Arthroscopic versus open treatment for femoroacetabular impingement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a common cause of hip pain and restricted range of motion in young adults and athletes. This study aims to compare clinical results and complications between patients treated for FAI who underwent either arthroscopic or open treatment. METHODS: The 7 studies were acquired from PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The data were extracted analyzed by RevMan5.3. Mean differences (MDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Seven observational studies were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials indicated a low risk of bias. The pooled results of the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and satisfaction rate showed that the differences were not statistically significant between arthroscopic treatment (AT) and open treatment (OT). The difference of postoperative alpha angle was statistically significant, and OT was more effective [MD = 3.08, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.45-4.70, P = .0002]. The difference of postoperative internal rotation angle was statistically significant, and OT had better internal rotation angle (MD = -3.21, 95% CI = -6.14 to -0.28, P = .03). However, the difference of complications was statistically significant and AT achieved better result than OT (OR = 0.41, 95% CI = 0.22-0.74, P =0.003). CONCLUSION: AT had comparable effect and lower complications than OT, but had less improvement in alpha angle and internal rotation angle.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".