Criteria for the Operating Room Confirmation of the Diagnosis of Hip Instability: The Results of an International Expert Consensus Conference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish an international expert consensus on operating room findings that aid in the diagnosis of hip instability. METHODS: An expert panel was convened to build an international consensus on the operating room diagnosis/confirmation of hip instability. Seventeen surgeons who have published or lectured nationally or internationally on the topic of hip instability were invited to participate. Fifteen panel members completed a pre-meeting questionnaire and agreed to participate in a 1-day consensus meeting on May 15, 2021. A review of the literature was performed to identify published intraoperative reference criteria used in the diagnosis of hip instability. Studies were included for discussion if they reported and intraoperative findings associated with hip instability. The evidence for and against each criteria was discussed, followed by an anonymous voting process. For consensus, defined a priori, items were included in the final criteria set if at least 80% of experts agreed. RESULTS: A review of the published literature identified 11 operating room criteria that have been used to facilitate the diagnosis of hip instability. Six additional criteria were proposed by panel members as part of the pre-meeting questionnaire. Consensus agreement was achieved for 8 criteria, namely ease of hip distraction under anesthesia (100.0% agreement), inside-out pattern of chondral damage (100.0% agreement), location of chondral damage on the acetabulum (93.3% agreement), pattern of labral damage (93.3% agreement), anteroinferior labrum chondral damage (86.7% agreement), perifoveal cartilage damage (97.6% agreement), a capsular defect (86.7% agreement), and capsular status (80.0% agreement). Consensus was not achieved for 9 items, namely ligamentum teres tear (66.7% agreement), arthroscopic stability tests (46.7% agreement), persistent distraction after removal of traction (46.7% agreement), findings of examination under anesthesia (46.7% agreement), the femoral head divot sign (40.0% agreement), inferomedial synovitis (26.7% agreement), drive-through sign (26.7% agreement), iliopsoas irritation (26.7% agreement) and ligamentum teres-labral kissing lesion (13.3% agreement). All experts agreed on the final list of 8 criteria items reaching consensus. CONCLUSION: This expert panel identified 8 criteria that can be used in the operating room to help confirm the diagnosis of hip instability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V expert opinion.
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 | 0.277 | 0.234 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".