EP9.5 Evaluating Post–Hip Arthroscopy Testing Methods: Emphasizing VALD Force Platforms and Dynamometry Over Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (iHOT-12 and iHOT-33)

Clicks: 11
ID: 331182
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #210 of 444 articles by views in Journal of hip preservation surgery

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 444 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Objective Assessment using VALD force platforms and handheld dynamometry offers several important advantages over patient-reported outcome measures such as the iHOT-12 and iHOT-33 following hip arthroscopy. First, VALD systems provide quantifiable, performance-based data that are independent of patient perception. While PROMs capture subjective experiences like pain and quality of life, they are influenced by mood, expectations, and psychosocial factors. In contrast, force platforms and dynamometry deliver precise measurements of peak force, rate of force development, limb asymmetry, and load distribution. This enables clinicians to detect subtle functional deficits that may not yet be perceived by the patient but remain clinically relevant. Second, VALD testing allows for objective monitoring of recovery over time, particularly at key rehabilitation milestones such as 12 weeks and 6 months post-surgery. These time points are critical: around 12 weeks, patients typically transition toward higher-load strengthening and more dynamic tasks, while at 6 months, readiness for return to sport or higher-level activity is often evaluated. Using repeatable VALD metrics at these stages provides a clear, data-driven picture of progression, rather than relying solely on subjective reports or time-based protocols. Third, these tools support individualized rehabilitation planning. Patients with similar iHOT scores may demonstrate very different neuromuscular profiles. VALD assessments can identify specific deficits—such as reduced hip abductor strength, poor eccentric control, or inter-limb asymmetry—allowing clinicians to tailor interventions precisely to the patient’s needs. Additionally, VALD systems improve return-to-sport decision-making. PROMs often plateau before full physical recovery is achieved, which may create a misleading sense of readiness. Objective data from force plates and dynamometry help identify residual impairments that could increase the risk of re-injury or compensatory movement patterns. Establishing symmetry thresholds and performance benchmarks enhances the safety and accuracy of these decisions. Finally, VALD testing enhances communication and clinical transparency. Quantitative results can be easily visualized and shared with patients and the multidisciplinary team, improving understanding, motivation, and documentation. PROMs like iHOT-12 and iHOT-33 remain valuable for capturing the patient’s perspective. However, when assessing functional recovery after hip arthroscopy—especially at key checkpoints such as 12 weeks and 6 months—VALD platforms and dynamometry provide a more sensitive, objective, and actionable framework for clinical decision-making.
Reference Key
openalex_W7220411614 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Dominika Chruscielewska, Jacek Mazek
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Journal of hip preservation surgery
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jhps/hnag043.486
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnag043.486
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.