Femoral de-rotation osteotomy versus hip arthroscopy for management of femoroacetabular impingement in adult patients with decreased femoral anteversion: a matched retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Femoral de-rotation osteotomy (FDO) and hip arthroscopy are both recognized surgical options for the management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in the setting of decreased femoral anteversion (<5°). Minimal comparative data exist regarding the difference in outcomes between these two techniques, and we believe this is the first study to provide that comparison. This retrospective cohort study included a total of 20 patients with such pathology, matched for age, gender and body mass index. A total of 10 patients were included in the FDO group [median anteversion −0.5° (true retroversion); average follow-up 17.9 months]. In total, 10 patients were included in the hip arthroscopy group [median anteversion −0.5° (true retroversion); average follow-up 28.5 months]. Both groups demonstrated statistically and clinically significant improvement in the post-operative International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) scores [median improvement: FDO group, 37.7 points (r 14–58.8; P < 0.041); hip arthroscopy group, 35.9 points (r 11.1–81; P < 0.05)], noting that the minimal clinically important difference for the iHOT-33 is 6.1 points. However, the study was not adequately powered to delineate a difference in improvement between the two groups. The findings suggest significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes, and clinical findings can be achieved with either FDO or hip arthroscopy for FAI in the setting of decreased femoral anteversion. However, selection of the most suitable surgical procedure using a patient-specific approach may optimize outcomes in this challenging population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".