Postoperative weight-bearing restrictions and rehabilitation protocols after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite recent increased interest in hip arthroscopy for the management of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), there is little evidence to guide weight-bearing recommendations and rehabilitation postoperatively. The primary objective of this study was to determine if sufficient evidence exists to recommend specific weight-bearing restrictions postoperatively. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021247741). PubMed, MEDLINE and Embase were searched on 3 March 2023 for Level I-IV studies including patients over the age of 18 years, with a minimum 1-year follow-up and reporting of a weight-bearing status, a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and a clinical outcome. Meta-analysis was precluded due to heterogeneity in the included studies, and a descriptive analysis was undertaken. Methodological quality and risk of bias were assessed with the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). Twenty-four studies including 2231 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAI were included (follow-up interval 33.2 ± 24.7 months). Most articles (62.5%) were case series. There were seven terms describing weight-bearing recommendations, with 83% being some variation of 'partial weight-bearing'. Eight PROMs were reported, with 83% using the modified Harris Hip Score and 87.5% of studies reporting reoperation rates. Only 75% of studies reported rehabilitation protocols. The average MINORS score was 11.07 ± 1.10 out of 16 for non-comparative studies and 18.22 ± 1.48 out of 24 for comparative studies. The reporting of weight-bearing status, clinical outcomes, PROMs and rehabilitation parameters remains poor. At present, sufficient comparative evidence does not exist to make specific weight-bearing recommendation postoperatively.
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 | 0.012 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".