Management of Labral Tears in the Hip: A Consensus Statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Inconsistencies in the workup of labral tears in the hip have been shown to result in a delay in treatment and an increased cost to the medical system. Purpose: To establish consensus statements among Canadian nonoperative/operative sports medicine physicians via a modified Delphi process on the diagnosis, nonoperative and operative management, and rehabilitation and return to play (RTP) of those with labral tears in the hip. Study Design: A consensus statement. Methods: A total of 40 sports medicine physicians (50% orthopaedic surgeons) were selected for participation based on their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to 1 of 4 balanced working groups defined by specific subtopics of interest. Consensus, strong consensus, and unanimous consensus were defined as achieving 80% to 89%, 90% to 99%, and 100% agreement with a proposed statement, respectively. Results: There was a unanimous consensus that several prognostic factors-including age, pain severity, dysplasia, and degenerative changes-should be taken into consideration with regard to the likelihood of surgical success. There was strong agreement that the cluster of symptoms of anterior groin pain, pain in hyperflexion, and sharp catching pain with rotation make a diagnosis of a labral tear more likely, that radiographs-including a minimum of a standing anteroposterior pelvis and 45° Dunn view-should be obtained in all patients presenting with a suspected labral tear, that a diagnostic injection should be performed if there is uncertainty that the pain is intra-articular in origin, and that a minimum of 6 months should elapse after surgical treatment before reinvestigation for persistent symptoms. Conclusion: Overall, 76% of statements reached a unanimous/strong consensus, thus indicating a high level of agreement between nonoperative sports medicine physicians and orthopaedic surgeons on the management of labral tears in the hip. The statements that achieved unanimous consensus included the timing of RTP after surgery, prognostic factors affecting surgical success, and the timing to begin sport-specific training after nonoperative management. There was no consensus on the use of orthobiologics for nonoperative management, indications for bilateral surgery, whether the postoperative range of motion and weightbearing restrictions should be employed, and whether postoperative hip brace usage is required.
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 | 0.124 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".