MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414537246 · doi:10.1177/2325967125s00195

Poster 92: Revision Hip Arthroscopic Remplissage using an Iliotibial Band Allograft for Cam Over-Resection Improves Patient Outcomes at 2-year and 5-year Follow-up

2025· article· en· W4414537246 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bradley M. Kruckeberg, Nicholas A. Felan, Grant J. Dornan, Alyson Speshock, Maximilian Hinz, Eddie K. Afetse, Marc J. Philippon

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWOMACOsteoarthritisHarris Hip ScoreHip surgeryHip arthroscopyPatient satisfaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Due to the expanding indications and increasing number of arthroscopic hip surgeries performed each year, there has been a subsequent increase in the number of revision hip arthroscopies. Cam over-resection can lead to the loss of the hip suction seal, resulting in instability and pain. After failure of non-operative treatment, hip remplissage can be utilized to fill the defect and restore the hip suction seal. There remains limited data in the literature regarding patient outcomes following hip remplissage. The purpose of this study was to evaluate minimum 2- and 5 -year patient-reported outcomes after arthroscopic hip remplissage with an iliotibial band (ITB) allograft for cam over-resection. Methods: Patients who underwent arthroscopic ITB hip remplissage from 2015 to 2022 were included in the study. Pre- and at short- (minimum 2 years) as well as at mid-term (minimum 5 years) follow-up, postoperative patient-reported outcomes, including the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF12) Physical Health Composite Score (PCS), SF12 Mental Health Composite Score (MCS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Hip Outcome Score (HOS) (Activities of Daily Living [ADL] and Sport), were compared. Results: Forty-six patients (sex: 57% female, age at the time of surgery: 36±11 years) were included at short-term follow-up (median 2.3 years (range, 2.0-7.0 years; 86% follow-up) (Table 1). Eleven of these patients (sex: 81.8% female, age at surgery: 42±10 years) were additionally followed up at mid-term (median 5.6 years [range, 5.0-7.2 years]). At short-term follow-up, SF-12 PCS, WOMAC pain, WOMAC function, WOMAC total, mHHS, HOS-ADL and HOS-Sport all statistically significantly improved post-operatively (Figure 1, Table 2). SF-12 MCS (P=0.06) and WOMAC stiffness (p=0.661) scores did not statistically significantly improve at short-term follow-up compared to preoperative scores. Four patients went on to revision hip arthroscopy (8.7%) and 2 patients converted to total hip arthroplasty (4.3%). In the mid-term follow-up analysis, similar patient-reported outcomes were identified. There was a significant improvement in all patient reported outcomes with the exception of SF-12 MCS (p=0.07) and WOMAC stiffness (p=0.34) (Table 3). No additional patients required revision hip arthroscopy and the two previously mentioned patients that converted to total hip arthroplasty were included in this cohort. Conclusions: Arthroscopic hip remplissage using an ITB allograft improves patient reported outcomes at short-term follow-up. Subgroup analysis at mid-term follow-up demonstrated that the clinical improvements are maintained without any additional conversions to total hip arthroplasty or need for revision hip arthroscopy. Remplissage is a reasonable and successful treatment for cam over-resection. Surgeons must remain diligent and careful to avoid cam over-resection in the primary and revision setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207