Patient-Perceived Outcomes Improve Faster Than Hip Strength in Recovery After Surgical Correction for Symptomatic Femoroacetabular Impingement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) have hip strength deficits, instability, and increased risk for concomitant injury. While surgical intervention is an effective method of treatment for FAI, more information is needed about the recovery process. Purposes: We sought to understand how patients with FAI recover from surgical correction in the short term. Do patients’ perceptions of improvement correspond with measured improvements in hip strength? Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 17 patients (11 male, age range: 16–38 years) who were diagnosed with symptomatic FAI at a single surgeon’s practice. Hip strength (flexion, extension, and abduction) was measured preoperatively and at 14, 26, and 52 weeks postoperatively. Patient-reported outcomes using the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and Hip Outcome Osteoarthritis Score (HOOS) subscales were measured at the same time points and at 2 weeks postoperatively. Results: Compared with preoperative values, there was a significant increase in postoperative values at 26 and 52 weeks in normalized isokinetic hip extension (29% and 38%, respectively) and normalized hip abduction (48% and 55%, respectively). No differences in strength were observed at 14 weeks. Modified Harris Hip Score and all HOOS subscales were decreased by 2 weeks postoperatively, and by 14 weeks mHHS improved by 21%, and HOOS subscales improved as well (activities of daily living by 18%, pain by 34%, quality of life by 69%, sport and recreation by 36%, and symptoms by 28%). Conclusion: We observed that patient-reported outcomes including symptoms, function, and satisfaction improved at 14 weeks, while objective measures of hip strength improved at 26 weeks following surgical correction of FAI. More rigorous study is indicated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".