Postoperative Pain in Patients Who Underwent Hip Arthroscopy with Inside‐Outside Technique As Compared to Outside‐Inside Technique: A Prospective Analytical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the postoperative pain in patients who underwent to hip arthroscopy with outside-inside technique versus inside-outside technique. We prospectively compared 20 patients who underwent hip arthroscopies through inside-outside technique with a matched group of 20 patients who underwent the same procedure, but through technique outside-inside to assess the postoperative pain. Parameters measured included the visual analogue scale (VAS) 1 hour post-op, 2 hours post-op, 24 hours post-op, VAS at discharge and opioid requirements after surgery as well as anesthesia time, surgery time, traction time, amount of fluid used, WOMAC scale pre-op, and VAIL scale pre-op. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk test were used to assess if variables came from a normally distributed population. For the description of quantitative variables, the mean and standard deviation were used, and for the description of nominal variables, frequencies and proportions. For categoric variables the comparison between groups was performed using Chi square, and for quantitative variables the comparison was performed using the Student t test or Mann-Whitney U, depending on whether it came from a normally distributed population or not. Furthermore, a binominal logistic regression was performed to adjust the relationship between the type of technique (inside-outside or outside-inside) and post-op pain by age, sex, and BMI (variables with p value <2.5 in bivariate analysis). The OR and CI95% were calculated. For data analysis we used SPSS, version 21.0 and an alpha error of 5% was considered. No significant difference was found in demographic data between both groups. There was not difference in time of surgery, WOMAC scale pre-op, and VAIL scale pre-op; however, we found a significant difference in time of traction and amount of fluid used (Table 1). The VAS pos-op was lower in outside-inside technique after 1 hour (mean difference -2.2; IC95% -3.9 to -0.4, p = 0.01), after 2 hours (mean difference -1.25; IC95% -2.6 to 0.1, p = 0.07), at discharge (mean difference -0.8; IC95% -1.7 to 0.16, p = 0.1) and after 24 hours (mean difference -0.35; IC95% -0.9 to 0.2, p = 0.26). The opioid requirements after surgery was significant lower in outside-inside technique versus inside-outside technique -5% vs. 40% (crude OR 0.07; IC95% 0.008 to 0.71, p = 0.008) even after adjusting for age, gender and BMI (adjusted OR 0.06; IC95% 0.006 to 0.72, p = 0.02).Tabled 1VariableOutside-Inside techniqueInside-Outside techniquep valueAge (y)44.25 SD ±8.140.75 SD ±10.60.2Gender (male)50% (n=10)40% (n=8)0.5BMI (kg/m2)24.6 SD ±2.6725.2 SD ±5.20.6Time of anesthesia (min)197.2 SD ±24.9188.7 SD ±24.20.2Time of surgery (min)125 SD ±20.5111.7 SD ±22.80.06Time of traction (min)18.65 SD ±19.563.25 SD ±20.9<0.001Amount of water (liters)36 SD ±15.425.5 SD ±8.20.01WOMAC pre-op44.1 SD ±18.635 SD ±22.20.17VAIL pre-op40.1 SD ±20.346.4 SD ±17.70.3 Open table in a new tab The postoperative pain was lower in outside-inside technique as compared to inside-outside technique in terms of visual analogue scale and opioid requeriments. The time of traction could be the most important factor in these outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".