THA-AID: Deep Learning Tool for Total Hip Arthroplasty Automatic Implant Detection With Uncertainty and Outlier Quantification.

BACKGROUND: Revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) requires preoperatively identifying in situ implants, a time-consuming and sometimes unachievable task. Although deep learning (DL) tools have been attempted to automate this process, existing approaches are limited by classifying few femoral and zero acetabular components, only classify on anterior-posterior (AP) radiographs, and do not report prediction uncertainty or flag outlier data. METHODS: This study introduces Total Hip Arhtroplasty Automated Implant Detector (THA-AID), a DL tool trained on 241,419 radiographs that identifies common designs of 20 femoral and 8 acetabular components from AP, lateral, or oblique views and reports prediction uncertainty using conformal prediction and outlier detection using a custom framework. We evaluated THA-AID using internal, external, and out-of-domain test sets and compared its performance with human experts. RESULTS: THA-AID achieved internal test set accuracies of 98.9% for both femoral and acetabular components with no significant differences based on radiographic view. The femoral classifier also achieved 97.0% accuracy on the external test set. Adding conformal prediction increased true label prediction by 0.1% for acetabular and 0.7 to 0.9% for femoral components. More than 99% of out-of-domain and >89% of in-domain outlier data were correctly identified by THA-AID. CONCLUSIONS: The THA-AID is an automated tool for implant identification from radiographs with exceptional performance on internal and external test sets and no decrement in performance based on radiographic view. Importantly, this is the first study in orthopedics to our knowledge including uncertainty quantification and outlier detection of a DL model.

Comparing Recurrence Rates and the Cost-Effectiveness of Arthroscopic Labral Repair and Nonoperative Management for Primary Anterior Shoulder Dislocations in Young Patients: A Decision-Analytic Markov Model-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Value-based decision-making regarding nonoperative management versus early surgical stabilization for first-time anterior shoulder instability (ASI) events remains understudied. PURPOSE: To perform (1) a systematic review of the current literature and (2) a Markov model-based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing an initial trial of nonoperative management to arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) for first-time ASI. STUDY DESIGN: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A Markov chain Monte Carlo probabilistic model was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of 1000 simulated patients (mean age, 20 years; range, 12-26 years) with first-time ASI undergoing nonoperative management versus ABR. Utility values, recurrence rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined based on the typical patient undergoing each treatment strategy at the authors' institution. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The Markov model with Monte Carlo microsimulation demonstrated mean (± standard deviation) 10-year costs for nonoperative management and ABR of $38,649 ± $10,521 and $43,052 ± $9352, respectively. Total QALYs acquired over the 10-year time horizon were 7.67 ± 0.43 and 8.44 ± 0.46 for nonoperative management and ABR, respectively. The ICER comparing ABR with nonoperative management was found to be just $5725/QALY, which falls substantially below the $50,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The mean numbers of recurrences were 2.55 ± 0.31 and 1.17 ± 0.18 for patients initially assigned to the nonoperative and ABR treatment groups, respectively. Of 1000 samples run over 1000 trials, ABR was the optimal strategy in 98.7% of cases, with nonoperative management the optimal strategy in 1.3% of cases. CONCLUSION: ABR reduces the risk for recurrent dislocations and is more cost-effective despite higher upfront costs when compared with nonoperative management for first-time ASI in the young patient. While all these factors are important to consider in surgical decision-making, ultimate treatment decisions should be made on an individual basis and occur through a shared decision-making process.