Labral Tears and Chondral Lesions Are Common Comorbidities Identified During Endoscopic Repair of Gluteal Tendon Tears for Greater Trochanteric Pain Syndrome: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on intraoperative findings during endoscopic treatment for greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS). Secondary outcomes were preoperative imaging findings and postoperative functional outcome measures. METHODS: Medline, PubMED, and Embase databases were searched from inception (1946, 1966, and 1974, respectively), to July 15, 2021, for records reporting intraoperative findings during endoscopic surgery for GTPS. Studies of Level I-IV evidence were eligible. All studies were assessed for quality using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) score. RESULTS: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most patients underwent endoscopic greater trochanteric bursectomy with repair of the gluteal tendons. Intraoperative conditions reported were gluteal tendon tears usually involving the gluteus medius tendon, labral tears, and chondral lesions. Three studies reported an average of 9% of patients who subsequently underwent conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Pain was assessed using the visual analog scale, and functional outcome measures were measured using the modified Harris Hip Score, Non-Arthritic Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score Sport-Specific subscale, Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living subscale, and iHOT-12. Pain and functional outcomes demonstrated significant improvement in nearly all the studies where they were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent endoscopic management of GTPS commonly underwent repair of gluteal tendon tears, and in many cases had concomitant labral tears and chondral lesions identified intraoperatively. There were low rates of adverse events, repair failure, and revision surgery. Patient-reported functional outcomes were improved at follow-up at least 1 year postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, systematic review of level IV or better investigations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".