Groin Pain after Metal on Metal Hip Resurfacing: Mid-Term Follow-Up of a Prospective Cohort of Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Groin pain after metal on metal hip resurfacing has been previously reported. The purpose of this study was to determine the natural history of a cohort of patients with groin pain after hip resurfacing previously reported on and incidence of revision surgery. METHODS: Our group previously reported an 18% incidence of groin pain at a mean of 18 months post hip resurfacing. This cohort of groin pain patients was prospectively followed. Patients were evaluated using a visual analog pain rating score, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Physical Activity Index, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) Index. Functional outcome scores were compared from initial to latest follow up using the paired Student's t test. Further diagnostic evaluation and/or intervention or other complication was also recorded. RESULTS: The latest mean follow up from surgery was 63 ± 15 months. The mean pain rating, UCLA, and WOMAC scores all improved at latest follow up, although WOMAC score improvement was not statistically significant. Mean pain rating score improved from 5.2 ± 2.0 to 2.5 ± 1.4 (p = 0.0001). UCLA activity score improved from 6.4 ± 2.0 to 6.9 ± 1.6 (p = 0.03). Total WOMAC score improved from 75.6 ± 20.5 to 84.5 ± 14.8 (p = 0.15). Only one patient was revised for an adverse local tissue reaction. CONCLUSION: Groin pain post hip resurfacing has a multifactorial etiology, and in the vast majority of cases improves over time with no significant functional limitations. However, the surgeon should be aware of the many potential causes, and help minimize the possibility with proper patient selection and surgical technique.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".