Complications following hip arthroscopy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The use of hip arthroscopy to address injuries and conditions about the hip is becoming more widespread. There are several narrative reviews regarding complications of hip arthroscopy but a systematic review is currently lacking. The primary goal of this study is to determine the complication rate associated with hip arthroscopy in the literature. METHODS: A search of the EMBASE and Ovid Medline databases was performed to identify articles published between 1 January 2000 and 25 November 2011 that reported a complication rate after hip arthroscopy. Appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify articles, and a meta-analysis was performed to determine an overall complication rate. Complications were divided into major and minor. RESULTS: A total of 66 papers (n = 6,962 hip arthroscopies) were identified and deemed appropriate for analysis. The overall complication rate was found to be 4.0 % (95 % CI 2.9-5.2 %). Of the 287 complications identified in the literature, 20 were deemed major constituting a rate of 0.3 %. CONCLUSIONS: Hip arthroscopy appears to be safe. The vast majority of complications are minor in nature. Prospective trials looking at the complications of hip arthroscopy would aid in identifying prognostic factors. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis, Level III.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".