Three or More Revision Hip Arthroscopy Surgeries Is More Common in Female Patients and High‐Grade Acetabular Chondral Lesions Lead to Increased Risk of Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To characterize risk factors for patients who underwent multiple‐revision hip arthroscopies and report survivorship at a minimum 2 years after hip arthroscopy. Methods Patients aged 18‐65 years who underwent revision hip arthroscopy between January 2011 and September 2018 with ≥2‐year follow‐up were included. Exclusion criteria were age <18 or >65 years at time of surgery, center‐edge angle <20°, previous ipsilateral periacetabular osteotomy, or refusal to participate. Procedures were categorized as first (R1), second (R2), or third or more (R3+) revisions. Demographics, preoperative radiographic measurements, baseline patient‐reported outcomes (PROs), intraoperative findings, and survivorship were compared across groups and between those requiring further surgery or total hip arthroplasty (THA) and those who did not. Survivorship was defined as re‐revision and arthroplasty‐free survival. PROs included modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score – Activities Daily Living, HOS‐Sport, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Short Form Physical and Mental Component Scores (12‐Item Short Form Physical Component Score/Mental Component Score). Results A total of 284 hips (246 patients) met inclusion criteria, with mean follow‐up of 4.3 ± 2.1 years. Female sex (52% vs 63% vs 78%, P = .03), primary hip arthroscopy at an outside institution (62% vs 78% vs 96%, P < .001), smaller alpha angle (64° vs 56° vs 50°, P < .001), and worse baseline PROs (modified Harris Hip Score, Hip Outcome Score – Activities Daily Living, HOS‐Sport, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; P = .05, P = .01, P < .001, P = .01) were associated with more previous revisions. Failure incidence did not differ between groups ( P = .29), but the hazard ratio for further surgery or THA was greater for R3+ versus R1 (hazard ratio 2.4, 95% confidence interval 1.04‐5.38, P = .04). Conclusions At a minimum 2‐year follow‐up, more prior revisions were associated with female sex, lower baseline PROs, capsular deficiency, and greater failure risk. Patients with lower nondysplastic lateral center‐edge angles, severe acetabular cartilage damage, or ≥3 revisions had elevated risk for re‐revision or THA. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic case series.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".