ABSTRACT
Background: Variability in the bony morphology of pathologic hips/knees is a challenge in automating preoperative computed tomography (CT) scan measurements. With the increasing prevalence of CT for advanced preoperative planning, processing this data represents a critical bottleneck in presurgical planning, research, and development. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate a reproducible and scalable methodology for analyzing CT-based anatomy to process hip and knee anatomy for perioperative planning and execution. Methods: One hundred patients with preoperative CT scans undergoing total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis were processed. A two-step deep learning pipeline of classification and segmentation models was developed that identifies landmark images and then generates contour representations. We utilized an open-source computer vision library to compute measurements. Classification models were assessed by accuracy, precision, and recall. Segmentation models were evaluated using dice and mean Intersection over Union (IOU) metrics. Contour measurements were compared against manual measurements to validate posterior condylar axis angle, sulcus angle, trochlear groove-tibial tuberosity distance, acetabular anteversion, and femoral version. Results: Classifiers identified landmark images with accuracy of 0.91 and 0.88 for hip and knee models, respectively. Segmentation models demonstrated mean IOU scores above 0.95 with the highest dice coefficient of 0.957 [0.954-0.961] (UNet3+) and the highest mean IOU of 0.965 [0.961-0.969] (Attention U-Net). There were no statistically significant differences for the measurements taken automatically vs manually (P > 0.05). Average time for the pipeline to preprocess (48.65 +/- 4.41 sec), classify/retrieve landmark images (8.36 +/- 3.40 sec), segment images (<1 sec), and obtain measurements was 2.58 (+/- 1.92) minutes. Conclusions: A fully automated three-stage deep learning and computer vision-based pipeline of classification and segmentation models accurately localized, segmented, and measured landmark hip and knee images for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Incorporation of clinical parameters, like patient-reported outcome measures and instability risk, will be important considerations alongside anatomic parameters.
ABSTRACT
Background: As demand for total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty increases, more surgeons have pursued subspecialty training in adult reconstruction. However, little information is available regarding the practice environment in which these fellowship-trained surgeons practice. The purpose of this study was to describe the practice environments of contemporary adult reconstruction surgeons. Methods: A survey was developed and distributed to members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons from December 2022 to January 2023. Information was collected on surgeon demographics, practice setting, call requirements, and educational debt. Responses were recorded using frequencies and proportions. Results: A total of 886 of 2471 (36%) surgeons completed the survey, with 93% identifying as male and 81% as white. The primary surgical practice locations were: community hospital 53%, academic/tertiary hospital 24%, specialty orthopedic hospital 17%, and ambulatory surgery center 7%. Nearly half (49%) of the respondents practiced in orthopedic specialty groups, and 60% spent 50%-66% of their clinical time in the office. The majority of surgeons performed between 101-250 (20%) and 251-400 (31%) arthroplasty cases per year, though this varied considerably. Call was taken by 77% of surgeons, yet only 54% received compensation. Conclusions: The most common practice setting for adult reconstruction surgeons was in a community-based hospital as part of a large orthopedic specialty group. Despite the considerable variability in annual procedure volume, the majority of surgeons spent over half their clinical time in office and had call obligations with variable compensation models.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of modern hip arthroscopy on the natural history of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) with respect to joint preservation. PURPOSE: To (1) characterize the natural history of FAIS and (2) understand the effect of modern hip arthroscopy by radiographically comparing the hips of patients who underwent only unilateral primary hip arthroscopy with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2012, 619 consecutive patients were reviewed from the practice of a single fellowship-trained hip arthroscopic surgeon. Inclusion criteria were FAIS, bilateral radiographic findings of femoroacetabular impingement, primary unilateral hip arthroscopy (labral repair, femoroplasty, or capsular closure), and minimum 10-year follow-up. The preoperative and minimum 10-year postoperative radiographs of patients were evaluated at each time point. Both operative and nonoperative hips were graded using the Tönnis classification or the presence of hip arthroplasty by 2 independent reviewers. Subgroup analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 200 hips from 100 patients were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 12.0 years. Preoperatively, 98% and 99% of operative and nonoperative hips were evaluated as Tönnis grades 0 and 1, respectively; 5% of