burden as predictors, can benefit from labral repair is paramount for several reasons. Showing arthroscopic repair is of little or no benefit to a specific cohort can reduce the number of unnecessary surgeries performed, increase the use of conservative therapy (if validated) and reduce the interval between diagnosis and total hip replacement.
There has been only one prospective study documenting the outcomes of patients treated with physical therapy for intra-articular conditions of the hip. These conditions included mild FAI and mild developmental dysplasia of the hip. Here, physical therapy was given as a first line treatment. Those who did not make satisfactory improvements in pain or wished to have surgery were then scheduled for surgery to repair the defects. Patients saw improvement in validated outcome measures at one year. Although there have been studies looking at age secondarily in patients with labral tears, there is no prospective evidence to endorse or refute a recommendation of hip arthroscopy for patients of any age being treated for a tear of the acetabular labrum. Most recently, the authors involved in this study performed a retrospective investigation (unpublished data) to capture patients with clinically and radiographically confirmed acetabular labral pathology electing to undergo conservative management defined as the refusal of surgical intervention. Based on a retrospective review of 894 patients presenting to clinic over a 10-year period, the investigators identified 22 patients with labral pathology that were treated non-operatively. Retrospective case control analysis was performed using outcome questionnaires administered to both surgical and non-surgical cohorts. The investigators found that patients with labral tears managed non-operatively appear to score highly on hip function outcome scores, preliminarily indicating there may be some benefit in using conservative management alone in the treatment of labral pathology. This is a 12-month prospective randomized control trial (RCT), which will enroll 121 subjects with evidence consistent with a tear of the acetabular labrum. Labral tear will be diagnosed by clinical exam and positive MRI findings. Subjects will receive conservative physical therapy treatment alone or arthroscopic surgical labral repair and physical therapy. The investigators anticipate that pain, range of motion, activity level, and functional performance, as judged by validated outcome measures and serial physical exams, will improve when compared to baseline. The investigators also anticipate that the level of response will be greater in the surgical treatment group than in the physical therapy group at 12 months. Our Primary Outcome is change in the modified Harris Hip Score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include changes in other outcomes measures (LEFS, HOS, NAHS, iHOT-33), patient satisfaction, degree of improvement on physical exam, longer-term functional outcomes (i.e., at 2, 5, and 10 years), and the influence of OA severity (Outerbridge scoring) and location on the aforementioned outcome measures.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
110
Patients randomized to the SPT group provided consent for arthroscopic acetabular labral repair with femoroacetabular osteoplasty. As previously described in various technique publications from our group, the senior surgeon's (S.D.M.) hip arthroscopy technique includes intra-articular fluid distension for initial portal placement, puncture capsulotomy, autograft capsular augmentation if insufficient or degenerative labral tissue is encountered, intermittent traction, sparing use of electrocautery, and preservation of the chrondrolabral junction. All SPT patients underwent a standardized postoperative physical therapy protocol developed jointly by the senior author (a sports medicine fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeon) and the physical therapists. Patients were kept weightbearing as tolerated on crutches for 6 weeks to maintain a level pelvis without lurching when walking and were instructed to avoid impact loading exercises for 6 months.
PTA patients were assigned a standardized, 24-week course of supervised, core-based PT. This course was designed in concert with physical therapists within our institution to help address symptoms of labral tear in patients older than 40 who had mild to moderate OA. Weeks 1 and 2 focused on normalizing gait, and weeks 3 through 24 focused on optimizing range of motion (ROM) while slowly integrating strength training. Unlike the prerandomization PT protocol, the PTA protocol was predominantly physical therapist-supervised (at least 1 in-person visit per week).
MGH, Massachusetts General Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Change in mHHS Surveys From Preoperative to Various Postoperative Timepoints
Full Name of Outcome: modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) Purpose: Validated Hip Patient Reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs) to assess the patient's functional outcomes post-surgery. Scale of mHHS: Min: 0 Max: 100 Higher score indicates better hip functionally. No subscores or subscales. The mean changes in scores required to achieve a minimically clinically important difference is 6.9.
Time frame: Baseline (pre-operative), 3 months, 6 months, 12 months
Change HOS Surveys From Preoperative to Various Postoperative Timepoints
Full Name of Outcome: HOS--Hip Outcome Score. Purpose: Validated Hip Patient Reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs) to assess the patient's functional outcomes post-surgery. Scale of HOS: Min: 0 Max: 100 No standardized scoring categories (i.e. excellent, good, fair, poor). Higher score indicates better hip functionally. The mean change in HOS score required to achieve a minimally clinically important difference is 8.8.
Time frame: Baseline (pre-operative), 3 months, 6 months, 12 months
Change NAHS Surveys From Preoperative to Various Postoperative Timepoints
Full Name of Outcome: Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS) Purpose: Validated Hip Patient Reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs) to assess the patient's functional outcomes post-surgery: Scale of NAHS: Min: 0 Max: 100 No standardized scoring categories (i.e. excellent, good, fair, poor). Higher score indicates better hip functionally. No subscores or subscales. No specific score to indicate a minimally clinically important difference.
Time frame: Baseline (pre-operative), 3 months, 6 months, 12 months
Change iHOT--33 Surveys From Preoperative to Various Postoperative Timepoints
Full Name of Outcome: International Hip Outcome Tool--33 Questions Purpose: Validated Hip Patient Reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs) to assess the patient's functional outcomes post-surgery. Scale of iHOT-33: Min: 0 Max: 100 No standardized scoring categories (i.e. excellent, good, fair, poor). Higher score indicates better hip functionally. No subscores or subscales The mean changes in iHOT-33 scores required to achieve minimally clinically important difference is 15.1.
Time frame: Baseline (pre-operative), 3 months, 6 months, 12 months
Change LEFS Surveys From Preoperative to Various Postoperative Timepoints
Full Name of Outcome: Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) Purpose: Validated Hip Patient Reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs) to assess the patient's functional outcomes post-surgery. Scale of LEFS: Min: 0 Max: 100 No standardized scoring categories (i.e. excellent, good, fair, poor). Higher score indicates better hip functionally. There is no designated improvement that is deemed to be a minimally clinically important difference
Time frame: Baseline (pre-operative), 3 months, 6 months, 12 months
Degree of Improvement on Hip VAS Pain Score
At routine follow-up visits patients will be asked to rate hip pain using the VAS (Visual Analog Scale) Score Min: 0--no pain Max: 10--worst pain experienced in their life Increments of 1. Categories: 1--3: mild pain 4--6: moderate pain 7--10: severe pain There is no reduction in VAS score that is considered a minimally clinically important difference.
Time frame: Baseline (pre-operative), 3 months, 6 months, 12 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.