A higher proportion of patients may reach the MCID with capsular closure in patients undergoing arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose The purpose of this review is to provide a summary of the techniques and outcomes of various capsular management strategies in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). The information this review provides on capsular management strategies will provide surgeons with operative guidance and decision‐making when managing patients with FAI lesions arthroscopically. Methods Three databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched from database inception to November 2nd 2021, for literature addressing capsular management of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAI. All level I–IV data on capsular management strategy as well as postoperative functional outcomes were recorded. A meta‐analysis was used to combine the mean postoperative functional outcomes using a random‐effects model. Results Overall, there were a total of 36 studies and 4744 patients included in this review. The mean MINORS score was 10.7 (range 8–13) for non‐comparative studies and 17.6 (range 15–20) for comparative studies. Three comparative studies in 1302 patients examining the proportion of patients reaching the MCID for the mHHS score in patients undergoing interportal capsulotomy with either capsular repair or no repair found that the capsular repair group had a higher odds ratio of reaching the MCID at 1.46 (95% CI 0.61–3.45, I 2 = 67%, Fig. 2, Table 3); however, this difference was not significant with a p value of 0.39. When looking at only level 1 and 2 studies, four studies in 1308 patients reporting on the mHHS score in patients undergoing capsular closure regardless of capsulotomy type, found a pooled standardized mean difference in the mHHS score of 2.1 (95% CI 1.7–2.55, I 2 = 70%, Fig. 3), while four studies in 402 patients reporting on the mHHS score in patients not undergoing capsular closure regardless of capsulotomy type found a pooled standardized mean difference in the mHHS score of 1.46 (95% CI 1.2–1.7, I 2 = 30%, Fig. 4). Conclusion This review may demonstrate improved postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing complete capsular closure regardless of capsulotomy type based on postoperative mHHS score. Furthermore, this review may suggest improved postoperative outcomes after closure of an interportal capsulotomy. There are limited published outcome data regarding T‐type capsulotomy without closure. This review provides surgeons with operative guidance on capsular management strategies when treating patients with FAI lesions arthroscopically. 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 | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".