MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312182340 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2022.11.023

Clinical and Radiographic Criteria Define “Acceptable” Surgical Correction of Hip Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome as Well as Postoperative Complications: An International Modified Delphi Study

2022· article· en· W4312182340 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcMaster UniversityU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMedicineFemoroacetabular impingementRadiographyDelphi methodFluoroscopyEvidence-based medicinePhysical therapySurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To develop recommendations for clinical and radiographic criteria to help define the "acceptable" surgical correction of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and identify/define complications postoperatively. METHODS: A 3-phase modified Delphi study was conducted involving a case-based survey; a Likert/multiple choice-based survey concerning radiographic and physical examination characteristics to help define FAIS correction, as well as the prevalence and definition of potential postoperative complications; and 2 consensus meetings. RESULTS: Of the 75 experts invited, 54 completed the Phase I survey, 50 completed the Phase II survey (72% and 67% response rate), and 50 participated in the Phase III consensus meetings. For both typical and atypical (complex) cases, there was consensus that fluoroscopy with multiple views and dynamic hip assessment should be used intraoperatively (96% and 100%, respectively). For typical FAIS cases, the Expert Panel agreed that Dunn lateral and anteroposterior radiographs were the most important radiographs to evaluate the hip postoperatively (88%, consensus). When asked about evaluating the correction of cam impingement postoperatively, 87% voted that they use subjective evaluation of the "sphericity" of the femoral head. In the case of focal and global pincer-type FAIS, there was consensus that the reduction or elimination of the crossover sign (84%) and lateral center-edge angle (91%) were important to inform the extent of the FAIS correction. There was consensus for recommending further investigation at 6 months postoperatively if hip pain had increased/plateaued (92% agreed); that additional investigation and treatment should occur between 6 and 12 months (90% agreed); and that a reoperation may be recommended at 12 months or later following this investigation period (89% agreed). CONCLUSIONS: This consensus project identified the importance of using fluoroscopy and dynamic hip assessment intraoperatively; Dunn lateral and anteroposterior view radiographs postoperatively; evaluating the "sphericity" of the femoral head for cam-type correction and the use of dynamic hip assessment; reducing/eliminating the crossover sign for focal pincer-type FAIS; evaluating the lateral center-edge angle for global pincer-type FAIS; and avoiding overcorrection of pincer-type FAIS. In cases in which postoperative hip pain increased/plateaued, further investigation and treatment is warranted between 6 and 12 months, and a reoperation may be recommended at a minimum of 12 months depending on the cause of the hip pain. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Hip arthroscopy surgeons have yet to reach a firm agreement on what constitutes an "acceptable" or "good" surgery radiographically and how they can achieve desired clinical outcomes. Although this was a comprehensive effort, more study is needed to determine therapeutic thresholds that can be universally applied.

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207