DEVELOPING A SUCCESSFUL PREHAB INTERVENTION FOR FEMOROACETABULAR IMPINGEMENT: INTEGRATING LITERATURE, INTERNATIONAL CONSENSUS, AND PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hip preservation surgery for the management of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome (FAIS) has grown in popularity in recent years. However, majority of patients do not achieve optimal outcomes due to various surgical and non-surgical factors. Although pre-operative interventions or Prehabilitation has been effective in improving outcomes in various Orthopaedic surgical procedures, its effectiveness in patients undergoing hip preservation surgery for FAIS is underexplored. PREHAB FAI is a feasibility study funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research UK to address this knowledge gap. However, in line with the MRC framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions, it was imperative to develop the intervention prior to testing its efficacy. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a novel prehabilitation intervention through a systematic and rigorous process for patients with FAIS undergoing hip preservation surgery. The novel prehabilitation intervention for FAIS was developed by synthesising the literature around the effectiveness of prehabilitation in Orthopaedic surgical procedures, an international expert panel consensus statement, Patient and Public Involvement and grading exercises based on muscle activity during a variety of hip exercises. The systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that prehabilitation was effective in improving several pre-operative and post-operative outcomes in patients undergoing Orthopaedic surgery. The international consensus panel identified and recommended 6 core domains to be targeted in the prehabilitation programme. The patient and public involvement group played a crucial role in shaping the study design, content, and creating an information leaflet on prehabilitation. The final prehabilitation program combined insights from these sources and a thorough review of literature on the various exercises and its impact on muscle activation. This prehabilitation programme was developed by undergoing a rigorous process and is supported by evidence, a consensus statement and involvement from a PPI panel. The PREHAB FAI study will assess the feasibility, suitability, acceptability and safety of this novel intervention in patients with FAIS undergoing hip preservation surgery.
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) | 0.000 | 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".