MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3088096038 · doi:10.1177/0363546520952804

Osteochondroplasty and Labral Repair for the Treatment of Young Adults With Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2020· article· en· W3088096038 on OpenAlexaffabout
Olufemi R. Ayeni, Jón Karlsson, Diane Heels‐Ansdell, Lehana Thabane, Volker Musahl, Nicole Simunovic, Andrew Duong, Mohit Bhandari, Asheesh Bedi, Teppo L. N. Järvinen, Douglas Naudie, Matti Seppänen, Gerard P. Slobogean, Matthew Skelly, Ajay Shanmugaraj, Sarah Crouch, Lisa Buckingham, Tim Ramsay, Petteri Kousa, Sasha Carsen, Hema Choudur, Kelly Johnston, Ivan Wong, Ryland Murphy, Sara Sparavalo, Daniel B. Whelan, Ryan Khan, Gavin Wood, Fiona Howells, Heather Grant, Bryn O Zomar, Michael Pollock, Kevin Willits, Andrew Firth, Stacey Wanlin, Alliya Remtulla, Nicole Kaniki, Étienne L. Belzile, Sylvie Turmel, Uffe Jørgensen, Annie Gam-Pedersen, Tays Hatanpää, Raine Sihvonen, Marko Raivio, Pirjo Toivonen, Mari Pirjetta Routapohja

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFemoroacetabular impingementMedicineRandomized controlled trialHip arthroscopyAcetabular labrumVisual analogue scalePhysical therapyClinical endpointLabrumOsteoarthritisSurgeryArthroscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a condition known to cause hip pain in young adults. Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of the surgical correction of FAI via arthroscopic osteochondroplasty with or without labral repair compared with arthroscopic lavage of the hip joint with or without labral repair. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 220 male and female participants aged 18 to 50 years with nonarthritic FAI suitable for surgical treatment were recruited for the trial at 10 clinical centers in Canada, Finland, and Denmark between October 2012 and November 2017, of whom 214 were included in the final analysis. In the osteochondroplasty group, cam- and/or pincer-type lesions were resected using fluoroscopic guidance. In the lavage group, the joint was washed out with 3 L of normal saline. Surgeons were instructed to repair the labrum in both groups if it was mechanically unstable once probed, showing visible displacement or chondrolabral separation. The primary outcome was patient-reported pain (using the 100-point visual analog scale [VAS]) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included hip function (Hip Outcome Score [HOS] and International Hip Outcome Tool), physical and mental health (12-Item Short Form Health Survey), and health utility (EuroQol–5 Dimensions) at 12 months as well as any reoperations and other hip-related adverse events at 24 months. Results: At 12 months, there was no difference in pain (VAS) between the groups (mean difference [MD], 0.11 [95% CI, –7.22 to 7.45]; P = .98). Also, 88.3% (189/214) of participants had a labral tear, of which 60.3% were repaired. For the secondary outcomes, there were no significant differences between treatment groups, with the exception of the HOS activities of daily living domain in which lavage showed significant improvement compared with osteochondroplasty (MD, –5.03 [95% CI, −10.40 to −0.03]; P = .049). By 24 months, there were significantly fewer reoperations reported in the osteochondroplasty group (8/105) than the lavage group (19/104) (odds ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.15-0.89]; P = .026). The primary reasons for a reoperation included hip pain (15/27; 55.6%) and a reinjury of the labrum (11/27; 40.7%). Conclusion: Both the osteochondroplasty and the lavage groups with or without labral repair for FAI had significantly improved pain or function significantly at 1 year. By 2 years, the reoperation rate was significantly lower in the osteochondroplasty group. Registration: NCT01623843 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207