Osteochondroplasty Benefits the Pragmatic Patient With Femoroacetabular Impingement: Analysis From the Embedded Prospective Cohort of the Femoroacetabular Impingement RandomiSed Controlled Trial (FIRST)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether arthroscopic osteochondroplasty demonstrated effectiveness in a pragmatic femoroacetabular impingement patient population embedded within FIRST (the Femoroacetabular Impingement RandomiSed controlled Trial). METHODS: All cohort patients were not randomized and were followed prospectively with a follow-up assessment protocol identical to that in FIRST. The primary outcome was hip pain using a 100-point visual analog scale. Secondary outcomes included hip function (Hip Outcome Score, International Hip Outcome Tool-12), health utility (EuroQol 5 Dimensions), and health-related quality of life (Short Form-12) at 12 months, as well as operatively and nonoperatively treated hip complications at 24 months. We performed multivariable regressions to compare these outcomes between 3 groups of patients: (1) those randomized to lavage in FIRST, (2) those randomized to osteochondroplasty in FIRST, and (3) those who received osteochondroplasty as part of the cohort study. RESULTS: All groups had improvements across all questionnaire outcomes from baseline to 12 months, with no significant differences. There were significantly more reoperations in the lavage trial group compared with those in the embedded cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23-7.73; P = .016). There were significantly more nonoperatively treated hip complications in the lavage trial group and in the osteochondroplasty trial group when compared with those in the embedded cohort (aOR 3.81; 95% CI 1.19-12.17; P = .024 and aOR 4.55; 95% CI 1.43-14.42; P = .010, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Hip arthroscopic osteochondroplasty and lavage led to improvement in hip pain, function, and health-related quality of life at 12 months across both randomized controlled trial (RCT) and cohort patients. The pragmatic cohort receiving osteochondroplasty had (1) significantly fewer complications than RCT patients, (2) significantly less reoperations than RCT patients randomized to arthroscopic lavage, and (3) fewer, although nonsignificant, reoperations than RCT osteochondroplasty patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, therapeutic.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".