Complications following hip arthroscopy: a retrospective review of the McMaster experience (2009–2012)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of hip arthroscopy has been steadily rising as technology, experience and surgical education continue to advance. Previous reports of the complication rate associated with hip arthroscopy have varied. The purpose of this study was to report our experience with hip arthroscopy complications at a single Canadian institution (McMaster University). METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of 2 hip arthroscopists at the same institution to identify patients who had undergone the index surgery and had been followed for a minimum of 6 months postoperatively. We used a standard data entry form to collect information on patient demographic and clinical characteristics, including age, sex, surgical indication and type of complication if any. RESULTS: A total of 211 patients underwent 236 hip arthroscopies. The mean age at time of surgery was 37 ± 13 years and mean follow-up was 394 ± 216.5 days. The overall complication rate associated with hip arthroscopy was 4.2% (95% confidence interval 2.3%-7.6%). We identified 4 major and 6 minor complications. CONCLUSION: Overall, hip arthroscopy appears to be safe, with minor complications occurring more frequently than major ones. However, surgeons should recognize the possibility of serious complications associated with this procedure. Future research should focus on prospective designs looking for potential prognostic factors associated with hip arthroscopy complications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".