Hip labral tear non-surgical management: a conservative-first plan for pain, function, and activity

Non-surgical management of a hip labral tear means treating the hip without operating on it: activity modification, physical therapy, and medication or injections for symptom control, reassessed on a set schedule rather than left open-ended. A 2026 review of acetabular labral tear management describes non-operative care — activity modification, targeted physical therapy, and selective intra-articular injections — as first-line, and states that an initial conservative trial of 6 to 12 weeks is recommended before surgical intervention is considered.¹⁰ The useful question is not whether a tear shows up on imaging, but whether a structured conservative trial is moving your pain and your function in the right direction.

This page also does something most hip labral tear pages skip. It names the patients the published studies actually enrolled, and the patients those studies screened out. That distinction matters if you carry metabolic disease, obesity, an inflammatory condition, a prior operation on the same hip, or pain that has run for years, because those are frequently the people a research protocol excludes before the first patient is randomized.

Key points

• Three building blocks come first. Activity modification, physical therapy aimed at hip mechanics and strength, and medication or injections when symptoms need targeted control.^2,3
• Confirm the pain generator before the trial starts. Radiographs, and a diagnostic injection when the source of pain is unclear, keep months of conservative care from being spent on the wrong problem.⁴
• Judge the plan on trends. Pain trending down and function trending up across months, not a single good or bad week.
• Know who was studied. The 2023 systematic review behind the widely quoted response rate excluded osteoarthritis studies outright, and the randomized trial in this area excluded dysplasia, severe joint-space loss, prior surgery on the same hip, and bilateral tears.^5,9
• “No consensus” is a voting outcome, not a finding. A 2025 physician panel recorded no consensus on orthobiologics for non-operative management of labral tears. On that same question, 75% of the panel agreed or strongly agreed and none strongly disagreed — short of the 80% threshold the study had set in advance.⁴
• Surgery is real, available, and not the opening move. Regen.MD provides surgery when conservative measures have been exhausted, after a completed conservative trial.

What a hip labral tear is, and why non-surgical care comes first

The labrum is the ring of fibrocartilage on the socket side of the hip. A 2026 review describes it as critical for maintaining hip stability, preserving the suction seal, and distributing load.¹⁰ When it is irritated or mechanically stressed, pain usually appears with specific hip positions and under load rather than constantly.

A tear visible on imaging does not by itself establish that an operation is needed. Northwestern Medicine and NYU Langone Health both describe non-surgical care — activity modification, oral anti-inflammatory medication, physical therapy, and in-office injections — as the usual starting point for hip labral tears.^2,3

What drives symptoms during everyday movement

Symptoms generally track how the hip is loaded rather than how dramatic the tear looks. Over time, pain changes gait and movement habits, and those compensations can keep the joint irritated instead of letting it settle.

That is why non-surgical management is not simply rest. It is a structured plan to reduce provocative mechanics, rebuild strength and motor control, and widen the range of activity your hip tolerates without a flare.

Why conservative care is revisited rather than abandoned

We look for trends, not perfection: is pain trending down, is function trending up, and can you do the things you care about with fewer flare-ups? Those three answers drive the next decision.

If progress stalls, the plan gets revisited rather than repeated indefinitely. The 2026 review is direct about this — persistent or worsening symptoms within the initial 6-to-12-week window should be treated as failure of that trial rather than a reason to extend it unchanged.¹⁰ You can read how that staged reassessment is structured in our conservative-first evaluation pathway.

Getting the diagnosis right before committing to months of treatment

A conservative trial only works if it is aimed at the right structure. In 2025, a modified Delphi consensus of 40 sports medicine physicians published agreed positions on how hip labral tears should be worked up and managed.⁴

Imaging that should be obtained up front

That panel agreed that radiographs, including at minimum a standing anteroposterior pelvis view and a 45° Dunn view, should be obtained in all patients presenting with a suspected labral tear.⁴ These views describe the bony shape of the hip, which is part of why two people with similar-looking tears can need very different plans.

MRI and the role of contrast

Mayo Clinic describes magnetic resonance arthrography, which combines MRI with contrast material injected into the hip joint space, as making a labral tear easier to see.¹ Sharper diagnostic confidence supports more targeted conservative care rather than a generic one.

