EP6.7 Diagnosis, Operative Management, and Clinical Outcomes of Adhesions Post Hip Arthroscopy – A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: To evaluate the current body of evidence surrounding the diagnosis, management, and clinical outcomes of adhesions developed following hip arthroscopy (HA). Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL was designed and conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Eligible studies consisted of patients with confirmed adhesions following HA, with one or more of the following reported: i) diagnostic procedures and criteria employed, ii) indications for and details surrounding surgical management, and iii) clinical outcomes following the operative management of adhesions (e.g., patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), etc.). Results: Nineteen studies involving a total of 4,145 patients (4,211 hips; 38% female) were included in this review. The quality of evidence was found to be fair for both comparative (mean = 17; range, 13-21) and non-comparative (mean = 10; range, 5-12) studies according to the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) instrument. Adhesions were often diagnosed intra-operatively at the time of revision surgery (n = 10/19; 53%), with only three studies specifying the criteria used to adjudicate adhesions. The most common indication for operative management (i.e., release or lysis of adhesions) was persistent pain (n = 9/19; 47%), but this was often grossly stated for revision HA, rather than being specific to adhesions. PROMs were the most reported post-operative outcomes (n = 9/19; 47%), and generally demonstrated significant improvement from pre-operative assessment across the short-term follow-up period (range, 24.5 to 38.1 months). There was a paucity of objective measures of clinical improvement (n = 3/19; 16%), and an absence of mid-to-long term follow-up (i.e., 5-7 years, and ≥10-years, respectively). Conclusion: Despite the growing body of evidence suggesting that adhesions are highly contributory to revision HA, there is ambiguity in the diagnostic approach and indications for operative management of adhesions, with no evidence surrounding mid-to-long term clinical outcomes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".