Arthroscopic labral debridement versus labral repair for patients with femoroacetabular impingement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a common cause of hip pain and even tearing of the acetabular labrum in young adults and athletes. Either arthroscopic labral debridement (LD) or labral repair (LR) technique for FAI patients is needed to choose. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic LD versus LR intervention. METHODS: The five studies were acquired from PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The data were extracted by two of the coauthors independently and were analyzed by RevMan5.3. Mean differences (MDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Four observational studies and one prospective randomized study were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials indicated a low to moderate risk of bias. The pooled results of Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), failure rate of surgeries and complications showed that the differences were not statistically significant between the two interventions. The difference of modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and satisfaction rate was statistically significant between LD and LR intervention, and LR treatment was more effective. Sensitivity analysis proved the stability of the pooled results and there were too less included articles to verify the publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Hip arthroscopy with either LR or LD is an effective treatment for symptomatic FAI. The difference of mHHS, VAS score, and satisfaction rate was statistically significant between LD and LR intervention, and arthroscopic LR could re-create suction-seal effect, potentially reduce microinstability, which demonstrated a trend toward better clinical efficacy and comparable safety compared with LD. The arthroscopic LR technique is recommended as the optical choice for acetabular labrum tear with FAI.
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".