nonoperative hips had worse Tönnis grades than operative hips. The nonoperative hip advanced to a worse Tönnis grade in 48% (48/100) of cases compared with 28% (28/100) among operative hips. At follow-up, Tönnis grades between hips were equal in 70% (70/100) of the cases, the operative hip had a better grade 25% (25/100) of the time, and the nonoperative hip had a better grade 5% (5/100) of the time. Modern hip arthroscopy was associated with a relative risk reduction of 42% in osteoarthritis progression. Impingement with borderline dysplasia, age, preoperative Tönnis grade, and alpha angle >65° were key risk factors in the radiographic progression of osteoarthritis. CONCLUSION: Although the majority of patients (70%) undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAIS did not experience differences between operative and nonoperative hips in terms of the radiographic progression of osteoarthritis, the natural history may be favorably altered for 25% of patients whose Tönnis grade was better after undergoing arthroscopic correction. Modern hip arthroscopy indications and techniques represent a valid joint-preservation procedure conferring a relative risk reduction of 42% in the progression of osteoarthritis. Arthroscopy for mixed patterns of impingement and instability were the fastest to degenerate.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Femoracetabular Impingement , Osteoarthritis , Humans , Femoracetabular Impingement/diagnostic imaging , Femoracetabular Impingement/surgery , Femoracetabular Impingement/complications , Hip Joint/diagnostic imaging , Hip Joint/surgery , Follow-Up Studies , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/methods , Arthroscopy/methods , Cohort Studies , Treatment Outcome , Osteoarthritis/surgery , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Dissatisfaction after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) ranges from 15 to 30%. While patient selection may be partially responsible, morphological and reconstructive challenges may be determinants. Preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans for TKA planning allow us to evaluate the hip-knee-ankle axis and establish a baseline phenotypic distribution across anatomic parameters. The purpose of this cross-sectional analysis was to establish the distributions of 27 parameters in a pre-TKA cohort and perform threshold analysis to identify anatomic outliers. METHODS: There were 1,352 pre-TKA CTs that were processed. A 2-step deep learning pipeline of classification and segmentation models identified landmark images and then generated contour representations. We used an open-source computer vision library to compute measurements for 27 anatomic metrics along the hip-knee axis. Normative distribution plots were established, and thresholds for the 15th percentile at both extremes were calculated. Metrics falling outside the central 70th percentile were considered outlier indices. A threshold analysis of outlier indices against the proportion of the cohort was performed. RESULTS: Significant variation exists in pre-TKA anatomy across 27 normally distributed metrics. Threshold analysis revealed a sigmoid function with a critical point at 9 outlier indices, representing 31.2% of subjects as anatomic outliers. Metrics with the greatest variation related to deformity (tibiofemoral angle, medial proximal tibial angle, lateral distal femoral angle), bony size (tibial width, anteroposterior femoral size, femoral head size, medial femoral condyle size), intraoperative landmarks (posterior tibial slope, transepicondylar and posterior condylar axes), and neglected rotational considerations (acetabular and femoral version, femoral torsion). CONCLUSIONS: In the largest non-industry database of pre-TKA CTs using a fully automated 3-stage deep learning and computer vision-based pipeline, marked anatomic variation exists. In the pursuit of understanding the dissatisfaction rate after TKA, acknowledging that 31% of patients represent anatomic outliers may help us better achieve anatomically personalized TKA, with or without adjunctive technology.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Deep Learning , Knee Joint , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Humans , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/methods , Female , Male , Aged , Middle Aged , Cross-Sectional Studies , Knee Joint/diagnostic imaging , Knee Joint/surgery , Knee Joint/anatomy & histology , Hip Joint/diagnostic imaging , Hip Joint/surgery , Hip Joint/anatomy & histology , Ankle Joint/diagnostic imaging , Ankle Joint/surgery , Ankle Joint/anatomy & histology , Aged, 80 and overABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To (1) characterize the various forms of wearable sensor devices (WSDs) and (2) review the peer-reviewed literature of applied wearable technology within sports medicine. