The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Arthroscopic Debridement Versus Refixation of the Acetabular Labrum Associated With Femoroacetabular Impingement: Mean 3.5-Year Follow-up
Abstract
Background: The acetabular labrum provides a sealing function and a degree of hip joint stability. Limited, short-term follow-up studies suggest that labral refixation/preservation leads to superior outcomes compared with labral debridement/excision. Purpose: To compare the results of labral refixation versus focal labral excision/debridement in a cohort of patients who underwent arthroscopic correction of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We reported on patients who underwent labral debridement/focal labral excision during a period before the development of labral repair techniques. Patients with labral tears thought to be repairable with our current arthroscopic technique were compared with a cohort of patients who underwent labral refixation. To better match the 2 groups, only patients with labral pincer- or combined-type FAI were included. In the first 44 hips, the labrum was focally excised/debrided (group 1); in the next 50 hips, the labrum was refixed (group 2). Outcomes were measured with the modified Harris Hip Score (HHS), Short Form 12 (SF-12), and a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain preoperatively and postoperatively. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were obtained to evaluate bony resection. Results: The mean age was 32 years in group 1 and 28 years in group 2 with a mean follow-up of 42 months (range, 24-72 months). Preoperative mean subjective outcome scores were not significantly different between groups. At a mean 3.5 years’ follow-up, subjective outcomes were significantly improved ( P < .01) for both groups compared with preoperative scores. The HHS ( P = .001), SF-12 ( P = .041), and VAS pain scores ( P = .004) were all significantly better for the refixation group compared with the debridement group at the most recent follow-up. At a mean 3.5 years’ follow-up, good to excellent results were noted in 68% of the focal excision/debridement group and 92% of the refixation group ( P = .004). Conclusion: Although other factors may have influenced these results, labral refixation compared with an earlier cohort of focal labral excision/debridement resulted in better HHS, SF-12, and VAS pain outcomes and a greater percentage of good to excellent results at a mean 3.5-year follow-up.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Krych, A. J., Thompson, M., Knutson, Z., Scoon, J., & Coleman, S. H. (2013) · Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2012.07.011 · Cited by 334
Minkara, A. A., Westermann, R. W., Rosneck, J., & Lynch, T. S. (2019) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/0363546517749475 · Cited by 308
Microinstability of the hip: A review
Dangin, A., Tardy, N., Wettstein, M., May, O., & Bonin, N. (2016) · Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research · doi:10.1016/j.otsr.2016.09.002 · Cited by 100
Metadata
- Authors
- Larson, C. M., Giveans, M. R., & Stone, R. M.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Sports Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-02-03
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1015-1021
- ISSN
- 0363-5465 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3365
- OpenAlex
- W1967202473
- Cited by
- 436
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 44.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Arthroscopic Debridement Versus Refixation of the Acetabular Labrum Associated With Femoroacetabular Impingement: Mean 3.5-Year Follow-up. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0363546511434578
- The paper
- Larson, C. M., Giveans, M. R., & Stone, R. M. (2012). Arthroscopic Debridement Versus Refixation of the Acetabular Labrum Associated With Femoroacetabular Impingement: Mean 3.5-Year Follow-up. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546511434578
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.