Periacetabular osteotomy with or without hip arthroscopy in patients with borderline hip dysplasia: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The clinical impact of periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) in patients with borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) remains unclear. This systematic review aims to evaluate outcomes in patients with BHD undergoing PAO. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines by searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for English-language studies reporting clinical outcomes of PAO in BHD patients. Outcomes assessed included conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), return-to-sport (RTS) rates and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS), Subjective Hip Value (SHV), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12/SF-36), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12/iHOT-33) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores. RESULTS: Eleven studies (2 Level III, 9 Level IV) with 657 hips met inclusion criteria. The mean patient age was 26.9 years, and follow-up was 48.1 months. The average BMI was 23.3 kg/m², and 13.0% of patients were male. mHHS improved significantly in four studies (mean: 62.6-82.9). SF-12/SF-36 physical scores improved in three studies (37.8-47.6). Two studies each showed gains in iHOT and SHV scores. The reoperation rate was 9.5%, mostly for implant irritation. THA conversion occurred in 0.2%. One study reported a 92.5% return-to-sport rate, typically within 6 months. CONCLUSION: In patients with BHD undergoing PAO, there is consistent improvement in most PROMs along with a low rate of reoperation and conversion to THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III-IV studies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".