Both open and endoscopic gluteal tendon repairs lead to functional improvement with similar failure rates: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Operative treatment of gluteal tendon tears is becomingly increasingly more common with varying surgical techniques and rehabilitation protocols. OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of gluteal tendon repair as it relates to tear characteristics, rehabilitation protocols, patient-reported outcomes, satisfaction, resolution of gait deviation and complication rates. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed and Embase/MEDLINE was used to identify all literature pertaining to gluteal tendon repair. A total of 389 articles were identified. FINDINGS: A total of 22 studies (611 hips) were included in this review. The majority of tears were noted to be partial thickness (77.9% vs 22.1%). Both arthroscopic and open repair demonstrated improvements in functional outcomes. Within studies documenting gait deviation, 54% were noted to have gait deviation preoperatively, of which approximately 70% had resolution following repair. On average, abduction strength increased almost one whole grade (0.84) following repair. Overall complication rate was found to be 5.2% (20 of 388 hips). Endoscopic repair demonstrated a decreased complication rate compared with open (0.7% vs 7.8%). Retear rate was found to be 3.8%, with open repair having a slightly increased rate compared with endoscopic repair (3.4% vs 4.1%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The majority of tears tend to be partial thickness with involvement of gluteus medius in almost all cases and concomitant involvement of gluteus minimus in close to half of cases. Both endoscopic and open gluteal tendon repairs resulted in improvements in outcomes and functional improvement. Retear rates were similar between the two repair techniques, while endoscopic repair demonstrated a lower complication rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".