FP7.5 Long-Term Outcomes of Combined Periacetabular Osteotomy and Hip Arthroscopy for Treatment of Acetabular Dysplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) and concomitant hip arthroscopy is an increasingly utilized method to treat acetabular dysplasia with intraarticular abnormalities. However, the literature lacks long-term data on the outcomes of this combined surgical procedure. The purpose of this study is to characterize the outcomes of combined PAO and hip arthroscopy at 10-year minimum follow-up. Methods: A prospectively maintained database was retrospectively reviewed for patients who underwent PAO with concomitant hip arthroscopy for the treatment of acetabular dysplasia (defined as LCEA < 25 degrees) at a minimum 10-year follow-up. Hips undergoing PAO also underwent hip arthroscopy when there was clinical suspicion for significant intra-articular disease based on symptoms and imaging. Of the 80 hips undergoing combined PAO and hip arthroscopy, 68 hips (85%) successfully completed minimum 10-year follow-up. Clinical patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were measured using modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), including assessment relative to a minimally clinically important difference (MCID) of 8 and the patient accepted symptom state (PASS) of 74. The Western Ontario and McMaster University Arthritis Index (WOMAC) pain score and University of Los Angeles California (UCLA) activity score were also measured at baseline and follow-up. Composite failure was defined as a THA conversion, non-THA revision operation, or failure to reach either MCID or PASS thresholds. Results: The mean follow-up time was 12.2 ± 1.9 years, with a mean follow-up age of 40.3 ± 11.4 years. Improvements were observed in mean mHHS (58 ± 16 to 81 ± 20; p<0.001) and mean WOMAC pain score (8.9 ± 4.7 to 3.3 ± 4.2; p<0.001). The mean UCLA score was similar from baseline to follow-up (6.7 ± 2.6 to 6.9 ± 2.2; p = 0.43). During the follow-period, 7 hips (10%) underwent THA conversion, and an additional 8 hips (12%) underwent non-THA revision surgery. An additional 6 non-reoperation hips (9%) failed to reach either MCID or PASS, providing a composite failure rate of 31%. Conclusions: PAO with concomitant hip arthroscopy for patients with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia and intra-articular pathology shows favorable outcomes at minimum 10-year follow-up, demonstrating a THA conversion rate of 10% and composite failure in 31% of hips.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".