Artificial intelligence in orthopaedics surgery: transforming technological innovation in patient care and surgical training.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is an exciting field combining computer science with robust data sets to facilitate problem-solving. It has the potential to transform education, practice and delivery of healthcare especially in orthopaedics. This review article outlines some of the already used AI pathways as well as recent technological advances in orthopaedics. Additionally, this article further explains how potentially these two entities could be combined in the future to improve surgical education, training and ultimately patient care and outcomes.

Clinical and radiological outcomes of robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Early lessons from the first 100 consecutive knees in 85 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is associated with improved component positioning and comparable short- and mid-term implant survivorship with manual UKA. This study aims to evaluate clinical and radiological outcomes following robotic-assisted UKA as well as any potential learning-curves associated with the introduction of such new technology. METHODS: Prospective study of patients undergoing robotic-assisted UKA. Outcome measures were patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee Society Score (KSS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS), complications, implant survivorship, component positioning and learning curve. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients comprising 100 knees were recruited and followed up for 21.0 ± 4.3 months. At two years, there were significant and sustained improvements in PROMs and 100% implant survivorship rate. A high degree of implant accuracy was achieved with the robotic system. A cumulative learning curve of 20 cases was noted. CONCLUSION: Robotic-assisted UKA achieves excellent implant accuracy and clinical outcomes in the short-term. Long-term follow up is needed to evaluate this relationship.

The three-year survivorship of robotically assisted versus non-robotically assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

AIM: There has been a significant reduction in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) procedures recorded in Australia. This follows several national joint registry studies documenting high UKA revision rates when compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). With the recent introduction of robotically assisted UKA procedures, it is hoped that outcomes improve. This study examines the cumulative revision rate of UKA procedures implanted with a newly introduced robotic system and compares the results to one of the best performing non-robotically assisted UKA prostheses, as well as all other non-robotically assisted UKA procedures. METHODS: Data from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR) for all UKA procedures performed for osteoarthritis (OA) between 2015 and 2018 were analyzed. Procedures using the Restoris MCK UKA prosthesis implanted using the Mako Robotic-Arm Assisted System were compared to non-robotically assisted Zimmer Unicompartmental High Flex Knee System (ZUK) UKA, a commonly used UKA with previously reported good outcomes and to all other non-robotically assisted UKA procedures using Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) and Kaplan-Meier estimates of survivorship. RESULTS: There was no difference in the rate of revision when the Mako-assisted Restoris UKA was compared to the ZUK UKA (zero to nine months: HR 1.14 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.83; p = 0.596) vs nine months and over: HR 0.66 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.02; p = 0.058)). The Mako-assisted Restoris had a significantly lower overall revision rate compared to the other types of non-robotically assisted procedures (HR 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 0.79); p < 0.001) at three years. Revision for aseptic loosening was lower for the Mako-assisted Restoris compared to all other non-robotically assisted UKA (entire period: HR 0.34 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.65); p = 0.001), but not the ZUK prosthesis. However, revision for infection was significantly higher for the Mako-assisted Restoris compared to the two comparator groups (ZUK: entire period: HR 2.91 (95% CI 1.22 to 6.98; p = 0.016); other non-robotically assisted UKA: zero to three months: HR 5.57 (95% CI 2.17 to 14.31; p < 0.001)). CONCLUSION: This study reports comparable short-term survivorship for the Mako robotically assisted UKA compared to the ZUK UKA and improved survivorship compared to all other non-robotic UKA. These results justify the continued use and investigation of this procedure. However, the higher rate of early revision for infection for robotically assisted UKA requires further investigation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):319-328.

Quantitative analysis of bacteria in forefoot surgery: a comparison of skin preparation techniques.

BACKGROUND: Currently a lack of consensus exists on the optimum solution and preparation methods needed to decrease bacteria present during forefoot surgery. We therefore compared the effect of povidine-iodine and chlorhexidine gluconate on lowering bacterial load and to study any additional benefits gained by pre-treatment with the use of a bristled brush. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients undergoing forefoot surgery were recruited into the study and randomized to receive one of two surgical skin preparations (Povidine-iodine 1% with isopropyl alcohol 23% or Chlorhexidine gluconate 0.5% with isopropyl alcohol 70%). In addition to the skin preparation of the foot with the randomized solution, the subjects other foot was also scrubbed with a sterile surgical bristled brush for three minutes and then painted with the same solution. Swabs were taken from three sites and analyzed via qualitative and quantitative analysis before and after prepping. RESULTS: All four preparation methods significantly decreased (p < 0.001), in all three sites, the number of colony forming units. Using two-way analysis of variance, no significant interaction was observed between preparation method and number of colony-forming units, suggesting that no difference in bacterial inhibition between preparation methods. CONCLUSION: We suggest that either povidone-iodine with no more that 23% isopropyl alcohol or chlorhexidine gluconate with 70% isopropyl alcohol be used for surgical preparation in forefoot surgery. No additional benefit in reduction in bacterial load was gained by scrubbing the foot with bristles prior to painting.