Labral tears are commonly associated with femoroacetabular impingement. We reviewed 151 patients (156 hips) with femoroacetabular impingement and labral tears who had been treated arthroscopically. These were subdivided into those who had undergone a labral repair (group 1) and those who had undergone resection of the labrum (group 2). In order to ensure the groups were suitably matched for comparison of treatment effects, patients with advanced degenerative changes (Tönnis grade > 2, lateral sourcil height < 2 mm and Outerbridge grade 4 changes in the weight-bearing area of the femoral head) were excluded, leaving 96 patients (101 hips) in the study. At a mean follow-up of 2.44 years (2 to 4), the mean modified Harris hip score in the labral repair group (group 1, 69 hips) improved from 60.2 (24 to 85) pre-operatively to 93.6 (55 to 100), and in the labral resection group (group 2, 32 hips) from 62.8 (29 to 96) pre-operatively to 88.8 (35 to 100). The mean modified Harris hip score in the labral repair group was 7.3 points greater than in the resection group (p = 0.036, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 14.09). Labral detachments were found more frequently in the labral repair group and labral flap tears in the resection group. No patient in our study group required a subsequent hip replacement during the period of follow-up.

This study shows that patients without advanced degenerative changes in the hip can achieve significant improvement in their symptoms after arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Where appropriate, labral repair provides a superior result to labral resection.

Introduction: Following intralesional resection of giant cell tumour local recurrence happens in up to 40% depending on type of treatment. Common plain radiography or Magnetic resonance tomography (MRI) often has the problem not to discriminate between scar and recurrent tumour.

Materials and Methods: In 19 patients with giant cell tumour dynamic PET using F18-Fluordeoxyglucose (FDG) for estimation of FDG turnover was carried out. PET was performed before surgery and as follow up. In case of evidence in x-ray or MRI of recurrent giant cell tumour PET was performed again. results of histologic evaluation after reoperation then were compared to results of PET.

Results: All giant cell tumours showed a specific PET pattern with a very high standard uptake value (SUV) of 4.8 in median. In one case pulmonary metastases could be found. In follow up after surgery this value dropped to 0.3. Recurrence was suspected in the follow up in 5 patients by MRI or plain radiography. In all these patients PET could show an elevated SUV above 4.0. In these 5 patients surgery was performed and recurrence could be proven by histology. In one patient MRI was negative but PET showed a SUV of 5.2 indicating re-recurrent tumour which could be demonstrated by histology.

Conclusion: We conclude that PET is a very helpful tool not only in the first line diagnosis of giant cell tumour but also in diagnosis of metastatic disease and especially for detection of recurrent tumour.

Following intralesional resection of giant cell tumour local recurrence happens in up to 40% depending on type of treatment. Common plain radiography or Magnetic resonance tomography (MRI) often has the problem not to discriminate between scar and recurrent tumour tissue in the cement-tissue border of lesions treated with cement packing. The value of Positron emission tomography (PET) for diagnosis of tumour and recurrence was investigated in these patients.

In 19 patients with giant cell tumour dynamic PET using F18-Fluordeoxyglucose for estimation of FDG turnover was carried out. PET was performed before surgery and as follow up. In all patients giant cell tumour was treated by curettage followed by burring and cement packing. Giant cell tumour was shown by histology in all patients.

All giant cell tumours showed a specific PET pattern with a very high standard uptake value (SUV) of 4.8 in median. In follow up after surgery this value dropped to 0.3. In one case also pulmonary metastasis could be demonstrated. Recurrence was suspected in the follow up in 5 patients by MRI or plain radiography. In all these patients PET could show an elevated SUV above 4.0. In these 5 patients surgery was performed and recurrence could be proven by histology. In one patient MRI showed signs of recurrence but PET showed a SUV of 1.3. In the revision surgery no tumour could be found. In one patient MRI was negative but PET showed a SUV of 5.2 indicating re-recurrent tumour which could be demonstrated by histology.

We conclude that PET is a very helpful tool not only in the first line diagnosis of giant cell tumour but also in diagnosis of metastatic disease and especially for detection of recurrent tumour.