Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40196748›Full record

ReviewJournal of hip preservation surgery2024

Comparing outcomes of hip arthroscopy and periacetabular osteotomy for the treatment of borderline hip dysplasia: a systematic review.

Alexander B Alvero, Michael J Vogel, Joshua Wright-Chisem, Shane J Nho

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of hip preservation surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Levels of evidence.Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alexander B AlveroDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Section of Young Adult Hip Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Rush Medical College of Rush University, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W. Harrison St. Chicago, IL 60612, United States.
Michael J VogelDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Section of Young Adult Hip Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Rush Medical College of Rush University, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W. Harrison St. Chicago, IL 60612, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3151-1902
Joshua Wright-ChisemDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Section of Young Adult Hip Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Rush Medical College of Rush University, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W. Harrison St. Chicago, IL 60612, United States.
Shane J NhoDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Section of Young Adult Hip Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Rush Medical College of Rush University, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W. Harrison St. Chicago, IL 60612, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Hip arthroscopy (HA) and periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) are common hip preservation procedures pursued in borderline hip dysplasia (BHD), yet there is no consensus on the preferred treatment. This systematic review aims to synthesize the present literature on HA and PAO for the management of BHD. A review of multiple electronic databases was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All studies that reported outcomes of patients with BHD treated by PAO or HA with capsular closure were included. PROs, complications, and rates of subsequent surgery were evaluated. A total of 14 studies met criteria for inclusion. Eight reported outcomes following PAO and seven reported outcomes following HA. One study reported outcomes of both procedures. Both PAO and HA studies demonstrated significant improvement in PROs. Complication rates in PAO patients ranged from 0% to 7.8% compared to 0% in HA patients. Total hip arthroplasty (THO) conversion rates in PAO patients ranged from 0% to 10.5% compared to 0% to 23.7% in HA patients. Hardware removal was performed in 25-51% of PAO patients. PAO conversion following failed HA occurred in 0-6.1% of patients. Rates of other reoperation (excluding hardware removal) in PAO patients ranged from 0% to 22.2% compared to 0% to 7.9% in HA patients. Based on the current evidence, both PAO and HA demonstrate significant improvement in PROs with a low conversion rate to THA, yet additional long-term follow-up studies are required.

Identifiers

PMID40196748
PMCPMC11973426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.