A diagnostic injection when intra-articular origin is uncertain

The same consensus panel agreed that a diagnostic hip injection should be performed in a patient with a suspected or known labral tear if there is diagnostic uncertainty about whether the pain is coming from the hip joint, and that corticosteroid can be used where a degenerative process underlies it.⁴ The 2026 review makes the same point, describing diagnostic intra-articular injections with local anesthetic, with or without corticosteroid, as serving both diagnostic and short-term therapeutic purposes.¹⁰

This matters for a conservative pathway because it separates pain coming from inside the joint from pain generated somewhere else, before you spend months rehabilitating the wrong target.

The three building blocks of non-surgical management

NYU Langone Health names activity modification, medication, and physical therapy as the treatments physicians may recommend for hip labral tears.² Northwestern Medicine describes a similar core — activity modification, rest, oral anti-inflammatory medication, and targeted strengthening programs with physical therapy focusing on the core, spine, glutes, and hamstrings — adding ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip joint injection when initial therapies do not work.³

Activity modification

The goal is to remove the specific positions and loads that reliably reproduce symptoms, not to stop moving. NYU Langone Health frames it directly: by avoiding these, you may be able to participate in many other activities without experiencing any symptoms.²

Physical therapy

The 2025 consensus panel reached strong consensus on the key components of non-operative treatment, naming range of motion, strengthening, core work, and functional retraining.⁴ What your hip can handle this month sets the starting point, not a fixed protocol.

Where the panel did not agree was on the calendar. It reached unanimous consensus that there is no specific time point at which to begin sport-specific training during non-operative treatment, and that the decision depends on strength, pain, and apprehension instead.⁴ The 2023 systematic review found the same gap from the evidence side: no definitive specific effect was observed regarding therapy duration or approach, at very low to low certainty.⁵

Medication and injections for symptom control

NYU Langone Health notes that over-the-counter medications, including acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications like ibuprofen and naproxen, may help ease hip pain.² Northwestern Medicine describes in-office ultrasound-guided intra-articular injections, which often consist of a numbing agent with a small amount of steroid.³

The 2025 panel reached consensus that corticosteroid injections have a role for diagnostic purposes and symptom management in labral tears.⁴ Injections used this way are there to make rehabilitation possible, not to substitute for it.

What realistic results look like, and who was actually studied

Two numbers get quoted constantly on this topic. Both are real. Both come from populations narrower than the one walking into a regenerative medicine clinic, and reading them without that context is how patients end up with the wrong expectation.

A 54% response rate, in a population where osteoarthritis was excluded

A 2023 systematic review with meta-analysis in the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy pooled 26 studies covering 1,153 patients with non-arthritic hip-related pain and found an overall satisfactory response rate to non-operative treatment of 54% (95% CI, 32% to 76%), rated moderate-certainty evidence.⁵

Who was in that 1,153? The review included randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, acetabular dysplasia, acetabular labral tear, and non-arthritic hip pain not otherwise specified. It explicitly excluded studies focused on other intra-articular hip disorders, naming slipped capital femoral epiphysis, Legg-Calvé-Perthes disease, avascular necrosis, and osteoarthritis. It also excluded retrospective cohorts, case series and reports, abstract-only studies, and non-English-language studies.⁵

So the 54% describes hips without established arthritis. If your radiographs show degenerative change, the review’s authors deliberately kept studies of people like you out of the pool. That is not a criticism of the review — it is a well-run review answering a well-defined question. It is a reason not to hand yourself that number as a personal forecast.

“Satisfactory response” in that review also had a specific definition: no surgery and/or no recurrent pain during follow-up, or a global rating of change of at least moderately better, or achievement of the Patient Acceptable Symptom State on the Hip Outcome Score activities-of-daily-living subscale.⁵ A patient who avoided surgery but still hurts can count as a responder.

A 52-patient cohort where function improved and pain often did not

The second number comes from a 2019 case series in the American Journal of Sports Medicine. Investigators identified 71 patients with acetabular labral injuries confirmed on MRI or arthrography who received at least a year of non-surgical treatment; 52 of them (73.2%) completed the one-year follow-up questionnaires, at a mean follow-up of 16.2 months.⁶

All four functional outcome measures improved significantly. Yet 48.1% reported no improvement in their pain, 69.2% were limited in their activities, and 40.4% were still considering surgery, while 71.2% were satisfied with non-surgical treatment overall.⁶

Now the population. The cohort’s mean age was 38.9 years, and baseline radiographs demonstrated minimal arthritis, Tönnis grades 0 to 2.⁶ The institutional summary of the same study reports an average body mass index of 26 and an average symptom duration of 19 months.⁷ That is a young cohort with minimal arthritis, a body mass index near the lower end of the overweight range, and symptoms measured in months rather than years.

