PRE-ARTHRITIC HIP DISEASE: ISOLATED LABRAL PATHOLOGY IS A VALID DIAGNOSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our understanding of pre-arthritic hip disease has evolved tremendously but challenges remain in categorizing diagnosis, which ultimately impacts choice of treatments and clinical outcomes. This study aims to report patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) comparing four different condition groups within hip preservation surgery by a group of fellowship-trained surgeons. From 2018 to 2021, 380 patients underwent hip preservation surgery at our center and were classified into five condition groups: dysplasia: 82 (21.6%), femoro-acetabular impingement (FAI): 173 (45.4%), isolated labral tear: 103 (27.1%), failed hip preservation: 20 (5.3%) and history of childhood disease/other: 2 (0.5%). International hip outcomes Tool 12 (IHOT-12), numeric pain score and patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) were collected pre-operatively and at 3 months and 1 year post-operatively, with 94% and 82% follow-up rate respectively. Arthroscopy (75.5%) was the most common procedure followed by peri-acetabular osteotomy (PAO) (22.4%) and surgical dislocation (2.1%). Re-operation rate were respectively 18.3% (15), 5.8% (10), 4.9% (5), 30% (6) and 0%. There were 36 re-operations in the cohort, 14 (39%) for unintended consequences of initial surgery, 10 (28%) for mal-correction leading to a repeat operation, 8 (22%) progression of arthritis, and 4 (11%) for incorrect initial diagnosis/intervention. Most common re-operations were hardware removal 31% (7 PAO, 3 surgical hip dislocation and 1 femoral de-rotational osteotomy), arthroscopy 31% (11) and arthroplasty 28% (10). All groups had significant improvements in their IHOT-12 as well as PROMIS physical and numerical pain scales, except those with failed hip preservation. Dysplasia group showed a slower recovery. Overall, this study demonstrated a clear relation between the condition groups, their respective intervention and the significant improvements in PROMs with isolated labral pathology being a valid diagnosis. Establishing tertiary referral centers for hip preservation and longer follow-up is needed to monitor the overall survivorship of these various procedures.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".