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and EMBASE databases, from inception through 2023, was conducted to identify eligible studies using WSDs within sports medicine. Data extraction was performed of study demographics and sensor specifications. Included studies were categorized by application: athletic training, rehabilitation, and research. RESULTS: In total, 43 studies met criteria for inclusion in this review. Forms of WSDs include pedometers, accelerometers, encoders (consisting of magnetometers and gyroscopes), force sensors, global positioning system trackers, and inertial measurement units. Outcome metrics include step counts; gait, limb motion, and angular positioning; foot and skin pressure; change of direction and inclination, including analysis of both body parts and athletes on a field; displacement and velocity of body segments and joints; heart rate; plethysmography; sport-specific kinematics; range of motion, symmetry, and alignment; head impact; sleep; throwing biomechanics; and kinetic and spatiotemporal running metrics. WSDs are used in athletic training to assess sport-specific biomechanics and workload with a goal of injury prevention and training optimization, as well as for rehabilitation monitoring and research such as for risk predicting and aiding diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: WSDs enable real-time monitoring of human performance across a variety of implementations and settings, allowing collection of metrics otherwise not achievable. WSDs are powerful tools with multiple applications within athletic training, patient rehabilitation, and orthopaedic and sports medicine research. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Wearable technology may represent the missing link to quantitatively addressing return to play and previous performance. WSDs are commercially available and portable adjuncts that allow clinicians, trainers, and individual athletes to monitor biomechanical parameters, workload, and recovery status to better contextualize personalized training, injury risk, and rehabilitation.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Post anesthesia care units (PACU) await return of motor function in lower extremities, prior to discharge for patients undergoing spinal anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of a newly utilized recovery protocol that facilitated early discharges of patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasties (THA/TKA) to the floor before full motor recovery from spinal anesthesia is achieved. METHODS: A total of 647 patients undergoing spinal anesthesia for primary THA (n = 190) and TKA (n = 457) were divided into 2 groups: (1) Early PACU discharge group: patients with partial or full motor blockade at discharge. (2) Control PACU discharge group: patients with full motor recovery at discharge. Readiness for discharge was assessed using a modified Aldrete Score system. The primary outcome was incidences of hypotension or rapid responses post-operatively. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the incidence of hypotension between the two groups (1.4 versus 1.39%, P = 1.0) and zero rapid responses were noted. Early discharge shortened mean PACU LOS time from 86.50 minutes to 70.27 minutes (P < .01). There was no difference in the incidence of nausea (0.55 versus 0%; P = .51) ordizziness (2.22 versus 0.35%; P = .09). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective observational study, we found that early PACU discharge did not result in an increase in hemodynamic consequences on the surgical floor. Thus, discharge from PACU can be safely and more expeditiously performed without waiting for return of motor function in patients receiving spinal anesthesia for THA/TKA using a modified Aldrete Score recovery protocol.
Subject(s)
Anesthesia, Spinal , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Hypotension , Humans , Anesthesia, Spinal/adverse effects , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/adverse effects , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/methods , Anesthesia Recovery Period , Patient Discharge , Length of StayABSTRACT
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) aims to simulate human intelligence using automated computer algorithms. There has been a rapid increase in research applying AI to various subspecialties of orthopedic surgery, including shoulder surgery. The purpose of this review is to assess the scope and validity of current clinical AI applications in shoulder surgery literature. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed for all articles published between January 1, 2010 and June 10, 2022. The search query used the terms as follows: (artificial intelligence OR machine learning OR deep learning) AND (shoulder OR shoulder surgery OR rotator cuff). All studies that examined AI application models in shoulder surgery were included and evaluated for model performance and validation (internal, external, or both). Results: A total of 45 studies were included in the final analysis. Eighteen studies involved shoulder arthroplasty, 13 rotator cuff, and 14 other areas. Studies applying AI to shoulder surgery primarily involved (1) automated imaging analysis including identifying rotator cuff tears and shoulder implants (2) risk prediction analyses including perioperative complications, functional outcomes, and patient satisfaction. Highest model performance area under the curve ranged from 0.681 (poor) to 1.00 (perfect). Only 2 studies reported external validation. Conclusion: Applications of AI in the field of shoulder surgery are expanding rapidly and offer patient-specific risk stratification for shared decision-making and process automation for resource preservation. However, model performance is modest and external validation remains to be demonstrated, suggesting increased scientific rigor is warranted prior to deploying AI-based clinical applications.