The study’s own authors drew the boundary plainly: the patients best suited to non-surgical management are probably those with minimal impingement who are willing to alter their lifestyle and accept occasional discomfort.⁷ That is a conditional recommendation about a specific kind of patient, not a general verdict.

The randomized trial, and the exclusion criteria behind it

The comparative evidence in this area comes from a single-surgeon randomized controlled trial of hip arthroscopy versus physical therapy alone in patients aged 40 and older with limited osteoarthritis (Tönnis grades 0 to 2). Ninety-seven patients were analyzed; 71.1% of those assigned to physical therapy alone crossed over to arthroscopy, at a mean of 5.10 months. At 24 months the surgical group showed superior scores on nearly all measures, with no significant difference between groups in conversion to total hip arthroplasty.⁸

The trial’s registered eligibility criteria list twelve exclusions. Patients were excluded for less than 2 mm of joint space on standing radiographs, developmental dysplasia of the hip, Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4 changes, Tönnis grade 3 changes, unexpected pathology at the time of arthroscopy, prior same-site surgery, back pain greater than hip pain or back pain with leg symptoms below the knee, back pain with positive neural tension signs, knee pain greater than hip pain, bilateral acetabular labral tears, any contraindication to surgery or physical therapy, and more than six weeks of an alternate form of physical therapy.⁹

Read that list against a real clinic schedule. A patient with advanced joint-space loss, a dysplastic socket, a previously operated hip, tears on both sides, or a lumbar spine contributing to the pain would not have been enrolled. Those exclusions are appropriate trial design — they isolate the question being asked. They also mean the trial’s answer was never about those patients, in either direction.

What none of these designs could measure

Each of these studies tested something narrower than the care a complex patient receives, and the gaps are structural rather than accidental.

None of them tested treatments in combination or in sequence. The randomized trial compared arthroscopy plus physical therapy against physical therapy alone; it did not test physical therapy plus metabolic management, or an injection sequenced ahead of a loading program. Single-modality designs cannot report on combinations they never assembled.

Follow-up was also short relative to the problem. The meta-analysis drew its primary pooled estimate from follow-up periods of 1 to 24 months, the case series averaged 16.2 months, and the randomized trial reported at 24 months.^5,6,8 None of that measures durability across the years a degenerating hip actually has to last.

And the outcome instruments record what they were built to record. Hip questionnaires and pain scales do not capture inflammatory burden, glycemic control, sleep, or the metabolic terrain underlying degenerative joint disease — so a study can be entirely valid and still be silent on whether addressing that terrain changes anything.

What a consensus statement is, and what “no consensus” means

The line most often quoted about orthobiologics and hip labral tears is that a physician consensus panel reached no consensus. That is accurate. It is also routinely misread, because most readers have never been told how a consensus statement is produced.

How the panel was assembled and how agreement was counted

A consensus statement is not a trial and it does not generate new data. It is a structured poll of selected experts, run in rounds, in which proposed statements are voted on until the votes settle. The 2025 hip labral statement used a modified Delphi process with 40 sports medicine physicians who had expertise in the management of femoroacetabular impingement: 20 orthopaedic surgeons with a hip arthroscopy practice and 20 non-operative physicians, distributed evenly across four working groups covering diagnosis, non-operative management, operative management, and rehabilitation and return to play.⁴

The thresholds were set in advance. Agreement of 80% to 89% was defined as consensus, 90% to 99% as strong consensus, and 100% as unanimous consensus. Anything below 80% was recorded as no consensus.⁴

The authors are candid about what this produces. Their limitations section states that consensus statements are considered to be level 5, expert-opinion level data, that there was no standardized process for generating the study questions, and that the Delphi process itself may represent filtered-down expert opinion.⁴ That is the authors’ own assessment of their own paper.

