Influence of prior hip arthroscopy on outcomes after hip arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: No meta-analysis exists elucidate the impact of prior hip arthroscopy on the outcomes of subsequent hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the current evidence in the literature to ascertain if prior hip arthroscopy leads to inferior outcomes after hip arthroplasty. METHODS: PUBMED, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched on May 20, 2019. Only English publications were included. The primary outcomes were postoperative complication, revision, and reoperation. Secondary outcomes included Harris Hip Score (HHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), operative time, and estimated blood loss. RESULTS: Eleven studies with a total of 1227 patients were included. The pooled data revealed that patients with prior hip arthroscopy were associated with higher risks for any postoperative complication (P < .00001), dislocation (P = .03), revision (P = .03), and reoperation (P = .02) following subsequent hip arthroplasty. However, there were no significant differences in infection rate (P = .22), HHS (P = .09), WOMAC (P = .19), operative time (P = .52), and estimated blood loss (P = .17) between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prior hip arthroscopy are at increased risks for any postoperative complication, dislocation, revision, and reoperation following subsequent hip arthroplasty. However, prior hip arthroscopy does not appear to have an impact on the functional outcomes and intraoperative outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".