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Software-infused services, from robot-assisted and wearable technologies to artificial intelligence (AI)-laden analytics, continue to augment clinical orthopaedics - namely hip and knee arthroplasty. Extended reality (XR) tools, which encompass augmented reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality technology, represent a new frontier for expanding surgical horizons to maximize technical education, expertise, and execution. The purpose of this review is to critically detail and evaluate the recent developments surrounding XR in the field of hip and knee arthroplasty and to address potential future applications as they relate to AI. METHODS: In this narrative review surrounding XR, we discuss (1) definitions, (2) techniques, (3) studies, (4) current applications, and (5) future directions. We highlight XR subsets (augmented reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality) as they relate to AI in the increasingly digitized ecosystem within hip and knee arthroplasty. RESULTS: A narrative review of the XR orthopaedic ecosystem with respect to XR developments is summarized with specific emphasis on hip and knee arthroplasty. The XR as a tool for education, preoperative planning, and surgical execution is discussed with future applications dependent upon AI to potentially obviate the need for robotic assistance and preoperative advanced imaging without sacrificing accuracy. CONCLUSION: In a field where exposure is critical to clinical success, XR represents a novel stand-alone software-infused service that optimizes technical education, execution, and expertise but necessitates integration with AI and previously validated software solutions to offer opportunities that improve surgical precision with or without the use of robotics and computed tomography-based imaging.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Robotics , Humans , Artificial Intelligence , SoftwareABSTRACT
Aims: The aims of the study were to report for a cohort aged younger than 40 years: 1) indications for HRA; 2) patient-reported outcomes in terms of the modified Harris Hip Score (HHS); 3) dislocation rate; and 4) revision rate. Methods: This retrospective analysis identified 267 hips from 224 patients who underwent an hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) from a single fellowship-trained surgeon using the direct lateral approach between 2007 and 2019. Inclusion criteria was minimum two-year follow-up, and age younger than 40 years. Patients were followed using a prospectively maintained institutional database. Results: A total of 217 hips (81%) were included for follow-up analysis at a mean of 3.8 years. Of the 23 females who underwent HRA, none were revised, and the median head size was 46 mm (compared to 50 mm for males). The most common indication for HRA was femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (n = 133), and avascular necrosis ( (n = 53). Mean postoperative HHS was 100 at two and five years. No dislocations occurred. A total of four hips (1.8%) required reoperation for resection of heterotopic ossification, removal of components for infection, and subsidence with loosening. The overall revision rate was 0.9%. Conclusion: For younger patients with higher functional expectations and increased lifetime risk for revision, HRA is an excellent bone preserving intervention carrying low complication rates, revision rates, and excellent patient outcomes without lifetime restrictions allowing these patients to return to activity and sport. Thus, in younger male patients with end-stage hip disease and higher demands, referral to a high-volume HRA surgeon should be considered.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite a growing understanding of spinopelvic biomechanics in total hip arthroplasty (THA), there is no validated approach for executing patient-specific acetabular component positioning. The purpose of this study was to (1) validate quantitative, patient-specific acetabular "safe zone" component positioning from spinopelvic parameters and (2) characterize differences between quantitative patient-specific acetabular targets and qualitative hip-spine classification targets. METHODS: From 2,457 consecutive primary THA patients, 22 (0.88%) underwent revision for instability. Spinopelvic parameters were measured prior to index THA. Acetabular position was measured following index and revision arthroplasty. Using a mathematical proof, we developed an open-source tool translating a surgeon-selected, preoperative standing acetabular target to a patient-specific safe zone intraoperative acetabular target. Difference between the patient-specific safe zone and the actual component position was compared before and after revision. Hip-spine classification targets were compared to patient-specific safe zone targets. RESULTS: Of the 22 who underwent revision, none dislocated at follow-up (4.6 [range, 1 to 6.9]). Patient-specific safe zone targets differed from prerevision acetabular component position by 9.1 ± 4.2° inclination/13.3 ± 6.7° version; after revision, the mean difference was 3.2 ± 3.0° inclination/5.3 ± 2.7° version. Differences between patient-specific safe zones and the median and extremes of recommended hip-spine classification targets were 2.2 ± 1.9° inclination/5.6 ± 3.7° version and 3.0 ± 2.3° inclination/7.9 ± 3.5° version, respectively. CONCLUSION: A mathematically derived, patient-specific approach accommodating spinopelvic biomechanics for acetabular component positioning was validated by approximating revised, now-stable hips within 5° version and 3° inclination. These patient-specific safe zones augment the hip-spine classification with prescriptive quantitative targets for nuanced preoperative planning.