Outcomes of joint preservation surgery: comparison of patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip and femoroacetabular impingement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) are fundamentally and structurally different hip abnormalities yet their clinical presentation can often be very similar. We asked whether adult patients surgically treated for DDH when compared with FAI patients achieve (i) better outcome as reflected by the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index, (ii) higher physical activity as reflected by the UCLA physical activity scale. Five hundred fifty-six patients treated by periacetabular osteotomy for DDH and 540 patients treated for FAI (cam, pincer, or combined) in nine high-volume centers, between 2008 and 2011 were matched using propensity analysis, based on age and BMI. After exclusions, 144 pairs were evaluated on WOMAC, SF-12 Health Survey, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and UCLA scale at pre and post-operations. At pre-operative evaluation, FAI patients showed lower scores on WOMAC (total, stiffness, function) and SF-12 physical. Statistically significant improvements in the outcome scores were observed from pre to post-operative time points in both treatment groups. Once FAI and DDH patients were compared, FAI patients showed lower scores on most of the outcome measures. However, these differences diminished in time, with only SF-12 mental and mHHS scores remaining significantly lower at 2-year follow-up. Because of more advanced disease at presentation, patients with FAI had an inferior clinical outcome compared with patients with DDH after surgical correction. Further prospective studies are required to better describe the long-term clinical benefits of hip joint preservation surgery.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".