ReviewHip & pelvis2024
Hip Labral Repair versus Reconstruction: Meta-analysis.
Review in Hip & pelvis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combined Arthroscopic Acetabular Labral Reconstruction With Dermal Allograft Hip Capsular Reconstruction.Arthroscopy techniques · 2026Article
- Review
- Reported Rates of Labral Repair and Reconstruction in Primary Hip Arthroscopy Vary Widely Across Published Studies: A Systematic Review.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Review
- What the papers say.Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the postoperative outcomes and complications of labral repair with those of labral reconstruction. An electronic search strategy was conducted from 1986 until August 2023 using the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pages 1-20). The primary objectives included the postoperative clinical outcomes determined by the number of patients who reached minimal clinical important difference (MCID) on the visual analog scale (VAS), modified Harris hip score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Life (HOS-ADL), and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12). In addition, analysis of the rate of revision arthroscopy, the rate of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), the postoperative VAS, mHHS, HOS-SS, HOS-ADL, iHOT-12, nonarthritic hip score (NAHS), patient satisfaction, lower extremity function scale (LEFS), and the SF-12 (12-item shortform) was also performed. Any differences arising between the investigators were resolved by discussion. Seventeen studies were relevant to the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. A higher rate of patients who reached MCID in the mHHS (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.