Endoscopic gluteus maximus tendon release for external snapping hip syndrome: a functional assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the clinical follow-up of patients with external snapping hip syndrome (ESHS) treated with endoscopic gluteus maximus tendon release and to compare the residual muscular strength and thigh circumference as an indirect outcome measure. METHODS: Patients of all ages with external snapping hip syndrome were treated with endoscopic gluteus maximus tendon release. Outcome measures evaluated included: visual analog scale (VAS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS). The gluteus maximus strength and the circumference of the thigh were also evaluated. RESULTS: Among 25 patients, 23 fulfilled the inclusion criteria and one patient was lost to follow-up. The series included 22 patients, 6 males and 16 females with a mean age of 27.9 ± 13.4 years (range 16-76 years). All patients had resolution of the snapping symptoms after the procedure. The mean follow-up was 18 ± 9.3 months. All outcomes improved in a statistically significant manner: VAS value decreased from 6.8 (range 6-8) to 0.6 (range 0-4) (p < 0.001), mHHS increased from 48.6 (range 17.6-67) to 88.2 (range 67-94.6) (p < 0.001), NAHS increased from 49.0 (range 21.5-66) to 90.8 (range 66-98.75) (p < 0.001). A statistically significant reduction of operated limb thigh circumference compared to the contralateral side (3.7%) was also found, while there were no statistical differences regarding the strength of gluteus maximus muscles. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic gluteus maximus tendon release is an excellent surgical option to treat snapping hip syndrome. The evaluated muscle strength revealed no functional impairment. The significance of the limb circumference reduction has yet to be determined. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV: retrospective comparative 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".