Labral Morphologic Characteristics in Patients With Symptomatic Acetabular Dysplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The morphologic characteristics of the labrum in patients with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia have been described to some extent in smaller retrospective series, but the need remains to further define these disease characteristics and their importance as a diagnostic feature of hip instability. PURPOSE: To (1) characterize the morphologic characteristics of the labrum in patients with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia and (2) test the relationships between specific labral variants, severity of dysplasia, and duration of symptoms. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Thirteen surgeons from 10 centers enrolled patients undergoing periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for symptomatic acetabular dysplasia from 2008 to 2014. Patient demographics, presenting characteristics, preoperative radiographic data, operative data, and intraoperative findings were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 942 patients (972 hips) met the initial inclusion criteria, with a mean age of 25.2 years (range, 9-51 years; 84% female, 16% male). In addition to having PAO, 52.6% of hips had an anterior arthrotomy and 19.8% had a hip arthroscopy either to perform an osteochondroplasty of the femoral head-neck junction or to address labral pathologic changes. Of these 553 hips in which the labrum was visualized, labral morphologic status was graded as hypertrophic in 50%, normal in 45%, hypoplastic in 4%, and ossified in less than 1%. Decreased lateral center-edge angle and anterior center-edge angle and increased acetabular inclination were associated with labral hypertrophy, but chronicity of symptoms was not. Of the 553 hips, 64% had tears of the labrum, with the majority being degenerative-type tears. CONCLUSION: Labral pathologic changes are common in patients with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia. Labral hypertrophy, however, is not a universal finding, particularly in hips with mild dysplasia, and therefore should not be considered a reliable diagnostic criterion for instability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".