FP6.13 Minimum 25 year followup of patients treated with Periacetabular Osteotomy: The Boston Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) is a non-arthroplasty treatment for symptomatic acetabular dysplasia (DDH). The literature regarding long-term patient outcomes after PAO remains limited. We report our evaluation of patients treated by PAO 25 to 33 years ago to identify factors associated with durable therapeutic success. Materials and Methods: 141 patients with 173 dysplastic hips underwent PAO from 8/1/91 to 12/31/98 by a single surgeon. 6 patients died. 29 patients (31 hips) could not be located. 6 pts (12 hips) were contacted but did not yet return questionnaires. 124 hips in 100 patients were retrospectively evaluated at a minimum of 25 years/maximum of 33 years post-operatively. Hips were evaluated with use of the WOMAC Pain scale Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index postoperatively. Osteotomy “failure” was defined as a pain score of >/=10 or the need for total hip arthroplasty. Results: Of 124 hips in 100 patients analyzed from our cohort, 62 hips (50%) were minimally- or asymptomatic with a preserved hip. 53 hips in 48 patients) (43%%) had undergone hip replacement (THR). 9 hips (7%)) were symptomatic (WOMAC pain>10) with a preserved hip. Patients in the THR group were older than asymptomatic patients (54 ± 8 years vs. 50 ± 11 years; p=0.08). Most patients were female (83%). 89% of hip replacement patients were female. Conclusions: Long-term follow-up of patients treated with PAO for symptomatic dysplasia suggests most at long-term follow-up report high levels of function, although 41% had required THR. Most who required THR also reported high levels of function.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".