Trochanteric pain and total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most common surgical procedures. Although THA surgeries are typically very successful, between 3% and 17% of all patients experience trochanteric pain after surgery. There is little high-quality evidence on this disorder, especially after total hip arthroplasty. The purposes of this review were to describe the prevalence, treatments, prognosis, risk factors, and diagnostic methods available for trochanteric pain among preoperative or postoperative primary THA patients. Methods: The authors conducted a systematic review of trochanteric pain among THA patients. PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant articles. Two reviewers systematically screened studies and extracted data independently in duplicate. This study presents descriptive statistics and pooled prevalence of trochanteric pain. Results: We included 36 studies with 7826 patients (mean age of 62 yr, 59% female). The prevalence of trochanteric pain was reported in 25 studies, with a mean prevalence of 3.8% (95% CI 3.3% to 4.4%). Methods of treatment for trochanteric pain included corticosteroid injections, bursectomy, and iliotibial (IT) band lengthening. Risk factors for trochanteric pain were inconsistently reported, but those most commonly listed were female gender and postoperative leg-length discrepancy. Conclusions: Approximately one in 25 patients who has undergone standard THA experiences postoperative trochanteric pain. With low certainty, the results of this review suggest the surgical approach may not influence incidence of trochanteric pain. The heterogeneity in both diagnostic modalities reported and in treatment options suggests that further prospective research is required to better inform treatment decisions for this common condition. Level of Evidence: 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".