Femoral Version May Impact Hip Arthroscopy Outcomes in Select Patient Populations: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To provide further clarity regarding the management of patients with abnormal femoral version in the setting of hip arthroscopy and will discuss the definition of femoral version, the diagnostic and clinical evaluation of abnormal femoral version, and several described measurement techniques. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in literature published before August 2021 that measured femoral version and reported patient-reported outcomes measures or rates of subsequent procedures following hip arthroscopy. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed and the electronic databases, PubMed, OvidMedLine, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Two blinded reviews screened and evaluated data quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included with 11 studies reporting patient outcomes and 7 studies reporting rates of subsequent procedures. The most commonly used definition of femoral version was 5° to 20° of femoral anteversion. Computed tomography scan was the most commonly used imaging modality. The majority of studies (7 of 11) demonstrated that femoral version does not have an impact on patient-reported outcomes measures and is not predictive of clinically meaningful improvement scores. However, in select studies, patients with femoral retroversion were found to experience slightly inferior outcomes following hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement. While femoral retroversion may be a risk factor for subsequent procedures, 3 of 7 studies refute this claim. Although in patients with borderline hip dysplasia, excessive femoral anteversion led to greater rates of subsequent hip procedures. CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of studies show that femoral version does not have an impact on patient-reported outcomes following hip arthroscopy, those with femoral retroversion and with excessive anteversion with coexisting borderline hip dysplasia need to be educated on their increased risk of subsequent operation. Ultimately, this review suggests that clinical improvement can likely be achieved regardless of femoral version. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; systematic review of Level I-IV studies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".