ReviewInternational wound journal2024
Comparative analysis of hip arthroscopy and open surgical dislocation for treating femoroacetabular impingement.
Review in International wound journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative analysis of hip arthroscopy and open surgical dislocation for treating femoroacetabular impingement.International wound journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of hip arthroscopy group and open surgical dislocation group as treatments for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) in young athletes, specifically in relation to early hip osteoarthritis. A systematic search was conducted across four databases to identify controlled trials comparing hip arthroscopy and open surgical dislocation for FAI treatment. The selected studies (9 in total) underwent rigorous literature assessment and data analysis using Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3 software. The meta- analysis revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between hip arthroscopy group (the test group) and the open surgical dislocation group (the control group) concerning the improvement of the alpha angle (Standardized Mean Difference [SMD]: -5.54; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: - 12.45,1.38; p = 0.117), the Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) after a 12- month follow- up (SMD:0.94; 95% CI:- 2.87,4.75; p = 0.629) and the complication rate (OR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.26,1.65; p = 0.372). However, the meta- analysis revealed that the Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS) after a 12- month follow- up of the test group was significantly higher than that of the control group (SMD: 6.31; 95% CI: 0.53, 12.09; p = 0.032). In terms of the reoperation rate, it demonstrated a significantly lower rate in the test group compared to the control group (OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.82; p < 0.01). These findings suggest that hip arthroscopy may have better outcomes for patients with FAI, as it is associated with improvements in hip function and a lower reoperation rate. However, these conclusions should be validated by further high- quality studies.
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.