MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3000192533 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2019.12.002

Routine Interportal Capsular Repair Does Not Lead to Superior Clinical Outcome Following Arthroscopic Femoroacetabular Impingement Correction With Labral Repair

2020· article· en· W3000192533 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Filan, Patrick Carton

Notice bibliographique

RevueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2020
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHip disorders and treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineFemoroacetabular impingementWOMACSurgeryHip arthroscopyOsteoarthritisStatistical significanceArthroscopyLabrumIncidence (geometry)Minimal clinically important differenceInternal medicineRandomized controlled trial

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of routine capsular repair on clinical outcome in a consecutive series of patients undergoing arthroscopic correction of symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2015, patients were assigned to 1 of 2 groups based on whether a capsular repair was performed as part of their index hip arthroscopic procedure. Exclusion criteria included previous underlying hip conditions, Tönnis >1, age >45 years, and labrum not repaired. Patients were assessed preoperatively and 2-years postoperatively using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the modified Harris hip score (mHHS), UCLA activity scale, short form-36, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score, and measures of range of hip movements. The incidence of any subsequent revision surgery within 2 years was recorded. Sex and age groups were specifically analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 966 consecutive cases were included (96.4% follow-up rate): 508 in group A (no repair) and 458 in group B (repair). Average age for all cases was 28.1 ± 7.0 years (14.6-44.9). There were significant improvements in all PROMs following surgery for both groups (P < .001). Statistical significance between groups at 2 years was observed for Short Form-36 (P = .001) and WOMAC (P = .041), greater in group A. Both groups similarly met the minimal clinically important difference (mHHS P = .414 and .605; UCLA, P = .549 and .614; Short Form-36, P = .455 and .079; WOMAC, P = .425 and .750 for distribution and anchor-based methods, respectively). In total, 38 (7.8%) cases group A and 24 (5.4%) cases group B required repeat hip arthroscopy (HA) (P = .148); No (0%) cases in group A and 2 (0.45%) cases in group B required total hip replacement (P = .226). There was significantly lower rate of repeat HA among 25- to 34-year age group (8.6% vs 3.9%, P = .047) where capsular repair was performed. No significant difference in the rate of repeat HA between groups for male (P = .203) or female (P = .603) subjects. Adhesions were more common in the repair group (79.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 57.8-92.9 vs 55.3%, CI 38.3-71.4; P = .055), with further capsular repair/plication required more frequently in the unrepaired group (50%, CI 33.4-66.6 vs 25%, CI 10.8-44.3); however, differences between groups were not significant (P = .051). Internal rotation was larger in group A compared with group B at 2 years (36.2 vs 28.1, P = .000). Female patients with capsular repair had reduced PROM scores at 2 years compared with female patients without repair (WOMAC, P = .004, and mHHS, P = .037). CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic correction of femoroacetabular impingement with labral repair results in significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes at 2-years postsurgery, irrespective of whether the capsule is repaired. Routine capsular repair in a consecutive series of patients did not lead to superior outcomes compared with a nonrepaired group; similar proportions of cases in both groups were able to achieve minimal clinically important difference. In female patients, routinely repairing the capsule may lead to statistically inferior clinical outcome at 2-years postsurgery, although this may not be clinically significant. Routine capsular repair, however, may be beneficial in the younger, active patient, where a significant reduction in repeat arthroscopy was observed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,109
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,977

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,027
Tête enseignante GPT0,310
Écart entre enseignants0,282 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations54
Publié2020
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgeryMême sujetHip disorders and treatmentsTravaux en français237 207