High Survivorship and Comparable Patient-Reported Outcomes at a Minimum 5 Years After Hip Arthroscopic Surgery in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement, With and Without Lateral Rim Dysplasia
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background:Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in patients with dysplasia presents a unique challenge to surgeons. Short-term outcomes are conflicting, while longer term follow-up data are only emerging.Purpose:To quantify midterm (minimum 5-year follow-up) outcomes after the arthroscopic correction of FAI in the presence of lateral rim dysplasia compared with a matched control group with FAI with normal acetabular coverage.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:Prospective outcome data, collected in a consecutive series of patients undergoing arthroscopic FAI correction with lateral rim dysplasia (lateral center-edge angle [LCEA] of 13°-25°), were reviewed (N = 75 cases). An age- and sex-matched control group of 120 cases was also formed (LCEA >25°). Survivorship was defined as the avoidance of total hip replacement and assessed using a Kaplan-Meier curve with the log-rank test. Survival rates and patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores (modified Harris Hip Score [mHHS], University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA], 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36], and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC] preoperatively and at 5 years postoperatively) were compared between the groups. The proportion of patients across groups achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was compared for each PROM. The dysplasia group was also analyzed independently to identify any factors that may indicate a less favorable outcome using regression analysis. The group was divided into 2 subgroups: borderline dysplasia (LCEA of 20°-25°) and severe dysplasia (LCEA <20°).Results:The survival rate in the dysplasia group was 97%. There was no statistical difference with respect to survival rates or any PROM scores (<i>P</i> > .05 for all) between the groups. There were similar rates of achieving the MCID between the groups for the mHHS, UCLA, and WOMAC. The FAI control group had a higher rate of achieving the MCID for the SF-36 (<i>P</i> = .012; effect size = 0.274 [small]). Subgroup analysis indicated a lower survival rate (78% vs 100%, respectively; <i>P</i> < .001) in female cases in the dysplasia group (n = 9) compared with male cases in the dysplasia group (n = 66). The UCLA score in female cases in the dysplasia group at 5 years was statistically lower compared with that in male cases in the dysplasia group (6 vs 10, respectively; <i>P</i> = .003; effect size = 0.378 [medium]), but no other outcome revealed any differences between the sexes. There were also no variables identified on regression analysis that accurately predicted a poorer outcome in the dysplasia group. When stratified by severity, there was no difference in survivorship or outcomes between those with severe dysplasia (LCEA <20°; n = 11) and those with borderline dysplasia (LCEA of 20°-25°; n = 64).Conclusion:An arthroscopic intervention was a successful treatment option for FAI in the presence of lateral rim dysplasia at midterm follow-up. Irrespective of the severity of dysplasia, patients can expect similar improvements to those in patients with normal femoral head coverage.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».