ReviewCureus2026
Labral Repair Versus Labral Reconstruction in Arthroscopic Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), labral repair and labral reconstruction are widely used, but their comparative effectiveness remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared functional outcomes, pain scores, revision hip arthroscopy, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) between labral repair and labral reconstruction in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAI. In November 2025, a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Excerpta Medica database (Embase), and the Cochrane Library identified comparative studies reporting extractable postoperative outcomes. Fourteen non-randomized comparative cohorts, including 2,290 hips (1,530 labral repairs and 760 labral reconstructions), met the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted in duplicate, and methodological quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). A fixed-effect model was used to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Labral reconstruction showed a small but statistically significant advantage in postoperative modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), whereas other functional outcomes, including the Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), and 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT 12), were comparable between techniques. Pain improvement measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was also similar, and revision hip arthroscopy rates did not differ meaningfully between groups. In contrast, labral repair was associated with a significantly lower risk of conversion to THA than labral reconstruction. Heterogeneity across pooled analyses was low, and no relevant publication bias was detected. These findings indicate that both labral repair and labral reconstruction provide clinically important improvement after hip arthroscopy for FAI, with reconstruction performing reliably in irreparable labral pathology, while the lower arthroplasty conversion rate seen with repair likely reflects more favorable baseline joint status in hips where the native labrum can be preserved rather than a direct causal effect of the technique.
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.