RF6.4 Prehabilitation for patients undergoing arthroscopic hip surgery for Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome- A randomised controlled feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim of the study To evaluate the feasibility, suitability, acceptability and safety of a prehabilitation programme for FAIS to inform a future definitive randomised control trial to assess effectiveness. Methods Patients on the waiting list for hip arthroscopy were recruited and randomly assigned to two groups: the Prehabilitation (intervention) group or the usual care (control) group. The intervention group attended an educational session to enhance knowledge, health behaviours, and manage patient expectations. They undertook an eight-week pre-operative exercise regimen targeting muscle strength, proprioception, range of motion, cardiovascular fitness, and addressing musculoskeletal issues. Both groups received standard post-operative care. The primary outcome measure was the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12). Data was collected at baseline (before prehabilitation), Pre-op (after prehabilitation pre-surgery), at 6 weeks +/- 4 weeks, and at 6 months +/- 4 weeks postoperatively (the planned primary endpoint for a future RCT). For the qualitative aspect, in-depth, face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with physiotherapists and focus groups with participants was used to assess the feasibility, acceptability, suitability, and safety of the prehabilitation intervention, guided by predetermined success criteria. Results Thirty-five patients were recruited and randomised, with 16 participants in the intervention group and 19 in the usual care group. The recruitment rate was 51.4% with 24 out of 35 patients completing the 6 months follow-up end point. Two participants (5.7%) withdrew from the study and 83.3% participant completed all outcome measures at the 6-month follow-up. 82% adherence to the prehabilitation programme were recorded. High rate of fidelity was observed in the delivery of the intervention with minimal deviation from trial protocol. Positive trends were noted on iHOT-12 favouring the intervention group at various follow-up time points. Both the participants and physiotherapists found the intervention and outcome measures suitable and acceptable with minimal episodes of flare-ups reported. The combination of face to face and virtual sessions and the use of application software was well received. Conclusions The results from this study denote that a full randomised control trial is feasible. This study is conducted within a tertiary NHS setting and therefore can be reproduced and applied in similar healthcare settings.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".