There is no definite consensus on the adequate radiographic correction in arthroscopic osteochondroplasty for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study is to evaluate and define what is considered an adequate radiographic correction in arthroscopic osteochondroplasty for FAI and to secondarily assess how radiographic outcomes relate to patient reported outcomes and complications. Methods The databases EMBASE, PubMed, and MEDLINE were searched for relevant literature from database inception until January 2021. Studies were screened by two reviewers independently and in duplicate for studies reporting on post‐operative radiographic outcomes in arthroscopic osteochondroplasty for FAI. Data on radiographic outcomes as well as data reporting functional outcomes and complications were recorded. A meta‐analysis was used to combine the mean pre‐ and post‐operative radiographic outcomes using a random effects model. A risk of bias assessment was performed for all included studies using the MINORS score. Results The most commonly reported radiographic outcome was the alpha angle with a pooled mean post‐operative angle of 44° (95% CI 41°–46°), and mean pre‐ to post‐surgical difference of − 19° (− 22 to − 16, I2 = 96%), followed by the LCEA with a pooled mean post‐operative angle of 30° (95% CI 29–31) and mean difference after surgery of − 4° (− 6 to − 1, I2 = 97%,). Eleven studies reported on the correlation between radiographic and clinical outcomes with no consistent consensus correlation found amongst the included studies. Similarly, six studies correlated radiographic outcomes with conversion to THA with no consistent consensus correlation found amongst the included studies. Conclusion Based on this review, the main conclusion is that there is no consensus definition on the optimal radiographic correction for FAI and there was no consistent correlation between radiographic correction and functional outcomes. However, based on the uniform improvement in functional outcomes, this review suggests a post‐operative alpha angle target of 44° with a correction target of 19° and LCEA target of 30° with a correction target of 3°. 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 | 0.044 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".