Acetabular Labral Reconstruction with Iliotibial Band Autograft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Labral reconstruction has been shown to result in improved patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at mid-term follow-up in patients with a deficient labrum. The purpose of this study was to determine survivorship and PROs at a minimum 10-year follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of a prospectively collected single-surgeon database included 91 hips (89 patients) that underwent arthroscopic labral reconstruction with iliotibial band autograft between 2006 and 2008. The primary PRO was the Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-activities of daily living (ADL). The modified Harris hip score (mHHS), HOS-sports, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and patient satisfaction (on a scale of 1 to 10) were also collected at a 10-year minimum follow-up. Survivorship analysis curves were evaluated. RESULTS: Eighty-two hips were evaluated at a 10-year minimum follow-up. Overall survivorship, with revision hip arthroscopy or total hip arthroplasty (THA) as the end point, was 70% at 5 years and 61% at 10 years, and the mean survival time was 9 years (95% confidence interval = 7.6 to 10 years). For the patients who did not undergo subsequent surgery, on average the mHHS increased from 60 preoperatively to 82 at the 10-year follow-up (p = 0.001), the HOS-ADL improved from 69 to 90 (p = 0.004), the HOS-sports improved from 43 to 76 (p = 0.001), and the median patient satisfaction was 10 of 10. Eighty percent of the patients achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in the HOS-ADL, and 87% obtained a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). CONCLUSIONS: Following arthroscopic labral reconstruction with iliotibial band autograft, 9% of the hips underwent revision arthroscopy and 27% underwent THA. At 10 years, the survival rate, with revision hip arthroscopy or THA as the end point, was 61%; however, for those with >2 mm of joint space, the current indication for labral reconstruction, the 10-year survival rate was 90%. Excellent PROs and patient satisfaction were reported by those who did not require revision or THA. With appropriate patient selection and prevention of postoperative adhesions, labral reconstruction results in excellent outcomes and high patient satisfaction that is sustained at a minimum 10-year follow-up. 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".