EP5.17 Clinical and CT Morphologic Predictors of Hip Internal Rotation in the Setting of Symptomatic Femoroacetabular Impingement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) classically causes restriction in internal rotation in flexion (IRF) and IRF is critically related to the pathophysiology of FAI. Previous research has suggested IRF is driven by femoral version alone, with the contribution of other clinical and imaging factors not well characterized. The current study investigated determinants of hip range of motion (ROM) utilizing a large prospective multi-center FAI population which included comprehensive clinical factors and CT hip morphology. Methods: This is a prospective multicenter cohort of patients undergoing primary FAI surgery. Enrolled patients were aged 14-45 years with diagnoses of idiopathic FAI. Low-dose CT characterization of hip morphology and femoral version was utilized in all cases. Hip range of motion was assessed by the treating surgeon. Demographic and CT-morphologic findings were recorded to look for associations with IRF and prone internal rotation (pIR) using multivariable analysis. Unstandardized beta coefficients (uβ) were reported and p-values ≤0.05 were considered significant. Results: The study cohort included 435 hips with a mean age of 25.1±8.2 years and 55.4% being female. Mean IRF was 13.2 ± 9.7° with 85.5% and 49.4% being ≤20° and ≤10°, respectively. Mean pIR was 29.9 ± 11.6° with 69.0% and 27.1% being ≤30° and ≤20°, respectively. Factors associated with decreased IRF were lower femoral version (uβ:0.46, p<0.001), being male (uβ:-4.84, p<0.001), more acetabular coverage at 1:30 (uβ:-0.56, p<0.001), and larger alpha angles at 1:30 (uβ:-0.11, p=0.003). R2 was 0.424 which is better when compared to a femoral version only model which was 0.255. Factors associated with decreased pIR were decreased femoral version (uβ:0.37, p<0.001), being male (uβ:-3.82, p=0.001), larger alpha angles at 2:30 (uβ:-0.17, p<0.001), more acetabular coverage at 2:00 (uβ:-0.41, p=0.001), and higher BMI (uβ:-0.27, p=0.007). R2 was 0.261 which is better when compared to a femoral version only model which was 0.136. Conclusion: FAI causes restriction in range of motion of the hip, particularly IRF. The present study found that decreased IRF was associated with decreased femoral version, more acetabular coverage, higher alpha angles, and males.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".