Labral Refixation: Current Techniques and Indications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Labral tears have been associated with femoroacetabular impingement, instability, sports-related activity or trauma, capsular laxity or hypermobility, dysplasia, and degeneration. Disruption of the labrum increases the rate of acetabular cartilage compression and the contact stress between the femoral and acetabular cartilage. If left untreated, these lesions will alter normal hip joint function and may eventually lead to osteoarthritis. METHODS: For the labrum with adequate tissue (>7 mm), the labrum is repaired if it is detached or torn. If the labrum is bruised, a rim reduction and repair is performed, especially in the presence of cartilage damage and the labral-chondral junction. Labri are debrided only if there is enough substance to maintain the function of the labrum. Care must be taken to fix the labrum so that it provides adequate seal with the femoral head. RESULTS: Two-year outcome on 122 patients who underwent arthroscopic treatment for femoroacetabular impingement and chondrolabral dysfunction showed that, overall, most patients showed an improvement in symptoms and function and were satisfied with the results. Independent predictors of improved outcomes were joint space >2 mm and repair of labral pathology instead of debridement. Several other studies have shown excellent results following labral refixation and repair. CONCLUSIONS: Labral tears have been associated with femoroacetabular impingement, instability, sports-related activity or trauma, capsular laxity or hypermobility, dysplasia, and degeneration. Untreated labral tears can result in premature osteoarthritis of the hip. Debridement only used to be the standard of care, but excellent results reveal arthroscopic labral repair and refixation are an option with good 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".