The orthobiologics vote, in full

The question put to the non-operative working group was whether there is a role for orthobiologics in the non-operative management of labral tears and, if so, which ones and at what frequency. The statement voted on read: there is a role for platelet-rich plasma and viscosupplementation in the non-operative management of labral tears.⁴

The recorded votes were 0% strong disagreement, 3% disagreement, 22% neutral, 64% agreement, and 11% strong agreement. Consensus level: none.⁴

So 75% of a panel evenly split between hip arthroscopists and non-operative physicians agreed or strongly agreed, 3% disagreed, and not one strongly disagreed. The statement failed because 75% is below 80%, and because roughly a fifth of the panel sat neutral on a question that asked them to specify which preparation and at what frequency — a level of protocol detail the published evidence does not currently support anyone naming.

Why absence of consensus is not evidence of absence

A panel recording “none” means the experts did not reach a prespecified voting threshold. A negative trial means an intervention was tested against a comparator and did not outperform it. These are different claims, and only the second is evidence that something does not work.

The 2023 systematic review reached the same place from the data side rather than the opinion side. Its authors state that insufficient evidence was available to make definitive recommendations regarding the effectiveness of intra-articular viscosupplementation, corticosteroid injection, orthobiologic injection outside an operative setting, bracing, oral medications, or management of coexisting psychological distress.⁵ Insufficient evidence to recommend is not evidence against.

The honest summary is narrower and more useful than either enthusiasm or dismissal: for hip labral tears specifically, orthobiologics are not established, not disproven, and not routine.

Where orthobiologics fit, and where the evidence stops

Regen.MD is a regenerative and longevity medicine practice, so patients ask about platelet-rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, and micro-fragmented adipose for hip pain. The answer has to survive the sourcing standard, which means saying what is known and what is not.

What the reviews say right now

The 2026 review of acetabular labral tear management states that evidence for orthobiologics such as platelet-rich plasma and bone marrow aspirate concentrate remains limited and heterogeneous, and that their routine use is not currently supported.¹⁰ That is a real caution and it is not softened here.

“Heterogeneous” is doing specific work in that sentence. Preparations differ by platelet concentration, leukocyte content, activation method, injection volume, guidance technique, and number of injections. Populations differ by age, arthritis grade, and comorbidity. Small studies of different preparations in different patients do not pool into a clean answer, and that is why the evidence is described as unsettled rather than negative. It is also why no orthobiologic has been shown to repair or regrow labral tissue, and no such claim is made here.

A randomized comparison in a population most labral trials exclude

Developmental dysplasia of the hip appears on the exclusion list of the randomized labral tear trial described above.⁹ It is worth knowing what happens when that excluded population is studied on its own terms.

A 2025 double-blind randomized controlled trial enrolled 42 patients with hip osteoarthritis secondary to developmental dysplasia of the hip and compared intra-articular platelet-rich plasma against hyaluronic acid over 24 weeks. Both groups improved significantly from baseline. The platelet-rich plasma group showed greater improvement on the pain visual analogue scale (38.5 versus 18.7, P = .041), but the difference on the WOMAC pain score was not statistically significant (4.3 versus 2.9, P = .245). The authors concluded that platelet-rich plasma is at least as effective as hyaluronic acid for this indication.¹¹

Two things follow, and both need stating. That trial studied hip osteoarthritis secondary to dysplasia, not labral tears, so it does not tell you what platelet-rich plasma does for a torn labrum. Its design also limits the reading: 42 patients, 24 weeks, an active comparator rather than placebo, and two pain measures that disagreed with each other. What it does illustrate is that a population screened out of one trial can be studied on its own terms, and that here the result was modest and mixed rather than absent.

How this is discussed at Regen.MD

Entry is a paid, physician-led Clinical Evaluation. For a hip labral tear, that means reviewing your radiographs and MRI, establishing whether the pain is intra-articular, and reviewing the metabolic and inflammatory picture alongside the imaging — because the 2025 panel’s own unanimous list of prognostic factors includes comorbidities, obesity, duration of symptoms, joint degeneration, and failed prior rehabilitation.⁴ The 2026 review likewise associates a higher body mass index and significant chondral damage with inferior outcomes.¹⁰

Where orthobiologics come up, they are discussed as what they currently are: options with limited and heterogeneous evidence for this specific diagnosis, used in combination with a loading program rather than as a substitute for one, with the reasoning for or against them written down. Nothing above is presented as a reason to expect a particular result. You can review what each preparation is on our orthobiologics service page.

