Treatment of Hip Microinstability with Arthroscopic Capsular Plication: A Retrospective Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Hip microinstability is defined as hip pain with a snapping and/or blocking sensation accompanied by fine anatomical anomalies.Arthroscopic capsular plication has been proposed as a treatment modality for patients without major anatomic anomalies and after failure of properly administered conservative treatment.The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of this procedure and to evaluate potential predictors of poor outcome. Materials and Methods:A review of 26 capsular plications in 25 patients was conducted.The mean postoperative follow-up period for the remaining patients was 29 months.Analysis of data included demographic, radiological, and interventional data.Calculation of pre-and postoperative WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis) index was performed.Pre-and postoperative sports activities and satisfaction were also documented.A P<0.05 was considered significant.Results: No major complications were identified in this series.The mean pre-and postoperative WOMAC scores were 62.6 and 24.2, respectively.The WOMAC index showed statistically significant postoperative improvement (P=0.0009).The mean satisfaction rate was 7.7/10.Four patients with persistent pain underwent a periacetabular osteotomy.A lateral center edge angle ≤21。was detected in all hips at presentation.We were not able to demonstrate any difference in postoperative evolution with regard to the presence of hip dysplasia (P>0.05),probably because the sample size was too small.Conclusion: Capsular plication can result in significant clinical and functional improvement in carefully selected cases of hip microinstability.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".