Does Previous Hip Arthroscopy Affect the Clinical Outcomes of Total Hip Arthroplasty?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Failure of hip arthroscopy procedures and the need for subsequent total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been estimated to be as high as 16%. Prior literature has shown that failed ipsilateral knee arthroscopy may have a negative impact on the functional outcome of subsequent total knee arthroplasty. To date, there is limited information regarding the impact of failed hip arthroscopy on the clinical outcomes of subsequent primary THA. PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes in primary THA between patients with and without prior arthroscopic hip surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary THA with a history of ipsilateral hip arthroscopy were matched and compared in a 1:2 manner with patients undergoing primary THA without a history of hip arthroscopy. Patient-reported clinical outcomes were measured with the modified Harris Hip Score, the University of California-Los Angeles Activity Score, and 3 subscales from the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (Pain, Stiffness, and Physical Function). RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 42 months, there was no significant difference in any of the outcome measures between the 58 study hips and 116 matched controls. Additionally, both groups exhibited an absolute change in outcome scores that exceeded the minimum clinically important difference. CONCLUSION: Prior ipsilateral arthroscopic hip surgery does not adversely affect the clinical outcome of subsequent THA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".