Return to Preinjury Activity Levels After Surgical Management of Femoroacetabular Impingement in Athletes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A systematic review was conducted to identify, assess, and summarize the available evidence pertaining to surgical intervention for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in athletes. Summary estimates of treatment effect (proportion with 95% confidence interval [CI]) were calculated specifically for the rate of return to sport. METHODS: Electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched from inception to November 2011. The references of included articles were reviewed for eligible studies. The inclusion criteria were clinical studies, studies involving humans, minimum 6 months' follow-up, exclusive FAI treatment, and focus on athletes. Exclusion criteria were review articles, basic science investigations, radiologic studies, arthroplasty, and nonathlete clinical studies. A quality assessment of the included articles was conducted by 2 reviewers using a quality assessment tool developed by Yang et al. We used a random-effects model (DerSimonian-Laird method) to calculate weighted proportions. Percentages with 95% CIs are reported. RESULTS: Nine articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria in this review. There was 72% agreement (95% CI, 0% to 94%) between the 2 independent reviewers for inclusion and quality assessment of the studies. A total of 418 athletes were surgically treated for FAI and were available for assessment. The rate of return to sport was 92% (95% CI, 87% to 96%), and the rate of return to the previous level of competition was 88% (95% CI, 80% to 94%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitations of our systematic review, the findings suggest that surgical treatment for FAI resulted in a high return to preinjury activity levels of sports. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies (case series).
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 | 0.017 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".