Despite the vast quantities of published artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that target trauma and orthopaedic applications, very few progress to inform clinical practice. One key reason for this is the lack of a clear pathway from development to deployment. In order to assist with this process, we have developed the Clinical Practice Integration of Artificial Intelligence (CPI-AI) framework – a five-stage approach to the clinical practice adoption of AI in the setting of trauma and orthopaedics, based on the IDEAL principles (https://www.ideal-collaboration.net/). Adherence to the framework would provide a robust evidence-based mechanism for developing trust in AI applications, where the underlying algorithms are unlikely to be fully understood by clinical teams.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(9):507–512.

To examine whether Natural Language Processing (NLP) using a state-of-the-art clinically based Large Language Model (LLM) could predict patient selection for Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA), across a range of routinely available clinical text sources.

Data pre-processing and analyses were conducted according to the Ai to Revolutionise the patient Care pathway in Hip and Knee arthroplasty (ARCHERY) project protocol (https://www.researchprotocols.org/2022/5/e37092/). Three types of deidentified Scottish regional clinical free text data were assessed: Referral letters, radiology reports and clinic letters. NLP algorithms were based on the GatorTron model, a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) based LLM trained on 82 billion words of de-identified clinical text. Three specific inference tasks were performed: assessment of the base GatorTron model, assessment after model-fine tuning, and external validation.

There were 3911, 1621 and 1503 patient text documents included from the sources of referral letters, radiology reports and clinic letters respectively. All letter sources displayed significant class imbalance, with only 15.8%, 24.9%, and 5.9% of patients linked to the respective text source documentation having undergone surgery. Untrained model performance was poor, with F1 scores (harmonic mean of precision and recall) of 0.02, 0.38 and 0.09 respectively. This did however improve with model training, with mean scores (range) of 0.39 (0.31–0.47), 0.57 (0.48–0.63) and 0.32 (0.28–0.39) across the 5 folds of cross-validation. Performance deteriorated on external validation across all three groups but remained highest for the radiology report cohort.

Even with further training on a large cohort of routinely collected free-text data a clinical LLM fails to adequately perform clinical inference in NLP tasks regarding identification of those selected to undergo THA. This likely relates to the complexity and heterogeneity of free-text information and the way that patients are determined to be surgical candidates.

Given the prolonged waits for hip arthroplasty seen across the U.K. it is important that we optimise priority systems to account for potential disparities in patient circumstances and impact. We set out to achieve this through a two-stage approach. This included a Delphi-study of patient and surgeon preferences to determine what should be considered when determining patient priority, followed by a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to decide relative weighting of included attributes.

The study was conducted according to the published protocol ([https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071](https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071)). The Delphi study was performed online over 3 rounds with anonymous ranking and feedback. Included factors were voted as either Consensus in, Consensus out, or No Consensus• following an established scoring criterion. A final consensus meeting determined the prioritisation factors (and their levels) to be included in the DCE. The DCE was then conducted using an online platform, with surgeons performing 18 choice sets regarding which merited greater priority between two hypothetical patients. Results were collated and analysed using multinomial logit regression analysis (MNL).

For the Delphi study there were 43 responses in the first round, with a subsequent 91% participation rate. Final consensus inclusion was achieved for Pain; Mobility/Function; Activities of Daily Living; Inability to Work/Care; Length of Time Waited; Radiological Severity and Mental Wellbeing. 70 individuals subsequently contributed to the DCE, with radiological severity being the most significant factor (Coefficient 2.27 \[SD 0.31\], p<0.001), followed by pain (Coefficient 1.08 \[SD 0.13\], p<0.001) and time waited (Coefficient for 1-month additional wait 0.12 \[SD 0.02\], p<0.001). The calculated trade-off in waiting time for a 1-level change in pain (e.g., moderate to severe pain) was 9.14 months.

These results present a new method of determining comparative priority for those on primary hip arthroplasty waiting lists. Evaluation of potential implementation in clinical practice is now required.

Aims

This study aimed to determine whether lateral femoral wall thickness (LWT) < 20.5 mm was associated with increased revision risk of intertrochanteric fracture (ITF) of the hip following sliding hip screw (SHS) fixation when the medial calcar was intact. Additionally, the study assessed the association between LWT and patient mortality.

Periprosthetic femur fracture (PPF) are heterogeneous, complex, and thought to be increasingly prevalent. The aims were to evaluate PPF prevalence, casemix, management, and outcomes.

This nationwide study included all PPF patients aged >50 years from 16 Scottish hospitals in 2019. Variables included: demographics; implant and fracture factors; management factors, and outcomes.

