Hip arthroscopy in the setting of hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Hip arthroscopy has traditionally been viewed as a hip preservation procedure performed in patients with native joint pathology. However, as the list of indications for arthroscopic hip intervention grows, further advances are expanding its use. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine existing evidence supporting the use of hip arthroscopy in the setting of hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Using predetermined inclusion criteria, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed were searched for articles addressing arthroscopic hip surgery performed in hips containing joint replacement arthroplasties. Inclusion criteria limited our search to human and English language studies addressing articles where clear surgical indications are described. Article screening was conducted in duplicate. RESULTS: Seven-hundred and forty-three studies were retrieved before duplicate screening, and 18 satisfied inclusion criteria. Eleven case series, six case reports and one prospective cohort study are included. In total, 171 patients underwent hip arthroscopy following previous arthroplasty. Indications for arthroscopy included iliopsoas tendinopathy (35.8%), symptomatic hips with no clear diagnosis despite extensive investigation (24.6%), periprosthetic infection (6.4%) and intra-articular loose bodies (3.5%). Almost all patients who underwent hip arthroscopy experienced positive outcomes from the procedure. CONCLUSION: Hip arthroscopy after hip arthroplasty is supported by our systematic review for a variety of indications. Hip arthroscopy can be a safe and effective method of treating hip arthroplasty patients with iliopsoas tendinopathy. Hip arthroscopy also has utility in patients with symptomatic hip arthroplasty despite exhaustion of other diagnostic avenues. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: A systematic review of level IV studies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".