MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415570934 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.11.010

HIGH RATES OF PUDENDAL NERVE PALSY AND SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION FOLLOWING TABLE TRACTION DURING HIP ARTHROSCOPY WITH A PERINEAL POST: PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF A PROSPECTIVE COHORT

2025· article· en· W4415570934 on OpenAlexaff
Graeme Hoit, Jas Chahal, Tim Dwyer, Shgufta Docter, James Farag, Timothy A. Burkhart, Daniel B. Whelan

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProspective cohort studySupine positionSexual dysfunctionCohortSexual functionIncidence (geometry)ComplicationHip arthroscopyCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pudendal nerve palsy (PNP) is a poorly characterized but common postoperative complication of hip arthroscopy (HA) with a perineal post that can result in external genital numbness and sexual dysfunction in both men and women. Previous attempts to quantify the incidence of these symptoms have relied on patient-initiated reports, chart review, unvalidated questionnaires or have neglected the female experience all together – failures which likely underestimate the incidence of this complication. We aimed to describe the incidence of postoperative PNP, the breadth of symptoms patient experience and their duration, as well as establish the relationship between PNP and table traction. We utilized a multisurgeon prospective cohort of HA patients a single academic centre. All patients underwent primary unilateral hip arthroscopy, osteochondroplasty and labral repair in a supine position with a perineal post. Patients with pre-existing PNP symptoms, including sexual dysfunction, and those who were not sexually active were excluded. Intraoperative traction duration and force were recorded using a Tekscan sensor applied to the perineal post. A PNP screening questionnaire and standardized, validated sexual function questionnaires were administered confidentially to patients at 2-weeks, 6-weeks, 3-months and 6-months postoperatively. Patient reported hip function scores (iHOT-33) were completed preoperatively and at 6-months postoperatively. The initial 83 cohort patients with 6-month follow-up were included in this preliminary analysis. Thirty-six patients (43%) were female with a mean age of 37+14 years and BMI of 24+3kg/m2. The mean traction duration was 81+19 minutes. Sixty-three patients experienced symptoms consistent with PNP in the acute postoperative period (75%). The most common sensory symptom described was perineal numbness (n=62, 75%), followed by paresthesia (n=22, 27%). Thirteen men (28%) and thirteen women (36%) reported symptoms of sexual dysfunction postoperatively, in the form of erectile dysfunction (men) or reduced sexual lubrication/dyspareunia/anorgasmia (women). Of patients who experienced PNP symptoms (n=63), 20% had symptoms resolve by 2 weeks, 60% by 6 weeks, 86% by 3 months, and 98% by 6 months postoperatively. The one patient whose symptoms persisted beyond 6 months reported persistent erectile dysfunction. Persistence of PNP symptoms beyond 6 weeks was associated with lower iHOT33 scores at 6 months (mean difference: 18.4 [95%CI: 6.5–30.4], p=0.003). Analysis of the calibrated sensor data to establish the relationship between traction force, pressure and duration with PNP is pending. In this preliminary analysis of a planned 100 patient cohort, patients experienced a high rate of PNP and sexual dysfunction symptoms following HA with perineal post, far higher than previous reports. The vast majority of symptoms resolved within the first 3-months post-operatively. Anticipated results from the sensor data within this ongoing study are likely to provide insight into the relationship between traction force and/or duration and PNP incidence. A post-less HA setup could be considered as an alternative given the described morbidity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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 ProceedingsSame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207