Arthroscopic management of greater trochanter pain syndrome and abductor tears has demonstrated promising results in terms of improvement in pain scores and functional outcomes: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) refers to the constellation of signs and symptoms related to pain in the trochanteric region and has recently replaced the previously ubiquitous term of 'greater trochanteric bursitis'. GTPS is common, particularly in women 50-79 years of age, and the understanding and management of GTPS have expanded considerably in recent years to include management with arthroscopic and endoscopic techniques in recalcitrant cases. The purpose of this scoping literature review was to summarize the current evidence on arthroscopic management of GTPS including sources of evidence, key concepts, and gaps in the literature. METHODS: A thorough electronic database search included studies published from 2009 to June 14, 2020. A total of 52 peer-reviewed articles were identified within the literature on arthroscopic or endoscopic management of GTPS. RESULTS: Of the 52 identified papers, 12 were technique descriptions, 10 papers were review articles, and 30 papers were original clinical papers. Of the 30 clinical papers, 24 (80%) were of level IV evidence, 5 (17%) were of level III evidence, and 1 (3%) was level II evidence. Among the 30 clinical studies, 988 patients were included with 761 (77%) female. Indications for surgical management included a failed trial of conservative management in all 30 studies, typically after a period of 3-6 months. Surgical management consisted of arthroscopic/endoscopic abductor tendon repair in 16 (53%) studies, arthroscopic/endoscopic bursectomy and iliotibial band release in 12 (40%) studies, and arthroscopic/endoscopic gluteal tendon contracture release in 2 (7%) studies. CONCLUSION: Overall, results following arthroscopic management of GTPS and abductor tears have been promising, including significantly improved pain scores and functional outcomes at final post-operative assessment. These studies support continued use and investigation of arthroscopic management strategies of GTPS and pave the way to conduct larger prospective studies to confirm these results in the future. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".