Femoral neck fractures as a complication of hip arthroscopy: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to identify the causes and risk factors for hip fractures, a rare but devastating complication, following hip arthroscopy. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed were searched and screened in duplicate for relevant clinical and basic sciences studies and pertinent data was abstracted and analysed in Microsoft Excel. Nineteen studies (12 clinical studies and seven biomechanical studies) with a total of 31 392 patients experiencing 43 hip fractures (0.1% of patients) met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Femoral osteochondroplasty was performed in 100% of patients who sustained a hip fracture. Six of the 12 (50%) studies identified early weight bearing (prior to 6 weeks post-operatively) as the cause for the hip fracture. Other causes of this complication included over resection during femoral osteochondroplasty, minor trauma and intensive exercise. The results suggest that early weight bearing is the largest modifiable risk factor for hip fracture after femoral osteochondroplasty. For this reason, an extended period of non-weight bearing or restricted weight bearing should be considered in select patients. Studies report a correlation between risk for post-operative hip fracture and increased age. Increased resection during osteochondroplasty has been correlated with increased risk of fracture in various basic science studies. Resection depth has significantly higher impact on risk of fracture than resection length or width. The reported amounts of resection that depth that can be performed before there is a significantly increased risk of fracture of the femoral neck varies from 10 to 30%.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".