MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751337766 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2017.06.041

Surgical Management of Deep Gluteal Syndrome Causing Sciatic Nerve Entrapment: A Systematic Review

2017· review· en· W2751337766 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Kay, Darren de, Laurie J. Morrison, Emily Fejtek, Nicole Simunovic, Hal David Martin, Olufemi R. Ayeni

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Nerve Disorders
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePiriformis syndromeSurgeryMEDLINEIncidence (geometry)ButtocksSciatica

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To assess the causes, surgical indications, patient-reported clinical outcomes, and complications in patients with deep gluteal syndrome causing sciatic nerve entrapment. METHODS: Three databases (PubMed, Ovid [MEDLINE], and Embase) were searched by 2 reviewers independently from database inception until September 7, 2016. The inclusion criteria were studies reporting on both arthroscopic and open surgery and those with Level I to IV evidence. Systematic reviews, conference abstracts, book chapters, and technical reports with no outcome data were excluded. The methodologic quality of the studies was assessed with the MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies) tool. RESULTS: The search identified 1,539 studies, of which 28 (481 patients; mean age, 48 years) were included for assessment. Of the studies, 24 were graded as Level IV, 3 as Level III, and 1 as Level II. The most commonly identified causes were iatrogenic (30%), piriformis syndrome (26%), trauma (15%), and non-piriformis (hamstring, obturator internus) muscle pathology (14%). The decision to pursue surgical management was made based on clinical findings and diagnostic investigations alone in 50% of studies, whereas surgical release was attempted only after failed conservative management in the other 50%. Outcomes were positive, with an improvement in pain at final follow-up (mean, 23 months) reported in all 28 studies. The incidence of complications from these procedures was low: Fewer than 1% and 8% of open surgical procedures and 0% and fewer than 1% of endoscopic procedures resulted in major (deep wound infection) and minor complications, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although most of the studies identified were case series and reports, the results consistently showed improvement in pain and a low incidence of complications, particularly for endoscopic procedures. These findings lend credence to surgical management as a viable option for buttock pain caused by deep gluteal syndrome and warrant further investigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II through IV studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations53
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicPeripheral Nerve DisordersFrench-language works237,207