Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopy Show No Differences Between Sexes: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess differences in postoperative outcomes between male and female patients following hip arthroscopy. METHODS: A systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed databases were searched. Key words included "hip," "arthroscopy," "outcome," "gender difference," "sex difference," "gender," and "patient-reported outcome." Studies were included that reported sex-specific analysis of outcomes following primary hip arthroscopy with minimum 2-year follow-up. Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were applied to each study. Data collected included patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, rates of revision arthroscopy (RA), and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). Forest plots were generated for the most frequently reported PROMs, RA, and THA rates. RESULTS: In total, 38 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 40,194 (57% female) hips included. The most common indications for hip arthroscopy were femoroacetabular impingement and labral tears. Eighteen studies reported PROMs, with no clear trend towards sex differences. Eleven studies reported on RA rates, with 4 showing a significantly greater rate of RA in female patients. Seventeen studies reported on conversion to THA, with an overall conversion rate of 9.64%. There were no clear sex differences in conversion to THA. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference between sexes for postoperative PROM scores. Male patients were less likely to reach the MCID for the HOS-SSS than female patients in the majority of studies, and there were no sex differences for PASS rates. There were no significant differences between sexes in revision arthroscopy rates and conversion to total hip arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II, III and 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 | 0.015 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".