Iliopsoas Release: A Systematic Review of Clinical Efficacy and Associated Complications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the findings of iliopsoas release as it relates to resolution of snapping, improvement of groin pain, and associated complications. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched, identifying all literature pertaining to surgical treatment of a snapping hip/coxa saltans, iliopsoas impingement, or iliopsoas tendinitis. A total of 818 studies were identified. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for eligibility. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All studies published in English that reported on iliopsoas release for snapping hip/coxa saltans, iliopsoas impingement, or iliopsoas tendinitis reporting outcomes or associated complications were eligible. RESULTS: A total of 48 articles were included in this review. Three surgical indications were identified for iliopsoas release, internal snapping hip, labral tear secondary to iliopsoas impingement, and iliopsoas tendinopathy after total hip arthroplasty. Arthroscopic techniques seemed to be superior to open techniques with regards to reoccurrence of snapping (5.1% vs 21.7%) and groin pain relief (89.1% vs 85.6%) with fewer complications (4.2% vs 21.1%) overall. CONCLUSIONS: Both open and arthroscopic iliopsoas releases have been shown to be successful treatment options regardless of the surgical indications identified in this review. Arthroscopic release demonstrated a decreased failure rate, fewer complications, and improved outcomes when compared with open procedures.
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 | 0.012 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".