ARTHROSCOPIC LABRAL REPAIR IN BORDERLINE HIP DYSPLASIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to demonstrate postoperative improvement and high satisfaction rates after a surgical approach that includes arthroscopic labral repair only, in patients with borderline dysplasia, without instability. Methods Between September 2009 and December 2011, patients less than 50 years old who underwent hip arthroscopy for symptomatic intra-articular hip disorders, with a lateral center-edge (CE) angle between 20 and 25, were included in this study. Patients with Tonnis grade 2 or greater, hip joint space narrowing, severe hip dysplasia, hip joint instability and Legg-Calve-Perthes disease were excluded. Patient-reported outcome scores, including the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis index (WOMAC), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were obtained in all patients preoperatively and at 1, 2, and 3 years postoperatively. Results A total of 36 patients met the criteria to be included in the study. Of these, 32 (88.8%) patients were available for follow-up. There was a significant improvement in mHHS from 67.19 ± 7.66 to 82.69 ± 6.95 (P Conclusions The current study demonstrates favorable results in borderline dysplasia hip without instability at minimum 3-year follow-up for an arthroscopic approach that includes labral repair. Labrum is the main key-stone structure, which should be preserved in borderline dysplasia hip for functional and pain improvement.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".