Surgical management of labral tears during femoroacetabular impingement surgery: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic review explored reported outcomes addressing femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), specifically those comparing labral debridement to labral repair. In addition, the quality of the evidence was evaluated for the purposes of making treatment recommendations. METHODS: Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed) were searched for comparative studies involving labral repair and debridement during FAI surgery. Two reviewers conducted a title, abstract, and full-text review of eligible studies and the references of these studies. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to the searched studies, data were extracted, and a quality assessment was completed for included studies. RESULTS: Six eligible studies involving 490 patients were identified. The most commonly reported outcome measure was the modified Harris hip score (MHHS) (50 %). All studies reported that labral repair had greater postoperative improvements in functional scores (modified Harris hip, non-arthritic hip, hip outcome, and Merle d'Aubigne scores) compared to labral debridement. Five studies reported statistically significant improvements with labral repair. MHHS were pooled to demonstrate a clinically important difference in favor of labral repair by 7.4 points in three studies. The mean individual study quality can be considered fair. However, the overall quality of the body of evidence in this review is rated as low according to GRADE guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates a reporting of better clinical outcomes with labral repair compared to labral debridement in all studies with five of six studies reporting statistically significant improvements (of repair over debridement). However, given the lack of high quality evidence and associated limitations in study design, these results should be interpreted with caution. Consequently, definitive treatment recommendations require further investigation with well-conducted clinical trials. This systematic review enables the discussion of best evidence practice for the surgical managing of a labral tear associated with FAI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".