A Contemporary Look at the Evaluation and Treatment of Adult Borderline and Frank Hip Dysplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adult hip dysplasia is often diagnosed according to the lateral center-edge angle (LCEA). Patients with frank hip dysplasia (LCEA <20°) traditionally require treatment with bony realignment through a periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) and/or derotational femoral osteotomy, while patients with borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) present a challenging treatment dilemma, as it remains unknown when they should be treated with hip arthroscopy and/or a PAO. PURPOSE: To perform a narrative review to report the differences in hip morphology and clinical outcomes between adult patients with frank hip dysplasia and BHD. STUDY DESIGN: Narrative review. METHODS: . RESULTS: The search identified 305 articles, of which 48 were considered relevant to this study after screening of titles and abstracts. Four articles discussed new radiographic means of evaluating adult hip dysplasia, 16 articles analyzed morphology of dysplastic hips, and 28 articles described the clinical outcomes of patients with frank hip dysplasia or BHD treated with hip arthroscopy and/or PAO. Because the level of evidence obtained from this search was not adequate for systematic review or meta-analysis, a current concepts review on the diagnosis, hip morphology, and clinical outcomes of patients with frank hip dysplasia or BHD is presented. CONCLUSION: Adult hip dysplasia is most commonly diagnosed based on the LCEA; however, the LCEA is an unreliable sole marker for dysplasia, and additional radiographic parameters should be utilized. Furthermore, specific pathology identified on imaging and/or during hip arthroscopy can provide clues to a surgeon when the diagnosis is inconclusive according to history and physical examination alone. While the data support that patients with frank dysplasia are best treated with PAO, there is no such preferred treatment for patients with BHD, who have a wide spectrum of instability. Selective use of arthroscopic labral and capsular treatment alone may provide good results in carefully chosen patients with BHD, while some may end up requiring a bony realignment procedure.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".