MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414096952 · doi:10.3390/jcm14186376

Risk Factors for Iliopsoas Impingement Following Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4414096952 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marco Minelli, Vanesa Longobardi, A Monaco, Alessio D’Addona, Pierangelo Zà, Federico Della Rocca, Mattia Loppini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIliopsoasGroinHip arthroscopyRisk factorTotal hip arthroplastyCochrane LibraryArthroplastyObservational study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Iliopsoas impingement (IPI) is an increasingly recognized cause of persistent groin pain following total hip arthroplasty (THA), often resulting from mechanical conflict between the iliopsoas tendon and the anterior rim of the acetabular component. Despite its clinical relevance, risk factors contributing to IPI remain poorly defined. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies were eligible if they evaluated adult patients undergoing primary THA and reported at least one risk factor associated with IPI. Only studies with a clearly defined clinical diagnosis of IPI were included. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias in each study was assessed through the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Twelve observational studies met the inclusion criteria. Diagnosis of IPI was based on clinical symptoms of anterior groin pain exacerbated by hip flexion; 9 studies confirmed diagnosis with anesthetic injections. Key surgical risk factors included anterior cup prominence (ORs 1.16–35.20), oversized cups (cup-to-head ratio > 1.2, OR = 5.39, or ≥6 mm difference, OR = 26.00), decreased cup inclination, collared stem protrusion (OR = 13.89), and acetabular screw protrusion > 6.4 mm. Patient-specific risk factors included female sex (ORs 2.56, 2.79), higher BMI (OR = 1.07), younger age, previous hip arthroscopy (OR = 9.60) and spinal fusion (OR = 4.60). The anterolateral approach was also associated with higher IPI risk when compared to the posterior approach (OR = 4.20). Conclusions: IPI after THA is a multifactorial complication influenced by modifiable surgical variables and patient-specific anatomy. Careful preoperative planning, precise implant positioning, and attention to individual risk factors are essential to reduce IPI incidence and improve outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicOrthopaedic implants and arthroplastyFrench-language works237,207