The revision hip arthroscopy complex: capsular deficiency, labral deficiency, femoral over-resection and adhesions can result in good survivorship with revision hip arthroscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and survivorship of combined arthroscopic hip labral reconstruction/augmentation, capsular reconstruction, femoral neck remplissage and lysis of adhesions. Patients ≥18 years old who underwent this combination of procedures during revision hip arthroscopy and were eligible for minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. PRO scores including Hip Outcome Score (HOS)-Activities of Daily Living scale, HOS-Sports scale, modified Harris Hip Score, Short Form 12, and Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, patient satisfaction and failure rates were analyzed. Seven patients (5 females and 2 males) with average age of 45.0 ± 5.2 (range: 40-54 years) met inclusion criteria. Patients had a median of 1 (range: 1-3) prior hip surgery at an outside institution. All patients had previously undergone femoral osteoplasty, and 85% (6/7) of patients had a labral repair performed. Four patients had no capsule closure performed in their prior procedures. Six patients were available for minimum 2-year follow-up. Two patients converted to total hip arthroplasty: one patient with four prior hip arthroscopies and the other had advanced osteoarthritis with outerbridge grade 3/4 defects requiring microfracture. Mean patient satisfaction was 7 (range: 2-9). At mean follow-up of 3 years, most patients who underwent the combination of labral reconstruction, capsular reconstruction, femoral neck remplissage and lysis of adhesions during revision hip arthroscopy demonstrated improved PROs. This salvage procedure has the potential to restore hip function in patients who have failed an initial hip arthroscopy procedure. In patients with these pathologies present and concomitant joint space narrowing, a total hip arthroplasty may be a more appropriate salvage option.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".