PATIENTS WITH ASSOCIATED SPINE OR OTHER MAJOR JOINT PAIN HAVE EQUIVALENT OUTCOMES TO PATIENTS WITH ISOLATED HIP PAIN AFTER HIP ARTHROSCOPY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-operative outcomes following hip arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) can be assessed using a variety of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). It has recently been found that pain in other major joints, including the spine and knee, may negatively affect patient outcomes post-operatively. The objective of our study was to assess post-operative outcomes in patients treated arthroscopically for FAI and to determine whether presence of pain in other joints affects PRO scores pre- and post-operatively. Patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAI between 2016–2020 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed. Patients were included if they had available pre-operative pain diagrams. Patients were then grouped into Musculoskeletal Morbidity (MSM) grades (Grade 1: hip pain only; Grade 2: hip and other major joint pain; Grade 3: hip and spine pain; Grade 4: hip, spine, and other major joint pain). Patients were excluded if they had: a history of ipsilateral hip surgery; <2 mm of joint space; and if they underwent an additional surgery other than the contralateral leg within 6 months of primary surgery. Primary outcomes included pre- and post-operative International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33). One hundred-seventeen patients were evaluated with a mean age of 37.16 years at the time of the surgery. The mean duration of follow-up was 31.5 months. Patients with MSM Grade 4 had significantly lower (i.e. worse) iHOT-33 scores (21.54±13.38) than MSM Grade 1 patients (40.07±20.97) at the pre-operative time point (p=0.006). Interestingly, all patients improved post-operatively (MSM 1–3 p<0.001; MSM 4 p=0.005). While MSM grade 4 patients had lower post-operative iHOT-33 scores (54.88±30.26) compared to Grades 1–3 (68.95±25.78, 68.28±28.99, 68.01±30.50, respectively). Treatment of FAI with hip arthroscopy yields improved iHOT-33 scores and patients with associated spine or other major joint pain have equivalent outcomes to patients with isolated hip pain. Patients with hip, spine, and other major joint pain have inferior outcomes compared with patients with MSM grade 1–3.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".