ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2020
Approach to a Failed Hip Arthroscopy.
Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Painless Rehabilitation Nursing for Hip Replacement Patients.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Trial
- Revision hip arthroscopy: Current concepts and considerations in diagnosis, evaluation, and management.Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013) · 2026Review
- Sex-Based Differences in Hip Arthroscopic Findings, Management, and Outcomes: A Systematic Review.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Review
- Pre-Operative MRA Accurately Predicts Capsulolabral Adhesions at Revision Hip Arthroscopy.The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2025Article
- Criteria-Based Rehabilitation Following Revision Hip Arthroscopy: A Clinical Commentary.International journal of sports physical therapy · 2023Article
- Revision Hip Arthroscopy for Graft Retear and Residual Cam Lesion in a Previously Labral Reconstructed Hip.Arthroscopy techniques · 2022Article
- Revision Hip Arthroscopy in the Native Hip: A Review of Contemporary Evaluation and Treatment Options.Frontiers in surgery · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewHip arthroscopy has seen increasing utilization over the last decade. This is largely related to increased recognition and improved techniques for treating femoroacetabilar impingement (FAI). Though hip arthroscopy generally yields favorable outcomes, there are a subset of patients who have residual or recurrent symptoms that require reoperation. The current review discusses an algorithmic approach to evaluating patients following a failed hip arthroscopy including a framework for clinical and radiographic assessment, available treatment options, and associated outcomes in revision surgery. RECENT
findingsResidual FAI has been demonstrated to be the most common indication for revision arthroscopy. Other indications include residual or recurrent labral pathology, gross instability, microinstability, or adhesions. Appropriate history and imaging are important to determine the cause for residual symptoms. Novel techniques including labral and capsular reconstruction, and modified remplissage procedures have been developed to deal with complex revision cases. Though studies have shown improved outcomes after revision surgery, they have been shown to result in inferior outcomes compared to a matched cohort following primary hip arthroscopy. Management of a failed hip arthroscopy remains a complex problem. Focused history, cross-sectional imaging, and revision hip arthroscopy with novel techniques can improve outcomes, albeit to a lesser extent than patients undergoing successful primary hip arthroscopy. The information provided here can help guide treatment and set appropriate patient expectations for revision surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.