Patient-Reported Outcomes of Periacetabular Osteotomy from the Prospective ANCHOR Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current literature describing the periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is mostly limited to retrospective case series. Larger, prospective cohort studies are needed to provide better clinical evidence regarding this procedure. The goals of the current study were to (1) report minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes (pain, hip function, activity, overall health, and quality of life), (2) investigate preoperative clinical and disease characteristics as predictors of clinical outcomes, and (3) report the rate of early failures and reoperations in patients undergoing contemporary PAO surgery. METHODS: A large, prospective, multicenter cohort of PAO procedures was established, and outcomes at a minimum of 2 years were analyzed. A total of 391 hips were included for analysis (79% of the patients were female, and the average patient age was 25.4 years). Patient-reported outcomes, conversion to total hip replacement, reoperations, and major complications were documented. Variables with a p value of ≤0.10 in the univariate linear regressions were included in the multivariate linear regression. The backward stepwise selection method was used to determine the final risk factors of clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Clinical outcome analysis demonstrated major clinically important improvements in pain, function, quality of life, overall health, and activity level. Increasing age and a body mass index status of overweight or obese were predictive of improved results for certain outcome metrics. Male sex and mild acetabular dysplasia were predictive of lesser improvements in certain outcome measures. Three (0.8%) of the hips underwent early conversion to total hip arthroplasty, 12 (3%) required reoperation, and 26 (7%) experienced a major complication. CONCLUSIONS: This large, prospective cohort study demonstrated the clinical success of contemporary PAO surgery for the treatment of symptomatic acetabular dysplasia. Patient and disease characteristics demonstrated predictive value that should be considered in surgical decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".