Ligamentum Teres Reconstruction May Lead to Improvement in Outcomes Following a Secondary Hip Arthroscopy for Symptomatic Microinstability: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To present the indications, surgical technique, outcomes, and complications for patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of the ligamentum teres (LT). METHODS: Articles were included if they had postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for arthroscopic LT reconstruction. Studies were analyzed for patient demographics, clinical assessment and indications, radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging data, concomitant procedures performed, PROs, surgical techniques, intra-articular classifications, complications, and need for follow-up surgeries. For PROs, the standard mean difference was calculated. The proportion of patients achieving patient acceptable symptomatic state for postoperative modified Harris Hip Score (≥74) was recorded. The number of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference for modified Harris Hip Score (Δ ≥8) was calculated. RESULTS: The majority of the cases were revision arthroscopies. Of the 3 studies reporting on patients undergoing LT reconstruction due to microinstability, 4, 9, and 11 patients demonstrated a mean improvement of 25.7, 35.2, and 27.7 in modified Harris Hip, respectively. In addition, one of the studies reported a mean improvement of 31.1 and 4.2 in Nonarthritic Hip Score and visual analog scale, respectively. Of the 3 studies, the percentile of patients surpassing minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state ranged between 50% and 100% and 33.3% and 88.8%, respectively. Overall, 5 patients underwent revision hip arthroscopy due to adhesions, iliopsoas impingement, and persistent microinstability, and 3 patients underwent a secondary hip arthroplasty due to refractory pain and radiographic evidence of hip osteoarthritis. CONCLUSION: Reconstruction of the LT may be considered in surgical management for patients with symptomatic hip instability due to soft-tissue causes. Current evidence supports for LT reconstruction predominantly for patients experiencing refractory instability following previous hip preservation procedures. Patients' expectations as well as the relatively high reoperation rate (i.e., 33%) should be discussed before the procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".