Advertisement

Author Reply to “Regarding ‘Midterm Outcomes Following Repair of Capsulotomy Versus Nonrepair in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement With Labral Repair’”

      We appreciate Dr. Reito’s comments on our recent publication. We apologize for the incorrect numbers in the manuscript. These numbers were for 2 failures in the repair group; however, as the final paper stated, we had 3 failures. We used Pearson’s chi square for our P value, which was .028, using SPSS, version 25. We updated the data and changed the odds ratio. The odds ratio should have been 4.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.1-19). We will submit a correction to Arthroscopy immediately. In addition, we agree that the statement “times more likely to” is a suboptimal statement; however, it is commonly used in the literature. In our future publications, we are now just stating the odds ratio instead of using it in a sentence regarding increased risk.
      As for the use of P values for statistical significance, for this study and many like it, we set .05 as our threshold for statistical significance. Although there are some looking to move this threshold, it is currently the most common used in the literature. We believe the results of total hip arthroplasty conversion in this study are robust. However, to supplement this, we also included measures of clinical improvement. We showed that the percentage of patients who reached minimal clinically important difference for the hip outcome score-activity of daily living and hip outcome score-sport was significantly higher in the repair group. As with all studies, we will leave it to the readers to interpret our findings and apply them to their practice.
      Thank you for catching our mistake and for your interest in our research.

      Supplementary Data

      Linked Article