“My ethos is to treat all of my patients as I would my own family, with the goal of giving them back their quality of life.” — Dr. Gurpreet Singh Padda, MD, MBA, MHP

Coverage is a payer decision, not a clinical finding

Northwestern Medicine notes that in young individuals, steroid may not be recommended, that injection alternatives include special formulations of platelet-rich plasma or hyaluronic acid, and that these are often not covered by most insurance carriers.³

Non-coverage is a payer determination about payment. It is not a scientific finding, and it should not be read as one in either direction. Patients sign an advance beneficiary notice for services a payer does not cover, and the clinical reasoning is discussed separately from the billing question.

When non-surgical management is not enough

A conservative trial is the right first step for many patients and the wrong one for some. If symptoms persist despite a well-designed trial, the evaluation is reopened rather than extended by default.

The consensus panel reached unanimous agreement that prognostic factors including age, severity of pain, mental health, comorbidities, obesity, failed prior rehabilitation, duration of symptoms, pincer lesion, cam lesion, joint degeneration, dysplasia, motivation, and workers’ compensation should be taken into account when judging the likelihood of success with operative management.⁴ The 2026 review adds that a joint space under 2 mm and Tönnis grade 2 osteoarthritis are associated with significantly higher rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty.¹⁰

Regen.MD does provide surgery when conservative measures have been exhausted, and Dr. Gurpreet Singh Padda, MD, MBA, MHP is a surgeon. Surgery follows a completed conservative trial; it is not the opening move, and the point of naming the prognostic factors above is to decide honestly which patients a longer conservative trial is likely to serve.

