Surgical Outcomes in the Treatment of Concomitant Mild Acetabular Dysplasia and Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyze the current approaches and clinical outcomes in the surgical management of concomitant mild acetabular dysplasia and femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). METHODS: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) method, the PubMed and Medline databases were searched in March 2019 for studies that reported on surgical outcomes in hips with concomitant mid acetabular dysplasia and FAI. Studies published in English that focused on the surgical outcomes after hip arthroscopy, open surgery, or periacetabular osteotomy of concomitant acetabular dysplasia and FAI, in which the lateral center-edge angle of all subjects was between 15° and 25°, were included. Articles that included subjects with lateral center-edge angle <15°, with a minimum follow-up duration <1 year, had <5 subjects, or were not original articles were excluded. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 748 studies, and 5 studies met the inclusion criteria. All these 5 studies focused on hip arthroscopic treatment for patients with concomitant mild acetabular dysplasia and FAI. Three studies had level III evidence, whereas 2 studies had level IV evidence. The mean patient age range across the studies was 29.8 to 49.6 years, and the female-to-male ratio was 1.14. Improved patient-reported outcomes (Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sport, modified Harris Hip Score, Short Form-12 Physical Component Summary, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) at a minimum 2-year follow-up were obtained in 4 of the 5 studies. Two of these 4 studies had a comparative cohort of patients with FAI with normal acetabular coverage, and there was no significant difference in the postoperative outcomes and secondary procedure rate between patients with mild acetabular dysplasia and those with normal acetabular coverage. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review indicates that improved patient-reported outcomes can be obtained with hip arthroscopy in the treatment of concomitant mild acetabular dysplasia and FAI at a minimum 2-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and Level IV studies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| 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".