SynthesisThe American journal of sports medicine2025
Clinical Outcomes of Primary Versus Revision Hip Arthroscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The American journal of sports medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs the incidence of primary hip arthroscopic surgery has increased, the incidence of revision hip arthroscopic surgery has also increased. Although many factors have been reported that predict clinical failure of hip arthroscopic surgery, the outcomes of primary versus revision hip arthroscopic surgery are unknown. PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of primary versus revision hip arthroscopic surgery. STUDY
designSystematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 3.
methodsA search following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies were included if they compared the outcomes of primary versus revision hip arthroscopic surgery and had a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Data regarding study characteristics, patient characteristics, radiographic parameters, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse events were recorded. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model.
resultsThere were 11 studies included, with 6437 patients (56.1% female; mean age, 37.1 years) and 1151 patients (65.3% female; mean age, 35.2 years) undergoing primary and revision hip arthroscopic surgery, respectively. Preoperative and postoperative radiographic parameters were not clinically different between the primary and revision groups. Postoperative scores for the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale, modified Harris Hip Score, International Hip Outcome Tool-12, and Non-Arthritic Hip Score were significantly lower (all
conclusionPatients undergoing revision hip arthroscopic surgery were less likely to achieve clinically significant improvements in postoperative patient-reported outcomes and exhibited a higher risk of complications and conversion to total hip arthroplasty compared with patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopic surgery. These findings suggest that outcomes are optimized in the primary setting, and surgeons should appropriately counsel patients regarding expectations after revision hip arthroscopic surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.