MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403260298 · doi:10.1177/2325967124s00161

Poster 192: The Incidence and Breadth of Postoperative Pudendal Nerve Palsy and Its Relationship to Table Traction During Hip Arthroscopy With a Perineal Post

2024· article· en· W4403260298 on OpenAlexaff
Graeme Hoit, Jaskarndip Chahal, Tim Dwyer, Daniel B. Whelan, Tim Burkhart

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePudendal nerveHip arthroscopyIncidence (geometry)Traction (geology)Hip painSurgeryArthroscopyPalsyPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Pudendal nerve palsy (PNP) is a poorly characterized but common postoperative complication of hip arthroscopy (HA) with a perineal post that can result in external genital numbness and sexual dysfunction in both men and women. Previous attempts to quantify the incidence of these symptoms have relied on patient-initiated reports, chart review, unvalidated questionnaires or have neglected the female experience altogether – failures which likely underestimate the incidence of this complication. We aimed to describe the incidence of postoperative PNP, the breadth of symptoms patient experience and their duration, as well as establish the relationship between PNP and table traction. Methods: We utilized a multisurgeon prospective cohort of HA patients a single academic center. All patients underwent primary unilateral hip arthroscopy, osteochondroplasty and labral repair in a supine position with a perineal post. Patients with preexisting PNP symptoms, including sexual dysfunction, and those who were not sexually active were excluded. Intraoperative traction duration and force were recorded using a Tekscan sensor applied to the perineal post. A PNP screening questionnaire and standardized, validated sexual function questionnaires were administered confidentially to patients at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months postoperatively. Patient-reported hip function scores (iHOT-33) were completed preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively. Results: A total of 100 patients were enrolled. The mean age was 36.2 ± 9.4 years old, 56 patients (56%) were male. The mean traction duration was 80 ± 19 minutes. In the acute postoperative period, 77 patients (77%) experienced symptoms consistent with PNP. The most common sensory symptom described was perineal numbness (n = 77, 77%), followed by paresthesias (n=26, 26%). Seventeen men (17%) and 13 women (13%) reported symptoms of sexual dysfunction postoperatively, in the form of erectile dysfunction (men) or reduced sexual lubrication/dyspareunia/anorgasmia (women). Of patients who experienced PNP symptoms (n = 77), 21% had symptoms resolve by 6 weeks, 71% by 3 months, 90% by 6 months. Two male patients (3.6%) had persistent erectile dysfunction beyond 6 months postoperatively. Persistence of PNP symptoms beyond 6 weeks was associated with lower 33-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) scores at 6 months (mean difference: 18.4 [95% CI: 6.5-30.4], p = 0.003). Analysis of the calibrated sensor data to establish the relationship between traction force, pressure, and duration with PNP is pending. Conclusions: In this preliminary analysis of a planned 100-patient cohort, patients experienced a high rate of PNP and sexual dysfunction symptoms following HA with perineal post, far higher than previous reports. Most symptoms resolved within the first 3 months postoperatively. Anticipated results from the sensor data within this ongoing study are likely to provide insight into the relationship between traction force and/or duration and PNP incidence. A postless HA setup could be considered as an alternative given the described morbidity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207