Patients Requiring Revision Surgery After Primary Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome Show a Small Reduction of Postoperative Labral Size: A Propensity‐Matched Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the changes in labral size after primary hip arthroscopy between patients requiring revision surgery and those did not. METHODS: Data collected between August 2016 and September 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients diagnosed with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome and undergoing primary and revision hip arthroscopy at our institute were included in the revision group. Exclusion criteria were Tönnis grade >1, concomitant hip conditions, and incomplete magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. Patients who did not undergo revision surgery or conversion to total hip arthroplasty at minimum 2-year follow-up were matched in a 1:2 ratio and included in the control group. The labral size (width and height at 11:30, 1:30, and 3:00) on MRI (noncontrast, 3.0 T) before and after 12 months of primary surgery was compared. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were included in the revision group, and 42 patients were matched in the control group. In the revision group, significant reduction in labral width and height at 11:30 and 1:30, and labral width at 3:00 was observed at 12 months after primary hip arthroscopy (all with P < .05), whereas the control group did not show significant difference of changes in labral size (all with P > .05). Smaller postoperative labral width at 1:30 and 3:00 was observed in the revision group compared with the control group (all with P < .05). The revision group presented with greater reduction of labral width at all 3 positions and labral height at 1:30 compared with the control group (all with P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients requiring revision surgery after primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome presented with smaller postoperative labral size (less than 1 mm difference) and greater reduction of labral size (at or less than 1mm difference) on MRI 12 months after primary surgery compared with those patients that did not require later revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective case control.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".