Clinical Results of Endoscopic Treatment of Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY This retrospective study aims to present short-term clinical outcomes of endoscopic treatment of patients with greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS). MATERIAL AND METHODS The evaluated study population was composed of a total of 19 patients (16 women, 3 men) with the mean age of 47 years (19-63 years). In twelve cases the right hip joint was affected, in the remaining seven cases it was the left side. The retrospective evaluation was carried out only in patients with greater trochanteric pain syndrome caused by independent chronic trochanteric bursitis without the presence of m. gluteus medius tear not responding to at least 3 months of conservative treatment. In patients from the followed-up study population, endoscopic trochanteric bursectomy was performed alone or in combination with iliotibial band release. The clinical results were evaluated preoperatively and with a minimum follow-up period of 1 year after the surgery (mean 16 months). The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for assessment of pain and WOMAC (Western Ontario MacMaster) score were used. In both the evaluated criteria (VAS and WOMAC score) preoperative and postoperative results were compared. Moreover, duration of surgery and presence of postoperative complications were assessed. Statistical evaluation of clinical results was carried out by an independent statistician. In order to compare the parameter of WOMAC score and VAS pre- and post-operatively the Mann-Whitney Exact Test was used. The statistical significance was set at 0.05. RESULTS The preoperative VAS score ranged 5-9 (mean 7.6) and the postoperative VAS ranged 0-5 (mean 2.3). The WOMAC score ranged 56.3-69.7 (mean 64.2) preoperatively and 79.8-98.3 (mean 89.7) postoperatively. When both the evaluated parameters of VAS and WOMAC score were compared in time, a statistically significant improvement (p<0.05) was achieved postoperatively. The mean duration of surgical procedure was 68 minutes. Moreover, in peritrochanteric space apart from chronic bursitis also another pathology was found in a total of 14 cases (74%). In six cases (32%) it was a mild degeneration of m. gluteus medius (treated only with debridement) and in eight patients who underwent surgery (42%) the dorsal third of tractus iliotibialis was hypertrophic and protruding into bursa (treated with an incision of the hypertrophied part of the band). No serious neurovascular or thromboembolic complications were recorded. Only minor postoperative complications in a total of 7 patients who underwent surgery (37%) occurred. DISCUSSION There are lots of studies in literature presenting the results of endoscopic treatment of GTPS either using an independent trochanteric bursectomy or its combination with iliotibial band release. In our study we succeeded in achieving similar clinical results as those achieved by the other authors engaged in this area. CONCLUSIONS It has been proven in this retrospective study that the technique of endoscopic trochanteric bursectomy in patients with greater trochanteric pain syndrome yields statistically significant improvement of clinical results with the concurrent minimum incidence of postoperative complications. Key words: greater trochanteric pain syndrome, peritrochanteric space, recalcitrant trochanteric bursitis, hip arthroscopy, endoscopic trochanteric bursectomy, iliotibial band release.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".