Predictors of Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopic Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefits of hip arthroscopic surgery in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) have been well established; however, some patients may experience a greater degree of improvement than others. Identifying positive and negative predictors of outcomes would assist the orthopaedic surgeon's management algorithm for patients with FAI. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this systematic review was to identify demographic, radiographic, and other operative predictors of positive and negative outcomes after hip arthroscopic surgery for patients with FAI. It was hypothesized that factors including FAI morphology, age, body mass index (BMI), sex, dysplasia, articular cartilage damage, radiographic joint space, and labral treatment would predict outcomes after hip arthroscopic surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: This systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Three databases (Embase, PubMed, and Ovid [MEDLINE]) were searched on May 19, 2018, using terms including "hip," "arthroscopy," and "FAI." Studies were screened and data extracted in duplicate. RESULTS: ), Tönnis grade 0, and preoperative pain relief from diagnostic intra-articular hip injections predicted positive outcomes. Female sex, older age (>45 years), longer duration of preoperative symptoms (>8 months), elevated BMI, increased Tönnis grade (≥1), chondral defects, decreased joint space (≤2 mm), increased Kellgren-Lawrence grade (>3), increased lateral center-edge angle (LCEA), and undergoing labral debridement alone were predictors of negative outcomes. CONCLUSION: ), Tönnis grade 0, and pain relief from preoperative intra-articular hip injections are significantly more likely to achieve positive outcomes after hip arthroscopic surgery. On the other hand, older age (>45 years), female sex, elevated BMI, osteoarthritic changes, decreased joint space (≤2 mm), chondral defects, increased LCEA, and undergoing labral debridement compared with labral repair are associated with negative outcomes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".