Can a Hip Brace Improve Short-Term Hip-Related Quality of Life for People With Femoroacetabular Impingement and Acetabular Labral Tears: An Exploratory Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine whether a hip brace can improve hip health quality-of-life (QoL) and is well-tolerated in people with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) or symptomatic labral tears after 6 weeks of wear. DESIGN: Parallel, two-arm, exploratory randomized trial. SETTING: Hospital and private clinics of orthopaedic surgeons. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals >18 years with FAIS or labral tears. INTERVENTIONS: Usual conservative care versus usual conservative care plus a hip brace. MAIN OUTCOMES: Patient-reported outcomes were assessed with the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33), and Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Scores (HAGOS). Brace acceptability was measured using the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology survey. Independent t-tests assessed between-group differences. RESULTS: Thirty-eight participants were recruited, 19 each group, 60% women, mean age 39.3 ± 11.8 years, body mass index 25.3 ± 4.4 kg/m2, iHOT-33 36.6 ± 24.8. Three participants dropped out (one usual care, 2 braced). The mean between-group difference for iHOT-33 was 19.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.68-37.06, P = 0.03) favoring the brace. There were improvements in most HAGOS subscale scores favoring the brace. Issues with brace tolerability for some participants were perceived comfort and effectiveness. Three brace-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Between-group differences favored the braced group for hip health QoL, pain, symptoms, and function. Although these were promising results, the CIs for the estimates were wide, the small sample size likely a contributing factor. Our results suggest that further investigation of the brace is warranted, we calculated sample sizes and made recommendations for the design of a future trial.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".