Definitions of Return to Sport After Hip Arthroscopy: Are We Speaking the Same Language and Are We Measuring the Right Outcome?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Return to sport is a commonly studied outcome of hip arthroscopy that is relevant to both patients and providers. There exists substantial variability in criteria used to define successful return to sport. PURPOSE: To review and evaluate the definitions used in the literature so as to establish a single standard to enable comparison of outcomes in future studies. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: The PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were searched from inception to June 1, 2019, for studies relating to hip arthroscopy and return to sport. Articles included were those that met the following criteria: (1) contained 2 or more patients, (2) studied patients 18 years of age and older, (3) reported postoperative outcomes after hip arthroscopy, (4) clearly defined return to play, and (5) were written in English. Excluded articles (1) reported outcomes for nonoperative or open treatments, (2) did not clearly define return to play, or (3) were review articles, meta-analyses, or survey-based studies. Return-to-play definitions and additional metrics of postoperative performance and outcome were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 185 articles were identified, and 28 articles were included in the final review, of which 18 involved elite athletes and 10 involved recreational athletes. Of articles studying elite athletes, 6 (33%) defined return to play as participation in regular or postseason competition, 3 (17%) extended the criteria to the preseason, and 2 (11%) used participation in sport-related activities and training. The remaining 7 (39%) reported rates of return to the preoperative level of competition but did not specify preseason versus regular season. All 10 articles evaluating recreational athletes defined return to play based on patient-reported outcomes. Four (40%) did so qualitatively, while 6 (60%) did so quantitatively. CONCLUSION: There exists significant variability in criteria used to define successful return to sport after hip arthroscopy, and these criteria differ among elite and recreational athletes. For elite athletes, return to the preoperative level of competition is most commonly used, but there exists no consensus on what type of competition-regular season, preseason, or training-is most appropriate. For recreational athletes, patient-reported data are most commonly employed, although there are clear differences between authors on the ways in which these are being used as well.
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 | 0.071 | 0.251 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".