Adhesive capsulitis of the hip: a review addressing diagnosis, treatment and outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adhesive capsulitis (AC) of the hip (i.e. 'Frozen Hip'), in part due to its difficulty in diagnosis, is an often overlooked and underappreciated entity of hip morbidity. This review aimed to elucidate a diagnostic approach and the surgical treatment options (with associated outcomes) of employing hip arthroscopy in the setting of AC. Electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE and PubMed) were searched for available sources for all relevant clinical studies addressing the surgical management of AC. Additionally, reference lists of studies were hand-searched to find all relevant articles. Articles were systematically screened in duplicate, with agreement and descriptive statistics presented. Ten studies satisfied inclusion criteria. A total of 40 patients (mean age of 47.1 ± 14.8 years) were included. Diagnosis of AC of the hip commonly encompassed a combination of: decreased joint capacity; hip pain exacerbated by weight bearing or activity; and progressive decrease in global range of motion. Diagnostic arthroscopy was utilized in nine patients, and successful diagnosis of AC was achieved in all nine patients. Common treatments included pressure dilation (11 cases) and manipulation under anesthesia (11 cases). AC continues to be a difficult clinical entity to diagnose. Similarities are seen between hip AC and shoulder AC as diagnosis is often a result of ruling out all other possible conditions, and treatment options and outcomes resemble those of the shoulder counterpart. With successful outcomes harping on timely diagnosis and effective treatment, the use of hip arthroscopy may be of benefit to achieving this.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".