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Hip Prosthesis , Humans , Biomechanical Phenomena , Retrospective Studies , Acetabulum/surgeryABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Surgical management of complications following knee arthroplasty demands accurate and timely identification of implant manufacturer and model. Automated image processing using deep machine learning has been previously developed and internally validated; however, external validation is essential prior to scaling clinical implementation for generalizability. METHODS: We trained, validated, and externally tested a deep learning system to classify knee arthroplasty systems as one of the 9 models from 4 manufacturers derived from 4,724 original, retrospectively collected anteroposterior plain knee radiographs across 3 academic referral centers. From these radiographs, 3,568 were used for training, 412 for validation, and 744 for external testing. Augmentation was applied to the training set (n = 3,568,000) to increase model robustness. Performance was determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Implant identification processing speed was calculated. The training and testing sets were drawn from statistically different populations of implants (P < .001). RESULTS: After 1,000 training epochs by the deep learning system, the system discriminated 9 implant models with a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.989, accuracy of 97.4%, sensitivity of 89.2%, and specificity of 99.0% in the external testing dataset of 744 anteroposterior radiographs. The software classified implants at a mean speed of 0.02 seconds per image. CONCLUSION: An artificial intelligence-based software for identifying knee arthroplasty implants demonstrated excellent internal and external validation. Although continued surveillance is necessary with implant library expansion, this software represents a responsible and meaningful clinical application of artificial intelligence with immediate potential to globally scale and assist in preoperative planning prior to revision knee arthroplasty.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Artificial Intelligence , Humans , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/methods , Retrospective Studies , Radiography , Machine LearningABSTRACT
Background: There has been a rapid increase in research applying artificial intelligence (AI) to various subspecialties of orthopaedic surgery, including foot and ankle surgery. The purpose of this systematic review is to (1) characterize the topics and objectives of studies using AI in foot and ankle surgery, (2) evaluate the performance of their models, and (3) evaluate their validity (internal or external validation). Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases in December 2022. All studies that used AI or its subsets machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) in the setting of foot and ankle surgery relevant to orthopaedic surgeons were included. Studies were evaluated for their demographics, subject area, outcomes of interest, model(s) tested, model(s)' performance, and validity (internal or external). Results: A total of 31 studies met inclusion criteria: 14 studies investigated AI for image interpretation, 13 studies investigated AI for clinical predictions, and 4 studies were grouped as "other." Studies commonly explored AI for ankle fractures, calcaneus fractures, hallux valgus, Achilles tendon pathologies, plantar fasciitis, and sports injuries. For studies reporting the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), AUCs ranged from 0.64 (poor) to 0.99 (excellent). Two studies (6.45%) reported external validation. Conclusion: Applications of AI in the field of foot and ankle surgery are expanding, particularly for image interpretation and clinical predictions. Current model performances range from poor to excellent, and most studies lack external validation, demonstrating a need for further research prior to deploying AI-based clinical applications. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
ABSTRACT
Orthopaedic and sports medicine research surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) has dramatically risen over the last 4 years. Meaningful application and methodologic rigor in the scientific literature are critical to ensure appropriate use of AI. Common but critical errors for those engaging in AI-related research include failure to 1) ensure the question is important and previously unknown or unanswered; 2) establish that AI is necessary to answer the question; and 3) recognize model performance is more commonly a reflection of the data than the AI itself. We must take care to ensure we are not repackaging and internally validating registry data. Instead, we should be critically appraising our data-not the AI-based statistical technique. Without appropriate guardrails surrounding the use of artificial intelligence in Orthopaedic research, there is a risk of repackaging registry data and low-quality research in a recursive peer-reviewed loop.
