Hip Arthroscopy after Traumatic Hip Dislocation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Traumatic posterior dislocation of the hip joint usually results from high-energy trauma, which can cause additional injuries that may need to be addressed after reduction. PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to present arthroscopic findings after traumatic posterior hip dislocation in patients with mechanical hip symptoms. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: All patients treated with hip arthroscopy between 2002 and 2006 for mechanical hip symptoms after traumatic posterior hip dislocation with subsequent closed reduction were included in this study. The time between closed reduction and arthroscopy, arthroscopic findings and treatment, preoperative and last follow-up WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) scores, and last follow-up radiographs were analyzed. Complications or the need for further surgical treatment are reported. RESULTS: There were 17 patients (13 male, 4 female) with an average age of 28.5 years (range, 19-37 years). The average time between closed reduction and arthroscopy was 3 months. Fourteen patients had anterior labral tears, 6 had posterior labral tears, 16 had acetabular chondral damage, all had femoral chondral damage, and 14 had intra-articular fragments. The preoperative WOMAC score was 46; the last follow-up (average 45 months) WOMAC score was 87 (range, 45-93); this was considered statistically significant (P = .001). One patient required total hip replacement for osteoarthritis and 1 presented with osteonecrosis and is waiting for hip replacement. CONCLUSION: The clearest indication for arthroscopy after traumatic posterior hip dislocation was loose fragments inside the joint. Arthroscopy was also performed in every patient with mechanical hip symptoms. Intra-articular damage was demonstrated in every case. Most of the patients had significant improvement after hip arthroscopy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".