Pre‐operative intra‐articular hip injection as a predictor of short‐term outcome following arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Diagnostic hip injections are often used to confirm intra-articular pathology prior to arthroscopic treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). However, little is known whether the type of response correlates with the post-operative functional outcomes. The purpose of this study is to document the ability of a diagnostic hip injection to predict short-term functional outcomes following arthroscopic surgical management. METHODS: A prospective cohort of 52 patients diagnosed with FAI who had an intra-articular hip injection prior to arthroscopic surgery was evaluated. A pain diary was used during the 2 weeks after hip injection to document response. In addition, the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) was administered preoperatively and 6 months post-operatively to assess functional outcomes. The relationship between response to an intra-articular hip injection and mHHS scores 6 months after FAI surgery was evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 42 of 52 (81 %) patients diagnosed with FAI achieved pain relief from the hip injection. Outcomes according to mHHS scores improved significantly at the 6-month follow-up visit (19 points, 95 % CI 15-24, p = 0.001). The therapeutic utility of the hip injection suggested that lack of pain relief predicted a lack of functional improvement following arthroscopic surgery. CONCLUSION: In this study, the data suggests that a positive response from an intra-articular hip injection is not a strong predictor of short-term functional outcomes following arthroscopic management of FAI. However, a negative response from an intra-articular hip injection may predict a higher likelihood of having a negative result from surgery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".