Obesity is associated with less favorable outcomes following hip arthroscopic surgery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose The aim of this study was to systematically review the existing literature comparing the postoperative outcomes after following hip arthroscopy in obese and non‐obese patients. Methods Studies comparing the outcomes following hip arthroscopy of obese and non‐obese patients were systematically identified via a computer‐assisted literature search of Pubmed (Medline), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies comparing the outcome of hip arthroscopy in different body mass index (BMI) groups were included. Data including patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs), revision arthroscopy rate, conversion rate to total hip arthroplasty (THA), and complications were collected. The methodological index for non‐randomized studies (MINORS) and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used to assess the quality of each study quality. The effect of heterogeneity was quantified by calculating the I2 value. Results A total of eight studies were finally included in the qualitative analysis, and three studies of high quality involving 373 hips were included in the quantitative assessment. All the studies defined obesity as a BMI of ≥ 30 kg/m2. The modified Harris Hip Score and the Non‐Arthritic Hip Score were 5.1 (95% CI 1.1–9.1) and 9.0 (95% CI 5.0–13.1) points lower, respectively, in the obese group than in the non‐obese group. The pooled odds ratios were 1.2 (95% CI 0.5–2.7) for revision arthroscopy, 2.4 (95% CI 1.3–4.6) for conversion to THA, and 3.2 (95% CI 1.2–8.6 for complications in favor of the non‐obese group. The heterogeneity was low in all outcome assessments (I2 0–18%). Conclusion Obese patients had significantly lower PROMs than non‐obese patients following hip arthroscopic surgery, and the THA conversion and complication rates were 2.4 times and 3.2 times higher, respectively. Understanding the effect of obesity on hip arthroscopy will allow appropriate surgical indications for surgery to be further refined and help obese patients to understand their individual risk profile. Level of evidence Systematic review of Level III–IV studies, Level 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 | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".