Surgical Indications for Arthroscopic Management of Femoroacetabular Impingement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The clinical literature was systematically reviewed to determine the consistently reported indications for arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). METHODS: Two databases (Medline and EMBASE) were screened for clinical studies involving the arthroscopic surgical management of FAI. A full-text review of eligible studies was conducted, and the references were searched. Articles published from 1980 until June 2011 were included, and the inclusion criteria were as follows: studies of human patients of all ages and genders with FAI, studies with a minimum of 6 months of patient follow-up, and studies reporting clinical outcome data. A quality assessment of the included articles was conducted. RESULTS: We included 20 articles in this review, involving a total of 1,368 patients. We identified a lack of consensus on clinical and radiographic indications for the arthroscopic management of FAI. The indications varied from a positive impingement sign (45%) and symptoms or pain for more than 6 months (35%) to a series of positive special tests (25%). Commonly reported radiographic indicators for arthroscopic FAI management included the following: results from a computed tomography scan or magnetic resonance imaging (60%), cam or pincer lesions evident on anteroposterior and/or lateral radiographs (50%), loss of sphericity of the femoral neck (30%), acetabular retroversion (30%), magnetic resonance arthrography (25%), reduction in head-neck offset (25%), an alpha angle greater than 50° (25%), and coxa profunda (25%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that there was great inconsistency among the indications for arthroscopic management of FAI. Clinical and radiographic indices remain largely unvalidated. This review highlights the need for more consistent reporting of surgical indications for the arthroscopic management of FAI. Future research should explore what combination of clinical and radiographic indications should be best used to determine arthroscopic FAI management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II to 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 | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".