A Narrative Review in Hip Surgery: Key Findings from a Leading Orthopedic Journal in 2022–2023
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Orthopedic hip surgery has undergone advances driven by innovations in surgical techniques and improved patient care protocols. The aim was to synthesize and appraise all studies relevant to hip surgery published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (KSSTA) in 2022–2023. Methods: The search included all studies published in KSSTA from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2023. Quality assessment was performed using appropriate tools for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, and systematic reviews. Due to the diverse nature of the included studies, a narrative synthesis approach was used. Results: A total of 33 primary studies were included in this narrative review, of which 10 were reviews (5 systematic reviews), 1 was an RCT, and 22 were non-RCTs. A total of 11 were from the UK, 10 studies were from the USA, and 5 were from Canada. Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) was investigated in a total of 23 studies, followed by hip micro-instability in 7 studies, dysplasia in 5 studies, and gluteal and hamstring tears in 4 studies. The RCT had a low risk of bias. Of the 22 non-RCTs, 16 had a low risk of bias, 5 had a moderate risk of bias, and 1 had a high risk of bias. All systematic reviews were of moderate quality. Conclusions: Hip arthroscopy is an effective treatment for FAI with promising early outcomes, especially when combined with closed capsular repair and appropriate rehabilitation. Surgeons should tailor their approach to capsular management to optimize recovery, as closed capsular repair may enhance functional outcomes. Additionally, preoperative tools like the HAR Index can help identify patients at higher risk of requiring hip arthroplasty after surgery. The conclusions of the included primary studies align with current general recommendations and contribute valuable insights to the field of hip orthopedics.
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 | 0.030 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".