CLINICAL OUTCOMES OF HIP ARTHROSCOPY: A PROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF A LARGE MIXED COHORT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a prospective two-year follow-up study of 1038 hip arthroscopies performed at a high volume tertiary referral centre for hip preservation. We feel that this manuscript is both pertinent and timely due to the advances in the field of hip preservation. We used four validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores along with the visual analog scale (VAS) and patient satisfaction scores to assess preoperative and postoperative outcomes in all patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. We divided the entire cohort into patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroscopies. We found a statistically significant improvement from preoperative to two-year postoperative PRO scores in the two subgroups. We also found a significant difference in the PRO scores at three months, one year, and two years postoperatively between the primary and revision subgroups. The revision subgroup had inferior VAS and patient satisfaction compared to the primary subgroup, however these results were not significant. The conversion to total hip arthroplasty/hip resurfacing (THA/HR) was 5.6% and 11.2% in the primary and revision subgroups, respectively. This resulted in a relative risk of 2.0 for conversion to THA/HR in the revision subgroup. We had a complication rate of 5.3 (only 0.5% of which were considered major) which was similar to that reported in the literature for hip arthroscopy. The primary purpose was to perform a survival analysis in a large mixed cohort of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy at a high volume tertiary referral centre for hip preservation with minimum two-year follow-up. The secondary purpose was to compare clinical outcomes of primary versus revision hip arthroscopy. From February 2008 to June 2012, data were prospectively collected on all patients undergoing primary or revision hip arthroscopy. Patients were assessed pre- and post-operatively with modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), and Hip Outcome Score-Sport Specific Subscales (HOS-SSS). Pain was estimated on the visual analog scale (VAS). Patient satisfaction was measured on a scale from 0 to 10. There were a total of 1155 arthroscopies performed, including 1040 primary arthroscopies (926 patients) and 115 revision arthroscopies (106 patients). Of these, 931 primary arthroscopies (89.5%) in 824 patients (89.0%) and 107 revision arthroscopies (93.0%) in 97 patients (91.5%), were available for follow-up and included in our study. The mean change in patient reported outcome (PRO) scores at two-year follow-up in the primary subgroup was 17.4 for mHHS, 19.7 for HOS-ADL, 23.8 for HOS-SSS, 21.3 for NAHS, and −3.0 for VAS. The mean change in PRO scores at two-year follow-up in the revision subgroup was 13.4, 10.9, 16.1, 15.4, and −2.7, respectively. All scores improved significantly compared to pre-operatively (p Hip arthroscopy showed significant improvement in all PRO, VAS, and satisfaction scores at two years postoperatively. Primary arthroscopy patients showed greater PRO scores and a trend towards greater VAS compared to the revision subgroup. The relative risk of a THA/HR was 2.0 after revision procedures compared to primary procedures.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".