Bilateral versus unilateral hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One in four patients presenting with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) has bilateral symptoms, and despite excellent outcomes reported after arthroscopic treatment of FAI, there remains a paucity of data on the outcomes following bilateral hip arthroscopy. This systematic review aims to examine the outcomes following bilateral (either 'simultaneous' or 'staged') versus unilateral hip arthroscopy for FAI. A systematic review of multiple electronic databases was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and checklist. All studies comparing simultaneous, staged and/or unilateral hip arthroscopy for FAI were eligible for inclusion. Case series, case reports and reviews were excluded. All study, patient and hip-specific data were extracted and analyzed. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. A meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity among outcome measures. A total of six studies, including 722 patients (42.8% male) and 933 hips were eligible for inclusion. The mean age across patients was 35.5. The average time between staged procedures was 7.7 months. Four of the six studies were retrospective cohort studies, while the remaining two were prospective in nature. The overall quality of the eligible studies was found to be good. No significant difference was noted among patient-reported outcomes (modified Harris hip score, hip outcome score and non-arthritic hip score), visual analog scale, return to sport, traction time and complications between those undergoing bilateral (simultaneous or staged) versus unilateral hip arthroscopy. Based on the current available evidence, bilateral hip arthroscopy (whether simultaneous or staged) exhibits similar efficacy and safety when compared with unilateral hip arthroscopy. However, further prospective study is required to confirm this finding.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".