Peri-operative platelet-rich plasma in arthroscopic femoroacetabular impingement surgery: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study aimed to determine whether the addition of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) during hip arthroscopy improves functional outcomes in femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) surgery. This was a prospective randomized single-blinded trial of arthroscopic hip patients aged between 16 and 50 years with a diagnosis of FAI conducted at a single centre. Patients with any previous hip surgery and significant osteoarthritic changes (Tonnis grade > 2) were excluded. Before surgery, patients were randomly assigned to receive either a PRP injection or a saline placebo. Efficacy was evaluated at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years post-surgery using patient-reported outcomes. The short version International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT12) was the primary outcome. Recruited patients (n = 113) were aged 36.0 ± 10.5 (mean ± standard deviation) years and 56% male. At baseline, iHOT12 scores of the PRP (mean 43.8 ± 22.4) and placebo groups (mean 45.2 ± 21.5) were similar. At a minimum follow-up of 2 years, both groups had improved iHOT12 scores (PRP: mean 83.6 ± 13.4, control: mean 77.1 ± 23.3), with no significant difference in change between the two groups (P = 0.19). There were no significant group differences for the change in Non-Arthritic Hip and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score—Shortform scores between the two groups (P = 0.22 and 0.46, respectively). The present study does not support the peri-operative use of PRP in arthroscopic surgery for FAI for mid-term improvement. There were no significant differences in outcome between PRP and placebo groups at 2-year minimum follow-up after surgery.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".