Postoperative Pain in Patients Who Underwent Hip Arthroscopy with Inside‐Outside Technique As Compared to Outside‐Inside Technique: A Prospective Analytical Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to compare the postoperative pain in patients who underwent to hip arthroscopy with outside-inside technique versus inside-outside technique. We prospectively compared 20 patients who underwent hip arthroscopies through inside-outside technique with a matched group of 20 patients who underwent the same procedure, but through technique outside-inside to assess the postoperative pain. Parameters measured included the visual analogue scale (VAS) 1 hour post-op, 2 hours post-op, 24 hours post-op, VAS at discharge and opioid requirements after surgery as well as anesthesia time, surgery time, traction time, amount of fluid used, WOMAC scale pre-op, and VAIL scale pre-op. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk test were used to assess if variables came from a normally distributed population. For the description of quantitative variables, the mean and standard deviation were used, and for the description of nominal variables, frequencies and proportions. For categoric variables the comparison between groups was performed using Chi square, and for quantitative variables the comparison was performed using the Student t test or Mann-Whitney U, depending on whether it came from a normally distributed population or not. Furthermore, a binominal logistic regression was performed to adjust the relationship between the type of technique (inside-outside or outside-inside) and post-op pain by age, sex, and BMI (variables with p value <2.5 in bivariate analysis). The OR and CI95% were calculated. For data analysis we used SPSS, version 21.0 and an alpha error of 5% was considered. No significant difference was found in demographic data between both groups. There was not difference in time of surgery, WOMAC scale pre-op, and VAIL scale pre-op; however, we found a significant difference in time of traction and amount of fluid used (Table 1). The VAS pos-op was lower in outside-inside technique after 1 hour (mean difference -2.2; IC95% -3.9 to -0.4, p = 0.01), after 2 hours (mean difference -1.25; IC95% -2.6 to 0.1, p = 0.07), at discharge (mean difference -0.8; IC95% -1.7 to 0.16, p = 0.1) and after 24 hours (mean difference -0.35; IC95% -0.9 to 0.2, p = 0.26). The opioid requirements after surgery was significant lower in outside-inside technique versus inside-outside technique -5% vs. 40% (crude OR 0.07; IC95% 0.008 to 0.71, p = 0.008) even after adjusting for age, gender and BMI (adjusted OR 0.06; IC95% 0.006 to 0.72, p = 0.02).Tabled 1VariableOutside-Inside techniqueInside-Outside techniquep valueAge (y)44.25 SD ±8.140.75 SD ±10.60.2Gender (male)50% (n=10)40% (n=8)0.5BMI (kg/m2)24.6 SD ±2.6725.2 SD ±5.20.6Time of anesthesia (min)197.2 SD ±24.9188.7 SD ±24.20.2Time of surgery (min)125 SD ±20.5111.7 SD ±22.80.06Time of traction (min)18.65 SD ±19.563.25 SD ±20.9<0.001Amount of water (liters)36 SD ±15.425.5 SD ±8.20.01WOMAC pre-op44.1 SD ±18.635 SD ±22.20.17VAIL pre-op40.1 SD ±20.346.4 SD ±17.70.3 Open table in a new tab The postoperative pain was lower in outside-inside technique as compared to inside-outside technique in terms of visual analogue scale and opioid requeriments. The time of traction could be the most important factor in these outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».