Endoscopic Repair of Hip Abductor Tendon Tears: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Greater trochanteric pain syndrome is a common incapacitating hip condition characterized by chronic lateral hip pain. This condition includes a range of pathologies ranging from trochanteric bursitis, hip abductor pathology involving the gluteus medius and minimum, external coxa saltans (snapping hip syndrome), or combinations of these. Hip abductor tendon tears have gained recognition as a main contributor to this condition. This pathology is often misdiagnosed and left untreated because of the frequency of partial-thickness undersurface tears. Once this challenging diagnosis is confirmed, non-operative treatments are considered the first therapeutic approach. Despite the availability and effectiveness of multiple non-operative therapies, a considerable percentage of patients will present with chronic disabling pain and refractory symptoms. Many health-care providers are unaware of accessible advanced surgical techniques that benefit patients unresponsive to conservative management. Case Report: We present the case of a 51-year-old female patient with chronic lateral hip pain refractory to conservative treatment for more than two years, treated successfully with endoscopic abductor tendon repair. The patient returned to the desired activities six months following surgery without any reported complications. Patient's pre-operative reported outcomes utilizing the MHOT-14 and Vail hip scores improved from 27 to 79 points (on a scale of 0-100) and from 30 to 56 points (on a scale of 0-100), respectively, at eight months follow-up. Conclusion: This case report is illustrative of endoscopic surgical repair of the hip abductor tendons in the setting of a chronic full-thickness abductor tendon tear in a female patient after failure of conservative management. The multiple advantages of the technique include performance in an ambulatory day surgery center, soft-tissue preservation, and fewer complications compared to other open techniques. Knowledge of this pathology and its state-of-the-art available treatments is relevant for orthopedic surgeons and a wide range of health providers who encounter patients with chronic lateral hip pain.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".