Subject(s)
Artificial Intelligence , Orthopedics , Humans , Machine Learning , Peer ReviewABSTRACT
Background: Routine hip magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before arthroscopy for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) offers questionable clinical benefit, delays surgery, and wastes resources. Purpose: To assess the clinical utility of preoperative hip MRI for patients aged ≤40 years who were undergoing primary hip arthroscopy and who had a history, physical examination findings, and radiographs concordant with FAIS. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included were 1391 patients (mean age, 25.8 years; 63% female; mean body mass index, 25.6) who underwent hip arthroscopy between August 2015 and December 2021 by 1 of 4 fellowship-trained hip surgeons from 4 referral centers. Inclusion criteria were FAIS, primary surgery, and age ≤40 years. Exclusion criteria were MRI contraindication, reattempt of nonoperative management, and concomitant periacetabular osteotomy. Patients were stratified into those who were evaluated with preoperative MRI versus those without MRI. Those without MRI received an MRI before surgery without deviation from the established surgical plan. All preoperative MRI scans were compared with the office evaluation and intraoperative findings to assess agreement. Time from office to arthroscopy and/or MRI was recorded. MRI costs were calculated. Results: Of the study patients, 322 were not evaluated with MRI and 1069 were. MRI did not alter surgical or interoperative plans. Both groups had MRI findings demonstrating anterosuperior labral tears treated intraoperatively (99.8% repair, 0.2% debridement, and 0% reconstruction). Compared with patients who were evaluated with MRI and waited 63.0 ± 34.6 days, patients who were not evaluated with MRI underwent surgery 6.5 ± 18.7 days after preoperative MRI. MRI delayed surgery by 24.0 ± 5.3 days and cost a mean $2262 per patient. Conclusion: Preoperative MRI did not alter indications for primary hip arthroscopy in patients aged ≤40 years with a history, physical examination findings, and radiographs concordant with FAIS. Rather, MRI delayed surgery and wasted resources. Routine hip MRI acquisition for the younger population with primary FAIS with a typical presentation should be challenged.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The surgical management of complications after total hip arthroplasty (THA) necessitates accurate identification of the femoral implant manufacturer and model. Automated image processing using deep learning has been previously developed and internally validated; however, external validation is necessary prior to responsible application of artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies. METHODS: We trained, validated, and externally tested a deep learning system to classify femoral-sided THA implants as one of the 8 models from 2 manufacturers derived from 2,954 original, deidentified, retrospectively collected anteroposterior plain radiographs across 3 academic referral centers and 13 surgeons. From these radiographs, 2,117 were used for training, 249 for validation, and 588 for external testing. Augmentation was applied to the training set (n = 2,117,000) to increase model robustness. Performance was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Implant identification processing speed was calculated. RESULTS: The training and testing sets were drawn from statistically different populations of implants (P < .001). After 1,000 training epochs by the deep learning system, the system discriminated 8 implant models with a mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.991, accuracy of 97.9%, sensitivity of 88.6%, and specificity of 98.9% in the external testing dataset of 588 anteroposterior radiographs. The software classified implants at a mean speed of 0.02 seconds per image. CONCLUSION: An AI-based software demonstrated excellent internal and external validation. Although continued surveillance is necessary with implant library expansion, this software represents responsible and meaningful clinical application of AI with immediate potential to globally scale and assist in preoperative planning prior to revision THA.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Artificial Intelligence , Humans , Retrospective Studies , ROC Curve , ReoperationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Graft failure after osteochondral allograft transplantation (OCA) of the knee is a devastating outcome, often necessitating subsequent interventions. A comprehensive understanding of the risk factors for failure after OCA of the knee may provide enhanced prognostic data for the knee surgeon and facilitate more informed shared decision-making discussions before surgery. PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors associated with graft failure after OCA of the knee. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: The PubMed, Ovid/MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were queried in April 2021. Data pertaining to study characteristics and risk factors associated with failure after OCA were recorded. DerSimonian-Laird binary random-effects models were constructed to quantitatively evaluate the association between risk factors and graft failure by generating effect estimates in the form of odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs, while mean differences (MDs) were calculated for continuous data. Qualitative analysis was performed to describe risk factors that were variably reported. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies consisting of 1401 patients were included. The overall pooled prevalence of failure was 18.9% (range, 10%-46%). There were 44 risk factors identified, of which 9 were explored quantitatively. There was strong evidence to support that the presence of bipolar chondral defects (OR, 4.20 [95% CI, 1.17-15.08]; P = .028) and male sex (OR, 2.04 [95% CI, 1.17-3.55]; P = .012) were significant risk factors for failure after OCA. Older age (MD, 5.06 years [95% CI, 1.44-8.70]; P = .006) and greater body mass index (MD, 1.75 kg/m2 [95% CI, 0.48-3.03]; P = .007) at the time of surgery were also significant risk factors for failure after OCA. There was no statistically significant evidence to incontrovertibly support that concomitant procedures, chondral defect size, and defect location were associated with an increased risk of failure after OCA. CONCLUSION: Bipolar chondral defects, male sex, older age, and greater body mass index were significantly associated with an increased failure rate after OCA of the knee. No statistically significant evidence presently exists to support that chondral defect size and location or concomitant procedures are associated with an increased graft failure rate after OCA of the knee. Additional studies are needed to evaluate these associations.
