The trajectory of patient‐reported outcomes after hip preservation surgery: A National Registry Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Understanding the trajectory of postoperative patient-reported outcomes after hip preservation surgery is essential. This study aims to analyse patient-reported outcome trajectories up to 2 years post-surgery using the UK's national hip preservation registry and to examine the influence of potential confounders. METHODS: Patients who underwent hip arthroscopy or periacetabular osteotomy with preoperative International Hip Outcome Tool-12 (iHOT-12) scores and at least two follow-up measurements at 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years were included from the UK Non-Arthroplasty Hip Registry. iHOT-12 score trajectories were analysed, and Latent Growth Curve Modelling was used to identify predictors of these trajectories. RESULTS: Overall 9845 patients were included in this study. 7081 patients underwent a hip arthroscopy, and 1327 patients underwent a periacetabular osteotomy. For hip arthroscopy, there were significant improvements in the iHOT-12 scores from baseline to 6 months, but no significant change from 6 months to 1 year. However, there was a decrease in the minimal clinically important difference from 1 to 2 year. For periacetabular osteotomy, there were significant improvements in the iHOT-12 scores from baseline to 6 months, but no significant change from 6 months to 1 year, and from 1 to 2 years. Latent Growth Curve Modelling showed that body mass index (BMI) and sex had a significant impact on pre-operative iHOT-12 scores, while age and sex significantly influenced the recovery slope. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent hip preservation surgery exhibited significant improvement in iHOT-12 scores, surpassing the minimal clinically important difference at 6 months postoperatively. This improvement plateaued by 2 years, with a slight decline in scores between 1 and 2 years following hip arthroscopy, though the decrease remained within the clinically meaningful range. BMI, age and sex influenced score trajectories, highlighting the importance of setting patient expectations pre-operatively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The UK's Non-Arthroplasty Hip Registry https://www.nahr.co.uk/. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".