MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231239289 · doi:10.1007/s00167-019-05416-3

Clinical and radiographic predictors of failed hip arthroscopy in the management of dysplasia: a systematic review and proposal for classification

2019· review· en· W4231239289 on OpenAlexafffund
Ajay Shah, Jeffrey Kay, Muzammil Memon, Nicole Simunovic, Soshi Uchida, Nicolas Bonin, Olufemi R. Ayeni

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster University Medical CentreMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster UniversitySmith and Nephew
KeywordsMedicineRadiographyHip arthroscopyDysplasiaArthroscopyRadiologySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: As indications for hip arthroscopy continue to expand, its efficacy in patients with more complex deformities of the hip, such as those with acetabular dysplasia, remains controversial. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify the predictors of failed hip arthroscopy in dysplastic hips and to propose a standardize prognostic sub-classification of dysplasia. METHODS: This systematic review was performed in accordance with the (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) PRISMA guidelines. Three databases [EMBASE, PubMed, and Ovid (MEDLINE)] were searched using terms including "hip arthroscopy" and "dysplasia". Studies were screened and data extracted in duplicate. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Due to the non-uniform nature of study data, findings were presented in descriptive summary form. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in this systematic review, comprising 712 dysplastic patients (773 hips) with mean age 34.2 years and 74.1% females. Most studies defined hip dysplasia by a lateral centre-edge angle (LCEA) of 20°-25° (borderline) or 15°-20° (moderate). Failure was defined as progression to revision arthroscopy, peri-acetabular osteotomy, or total hip arthroplasty. Overall, failure rate was 192/743 (25.8%) at an average of 28.1 months following index arthroscopy. Smaller LCEA, larger Tönnis angle, broken Shenton line, and decreased joint space (≤ 2 mm) were radiographic predictors of failure. Severe cartilage lesions to the femoral head or acetabulum were associated with failure in five studies. Labral debridement led to more failures than labral repair. CONCLUSION: Overall, hip arthroscopy yielded good outcomes in mildly dysplastic hips without severe chondral damage. Hip arthroscopy is expected to result in a failed outcome in individuals with moderate-to-severe hip dysplasia (LCEA < 15°), severe cartilage lesions, larger Tönnis angle (> 20°), broken Shenton line, and decreased joint space (≤ 2 mm). Arthroscopic surgery may be more effective in individuals with borderline-to-mild (LCEA 15°-25°) acetabular dysplasia in the absence of severe cartilaginous lesions (7-year survival: 89.6%). A standardized prognostic classification of hip dysplasia based on the LCEA and Tönnis angle is proposed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review of non-randomized studies, Level 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.014
Bibliometrics0.0230.020
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology ArthroscopySame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207