Hip Circumferential Labral Reconstruction Provides Similar Distractive Stability to Labral Repair After Cam Over‐Resection in a Biomechanical Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the change in hip distractive stability after a cam over-resection, labral tear, repair, labrectomy, or circumferential 6- or 10-mm labral reconstruction in a biomechanical model. METHODS: Ten fresh-frozen matched-pair human cadaveric hips were analyzed using a materials testing system to measure the force and distance required to disrupt the suction seal of the hip (1) with an intact capsule and labrum; (2) after a capsulectomy and labral repair; (3) after a capsulectomy, 5-mm cam over-resection and labral repair; (4) after a capsulectomy, 5-mm cam over-resection and labral tear; (5) after a capsulectomy, 5-mm cam over-resection and labrectomy; and (6) after a capsulectomy, 5-mm cam over-resection and a 6- or 10-mm circumferential labral reconstruction with iliotibial band (5 hips each). Each specimen was retested at 0° flexion, 45° flexion, and 45° flexion and at 15° internal rotation and analyzed using nonparametric statistical methods. RESULTS: The Friedman test of differences was significant among structural conditions and hip positions (P = .001). In all positions, the resistive force that opposed the disruption of the suction seal in an intact hip was significantly greater compared with all other conditions. The resistive force for the capsulectomy, 5-mm cam over-resection and labrectomy condition was significantly less compared with almost all other conditions and hip positions. A qualitative suction seal was achieved in 20% of hip specimens with a 6-mm labral reconstruction, whereas a seal was in achieved 60% of specimens with a 10-mm labral reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: After a cam over-resection, a circumferential labral reconstruction improves the distractive stability of a labral deficient hip, comparable to a labral repair or tear in a biomechanical model. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Circumferential labral reconstruction may be a viable treatment option for patients with ongoing symptoms after hip arthroscopy with evidence of a cam over-resection and a deficient labrum.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".