Capsular plication in the non-deformity hip: impact on post-operative joint stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the hip joint range of motion after different capsular plication. The study hypothesis proposed that capsular plication after hip arthroscopy may reduce hip external rotation and thus prevent the hip joint instability created by arthroscopic capsulotomies. METHODS: Six fresh frozen human cadavers were studied in the intact state (5 males, 1 females) for a total of 12 non-deformity hips tested. They were fixed to the operating room table using a custom-made apparatus. Three Steinman pins were inserted, the first into ASIS, a parallel pin into the distal femur proximal to inter-epicondylar axis and the third pin into the lateral epicondyle. Simulation of arthroscopic capsulotomies was done progressively with simulation of three capsular plication techniques. The first plication technique consisted of a primary plication shift of the antero-lateral capsule. The distal-medial arm of the iliofemoral ligament was shifted toward the proximal-lateral arm. The second plication technique consisted in adding a longitudinal arm to the capsulotomy, between the lateral arm and the medial arm of the iliofemoral ligament, to create a T-shaped capsulotomy. The resulting two triangular capsular flaps were overlaid onto each other by approximately 5 mm, plicated fully and tighly sutured in a double-breast manner. The third plication technique, called redrapping, consisted in excising the inferior capsular triangular flap (previously made in the second technique), and suturing the latero-anterior superior capsular flap to the medial arm of the iliofemoral ligament, superimposing the capsular edges for closure. External rotation of the hip at 0°, 15° and 30° of flexion were obtained after the capsulotomy and each capsular plication technique to quantify the increase in hip stability after plication. Data were assessed using a two-way repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVAs) and Student's T-test when necessary to determine if the change in external rotation was significantly different. RESULTS: After capsulotomy, external rotation averaged 26.3°, 29.1° and 31.1° at 0°, 15° and 30° of flexion. With the primary plication shift, external rotation averaged 24.9°, 30.3° and 34.0°. With the two-triangle technique, external rotation averaged 26.1°, 31.9° and 33.3°. With the re-draping technique, external rotation averaged 25.8°, 30.9° and 32.0°. A significant relationship was found between «Plication Technique» and «Angle of flexion» factors for the measured angle of external rotation (P = 0.04). A decomposition of the interaction showed that external rotation decreased at 0° of hip flexion and increased as the hip flexion angle increased. The only significant difference found corresponded to the two triangles technique at 15° flexion (mean difference compared to the non-repaired state = 2.8° ± 3.8° or 8.8% increase in external rotation; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Different techniques of capsular plication result in a non-significant increase in hip external rotation when compared to unrepaired capsulotomies. Therefore, special attention should be paid at the time of capsular plication, which could be disadvantageous when done overzealously aiming to increase postoperative stability.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".