Periacetabular Osteotomy as a Salvage Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) can reduce pain and improve quality of life in patients with hip dysplasia. While its utility for patients without traditional radiographic parameters for hip dysplasia has not been previously established, the PAO may help treat patients with hip instability that does not improve following single or multiple hip arthroscopic procedures, or when such procedures lead to hip instability. METHODS: A single-surgeon registry of patients at a single institution was queried to identify patients with a lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) of ≥24° and a Tönnis angle of <10° who underwent PAO because of hip pain and/or instability that failed treatment with hip arthroscopy. Descriptive summary statistics were reported on patient demographics, mean change in LCEA, and patient-reported outcome measures, including the modified Harris hip score (mHHS) and the International Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33), at a minimum of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Among 25 patients (mean age, 27.3 ± 6.9 years; 100% women), the mean LCEA increased from 27.2° (range, 24° to 37°) preoperatively to 39.0° ± 5.1° postoperatively (net increase, 11.8° ± 4.5°). Overall, the mean improvement in the mHHS was 11.5 ± 16.9 (preoperative, 59.4 ± 11.6; postoperative, 70.9 ± 20.6) and the mean improvement in the iHOT-33 was 23.8 ± 23.6 (preoperative, 32.2 ± 17.2; postoperative, 56.0 ± 30.0). Eighteen patients (72%) achieved a minimal clinically important improvement in mHHS (mean improvement, 17.4 ± 12.9) and iHOT-33 (mean improvement, 32.4 ± 19.1) scores. In comparison with 7 patients who did not show improvement, the 18 patients who showed improvement had significantly greater mean baseline patient-reported outcome scores. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, these findings provide the first report on outcomes of PAO in patients with hip pain following arthroscopy who do not meet the traditional criteria for acetabular dysplasia. Early benefits in clinical outcomes suggest a novel surgical indication for PAO as a potential salvage option for selected patients; however, longer-term studies are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".