Frequently asked questions

Sources

1. Mayo Clinic. Hip labral tear — Diagnosis & treatment. https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hip-labral-tear/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20354878 (Referenced for: MR arthrography with contrast material injected into the hip joint space.)
2. NYU Langone Health. Medical Treatment & Activity Modification for Hip Labral Tears. https://nyulangone.org/conditions/hip-labral-tears/treatments/medical-treatment-activity-modification-for-hip-labral-tears (Referenced for: activity modification and participation in other activities without symptoms; acetaminophen and NSAIDs including ibuprofen and naproxen; physical therapy.)
3. Northwestern Medicine. Hip Injury Repair — Nonsurgical Treatment. https://www.nm.org/conditions-and-care-areas/treatments/hip-injury-nonsurgical-treatment (Referenced for: activity modification, rest, oral anti-inflammatory medication, targeted strengthening of core, spine, glutes and hamstrings; ultrasound-guided intra-articular injection with 1 percent lidocaine and a small amount of steroid; platelet-rich plasma or hyaluronic acid alternatives in young individuals and their frequent non-coverage by insurance carriers.)
4. Matache BA, Belzile ÉL, Ayeni OR, et al.; AAC-CASEM Consensus Group. Management of Labral Tears in the Hip: A Consensus Statement. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2025;13(1):23259671241305409. doi:10.1177/23259671241305409. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11758551/ (Referenced for: 40-physician modified Delphi panel, 20 AAC orthopaedic surgeons and 20 CASEM non-operative physicians in four working groups; consensus thresholds of 80–89%, 90–99% and 100%; standing AP pelvis and 45° Dunn radiographs; diagnostic injection when intra-articular origin is uncertain; corticosteroid injection consensus; key components of non-operative treatment; no fixed time point for sport-specific training; orthobiologics question wording and vote distribution 0/3/22/64/11 with consensus level none; unanimous prognostic-factor list; level 5 expert-opinion limitations.)
5. Probst DT, Sookochoff MF, Harris-Hayes M, Prather H, Lipsey KL, Cheng AL. What is the Rate of Response to Nonoperative Treatment for Hip-Related Pain? A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2023;53(5):286–306. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11666. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10176100/ (Referenced for: 54% response rate, 95% CI 32%–76%, moderate certainty, across 26 studies and 1,153 patients with non-arthritic hip-related pain; study selection criteria and the explicit exclusion of osteoarthritis and other intra-articular hip disorders; responder definition; absence of a definitive effect for therapy duration or approach; insufficient evidence regarding orthobiologic injection outside an operative setting.)
6. Quinlan NJ, Alpaugh K, Upadhyaya S, Conaway WK, Martin SD. Improvement in Functional Outcome Scores Despite Persistent Pain With 1 Year of Nonsurgical Management for Acetabular Labral Tears With or Without Femoroacetabular Impingement. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2019;47(3):536–542. doi:10.1177/0363546518814484. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30557033/ (Referenced for: 71 patients identified and 52 (73.2%) completing follow-up; mean follow-up 16.2 months; mean age 38.9 years; Tönnis grades 0–2; 48.1% no pain improvement, 69.2% activity-limited, 40.4% considering surgery, 71.2% satisfied; case series, level of evidence 4.)
7. Massachusetts General Hospital, Advances in Motion. Nonsurgical Treatment of Hip Labral Tears Improves Function, but Pain Can Persist. 2019. https://advances.massgeneral.org/ortho/journal.aspx?id=1273 (Referenced for: institutional summary of the above study, including average BMI 26 and average symptom duration 19 months, and the authors’ statement on which patients are best suited to non-surgical management.)
8. Martin SD, Dean MC, Gillinov SM, et al. Hip Arthroscopy Versus Physical Therapy for the Treatment of Symptomatic Acetabular Labral Tears in Patients Older Than 40 Years: 24-Month Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2024;52(10):2574–2585. doi:10.1177/03635465241263595. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39101607/ (Referenced for: single-surgeon randomized controlled trial in patients aged 40 and older with Tönnis grades 0–2; 97 patients analyzed; 71.1% crossover at a mean of 5.10 months; superiority of arthroscopy plus physical therapy at 24 months; no significant difference in arthroplasty conversion.)
9. ClinicalTrials.gov. Arthroscopic Labral Repair Versus Physical Therapy for Tears of the Acetabular Labrum in Patients Age 40 and Older. NCT03909178, Massachusetts General Hospital. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03909178 (Referenced for: the registered inclusion criteria and the twelve exclusion criteria quoted in the text.)
10. Brinkman JC, Kunze KN, Monty TL, Sparks CA, Malloy P, Chahla J, Nho SJ. The Management of Acetabular Labral Tears: A Contemporary Review. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine. 2026;19(1):52. doi:10.1007/s12178-026-10035-w. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC13291315/ (Referenced for: labral function in stability, suction seal and load distribution; non-operative care as first line; 6–12 week initial conservative trial and treatment failure within that window; diagnostic intra-articular injections; orthobiologic evidence limited and heterogeneous with routine use not currently supported; joint space under 2 mm and Tönnis grade 2 associated with higher arthroplasty conversion; higher BMI and significant chondral damage associated with inferior outcomes.)
11. Okanoue Y, Ikeuchi M, Dan J, Teranishi Y. Effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma in pain management of osteoarthritis with developmental dysplasia of the hip: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Journal of Hip Preservation Surgery. 2025;12(4):230–236. doi:10.1093/jhps/hnaf008. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12712949/ (Referenced for: 42 patients, PRP versus hyaluronic acid, 24 weeks; pain-VAS improvement 38.5 versus 18.7, P = .041; WOMAC-pain 4.3 versus 2.9, P = .245; conclusion that PRP is at least as effective as hyaluronic acid in this population.)
12. Theige M, David S. Nonsurgical Treatment of Acetabular Labral Tears. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation. 2018;27(4):380–384. doi:10.1123/jsr.2016-0109. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28253054/ (Referenced for: a critically appraised topic of four studies in athletes with confirmed acetabular labral tears; highest level of evidence achieved was 4; strength of recommendation level 3; the authors’ caution that the approach should not be applied to every athlete given the low strength of current research.)
13. Enseki K, Harris-Hayes M, White DM, et al.; Orthopaedic Section of the American Physical Therapy Association. Nonarthritic Hip Joint Pain: Clinical Practice Guidelines. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2014;44(6):A1–A32. doi:10.2519/jospt.2014.0302. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4399382/ (Referenced for: clinical practice guideline framing of non-arthritic hip joint pain.)
14. Enseki KR, Bloom NJ, Harris-Hayes M, et al. Hip Pain and Movement Dysfunction Associated With Nonarthritic Hip Joint Pain: A Revision. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy. 2023;53(7):CPG1–CPG70. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.0302. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37383013/ (Referenced for: the 2023 revision that updates and supersedes the 2014 guideline above.)