Routine Interportal Capsular Repair Does Not Lead to Superior Clinical Outcome Following Arthroscopic Femoroacetabular Impingement Correction With Labral Repair
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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 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 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».