Subject(s)
Cartilage Diseases , Cartilage , Humans , Male , Cartilage/transplantation , Follow-Up Studies , Reoperation , Bone Transplantation/methods , Knee Joint/surgery , Cartilage Diseases/epidemiology , Cartilage Diseases/etiology , Cartilage Diseases/surgery , Allografts/surgeryABSTRACT
Literature surrounding artificial intelligence (AI)-related applications for hip and knee arthroplasty has proliferated. However, meaningful advances that fundamentally transform the practice and delivery of joint arthroplasty are yet to be realized, despite the broad range of applications as we continue to search for meaningful and appropriate use of AI. AI literature in hip and knee arthroplasty between 2018 and 2021 regarding image-based analyses, value-based care, remote patient monitoring, and augmented reality was reviewed. Concerns surrounding meaningful use and appropriate methodological approaches of AI in joint arthroplasty research are summarized. Of the 233 AI-related orthopaedics articles published, 178 (76%) constituted original research, while the rest consisted of editorials or reviews. A total of 52% of original AI-related research concerns hip and knee arthroplasty (n = 92), and a narrative review is described. Three studies were externally validated. Pitfalls surrounding present-day research include conflating vernacular ("AI/machine learning"), repackaging limited registry data, prematurely releasing internally validated prediction models, appraising model architecture instead of inputted data, withholding code, and evaluating studies using antiquated regression-based guidelines. While AI has been applied to a variety of hip and knee arthroplasty applications with limited clinical impact, the future remains promising if the question is meaningful, the methodology is rigorous and transparent, the data are rich, and the model is externally validated. Simple checkpoints for meaningful AI adoption include ensuring applications focus on: administrative support over clinical evaluation and management; necessity of the advanced model; and the novelty of the question being answered.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1292-1303.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Augmented Reality , Orthopedics , Humans , Artificial Intelligence , Machine LearningABSTRACT
Applications of artificial intelligence, specifically machine learning, are becoming increasingly popular in Orthopaedic Surgery, and medicine as a whole. This growing interest is shared by data scientists and physicians alike. However, there is an asymmetry of understanding of the developmental process and potential applications of machine learning. As new technology will undoubtedly affect clinical practice in the coming years, it is important for physicians to understand how these processes work. The purpose of this paper is to provide clarity and a general framework for building and assessing machine learning models.
Subject(s)
Artificial Intelligence , Orthopedics , Humans , Machine LearningABSTRACT
There exists great hope and hype in the literature surrounding applications of artificial intelligence (AI) to orthopaedic surgery. Between 2018 and 2021, a total of 178 AI-related articles were published in orthopaedics. However, for every 2 original research papers that apply AI to orthopaedics, a commentary or review is published (30.3%). AI-related research in orthopaedics frequently fails to provide use cases that offer the uninitiated an opportunity to appraise the importance of AI by studying meaningful questions, evaluating unknown hypotheses, or analyzing quality data. The hype perpetuates a feed-forward cycle that relegates AI to a meaningless buzzword by rewarding those with nascent understanding and rudimentary technical knowhow into committing several basic errors: (1) inappropriately conflating vernacular ("AI/machine learning"), (2) repackaging registry data, (3) prematurely releasing internally validated algorithms, (4) overstating the "black box phenomenon" by failing to provide weighted analysis, (5) claiming to evaluate AI rather than the data itself, and (6) withholding full model architecture code. Relevant AI-specific guidelines are forthcoming, but forced application of the original Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis guidelines designed for regression analyses is irrelevant and misleading. To safeguard meaningful use, AI-related research efforts in orthopaedics should be (1) directed toward administrative support over clinical evaluation and management, (2) require the use of the advanced model, and (3) answer a question that was previously unknown, unanswered, or unquantifiable.