Good 5-year outcomes after arthroscopic treatment for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the outcome of arthroscopic treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) syndrome 5 years post-surgery using patient-reported outcome scores (PROMs) validated for a young and active population with hip complaints. METHODS: Patients were prospectively included in the study. A total of 184 patients [males = 110 (59.8%), females = 74 (40.2%)], with mean age 38.0, underwent arthroscopic treatment for FAI syndrome and were analysed. Preoperatively and at the 5-year follow-up, patients completed a set of self-administered web-based PROMs consisting of the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS), the Hip Sports Activity Scale (HSAS), the EuroQoL-5 Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D), the EQ-Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the VAS for overall hip function and overall satisfaction. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare preoperative PROM values with those obtained at the 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: A comparison of preoperative PROM scores and those obtained at the 5-year follow-up revealed statistically significant improvements for all outcome scores (p < 0.05), except for the HSAS score, which were unchanged; iHOT-12 (42.9 vs 67.2), HAGOS different subscales (50.2 vs 69.6, 55.7 vs 76.1, 59.2 vs 72.3, 41.1 vs 66.4, 30.8 vs 60.2, 31.6 vs 60.4), EQ-5D (0.570 vs 0.742), EQ-VAS (66.6 vs 74.4), HSAS (3.13 vs 3.17) and VAS for overall hip function (47.9 vs 69.2). At the 5-year follow-up, 154 patients reported that they were satisfied with surgery (84.6%). Survivorship at the 5-year follow-up was 86.4%. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic treatment for FAI syndrome yields good patient-reported outcome at the 5-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".