There were 332 patients, mean age 79.5 years, and 220/332 (66.3%) were female. One-third (37.3%) were ASA1-2 and two-thirds (62.3%) were ASA3+, 91.0% were from home/sheltered housing, and median Clinical Frailty Score was 4.0 (IQR 3.0). Acute medical issues featured in 87/332 (26.2%) and 19/332 (5.7%) had associated injuries. There were 251/332 (75.6%) associated with a proximal femoral implant, of which 232/251 (92.4%) were arthroplasty devices (194/251 [77.3%] total hip, 35/251 [13.9%] hemiarthroplasty, 3/251 [1.2%] resurfacing). There were 81/332 (24.4%) associated with a distal femoral implant (76/81 [93.8%] were total knee arthroplasties). In 38/332 (11.4%) there were implants proximally and distally. Most patients (268/332; 80.7%) were treated surgically, with 174/268 (64.9%) requiring fixation only and 104/268 (38.8%) requiring an arthroplasty or combined solution. Median time to theatre was longer for arthroplasty versus fixation procedures (120 vs 46 hours), and those requiring inter-hospital transfer waited longer (94 vs 48 hours).

Barriers to investigating PPF include varied classification, coding challenges, and limitations of existing registries. This is the first study to examine a national PPF cohort and presents important data to guide service design and research. Additional findings relating to fracture patterns, implant types, surgeon skill-mix, and outcomes are reported herein.

Aims

The principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) are the foundation of modern medical practice. Surgeons are familiar with the commonly used statistical techniques to test hypotheses, summarize findings, and provide answers within a specified range of probability. Based on this knowledge, they are able to critically evaluate research before deciding whether or not to adopt the findings into practice. Recently, there has been an increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze information and derive findings in orthopaedic research. These techniques use a set of statistical tools that are increasingly complex and may be unfamiliar to the orthopaedic surgeon. It is unclear if this shift towards less familiar techniques is widely accepted in the orthopaedic community. This study aimed to provide an exploration of understanding and acceptance of AI use in research among orthopaedic surgeons.

Hip fracture represents a significant challenge, placing increasing pressure on health and social care services in Scotland. This study establishes the ‘historic’ hip fracture burden, namely, the annual number of hip fractures in Scotland, and respective incidence, between 2017 – 2021. Furthermore, the ‘projected’ hip fracture burden and incidence from 2022 – 2029 was estimated, to inform future capacity and funding of health and social care services.

The number of individuals with a hip fracture in Scotland between 2017 and 2021 was identified through the Scottish Hip Fracture Audit, enabling the annual number of hip fractures and respective incidence between 2017 – 2021 to be calculated. Projection modelling was performed using Exponential Smoothing and Auto Regressive Integrated Moving Average to estimate the number of hip fractures occurring annually from 2022 – 2029. A combined average projection was employed to provide a more accurate forecast. Accounting for predicted changes within the population demographics of Scotland, the projected hip fracture incidence up to 2029 was calculated.

Between 2017 and 2021 the annual number of hip fractures in Scotland increased from 6675 to 7797 (15%), with an increase in incidence from 313 to 350 per 100,000 (11%) of the at-risk population. Hip fracture was observed to increase across all groups, notably males, and the 70–79 and 80–89 age cohorts. By 2029, the combined average projection estimated the annual number of hip fractures at 10311, with an incidence rate of 463 per 100,000, representing a 32% increase from 2021. The largest percentage increase in hip fracture by 2029 occurs in the 70–79 and 80–89 age cohorts (57% and 53% respectively). Based upon these projections, overall length of hospital stay following hip fracture will increase by 60699 days per annum by 2029, incurring an additional cost of at least £25 million.

Projection modelling demonstrates the annual number of hip fractures in Scotland will increase substantially by 2029, with significant implications for health and social care services. This increase in hip fracture burden and incidence is influenced strongly by changing population demographics, primarily an ageing population.

Appropriate surgical management of hip fractures has major clinical and economic consequences. Recently IMN use has increased compared to SHS constructs, despite no clear evidence demonstrating superiority of outcome. We therefore set out to provide further evidence about the clinical and economic implications of implant choice when considering hip fracture fixation strategies.

A retrospective cohort study using Scottish hip fracture audit (SHFA) data was performed for the period 2016–2022. Patients ≥50 with a hip fracture and treated with IMN or SHS constructs at Scottish Hospitals were included. Comparative analyses, including adjustment for confounders, were performed utilising Multivariable logistic regression for dichotomous outcomes and Mann-Whitney-U tests for non-parametric data. A sub-group analysis was also performed focusing on AO-A1/A2 configurations which utilised additional regional data. Cost differences in Length of Stay (LOS) were calculated using defined costs from the NHS Scotland Costs book. In all analyses p<0.05 denoted significance.

13638 records were included (72% female). 9867 received a SHS (72%).

No significant differences were identified in 30 or 60-day survival (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.05, 95%CI 0.90–1.23; p=0.532), (OR 1.10, 95%CI 0.97–1.24; p=0.138) between SHS and IMN's.

There was however a significantly lower early mobilisation rate with IMN vs SHS (OR 0.64, 95%CI 0.59–0.70; p<0.001), and lower likelihood of discharge to domicile by day-30 post-admission (OR 0.77, 95%CI 0.71–0.84; p<0.001). Acute and overall, LOS were significantly lower for SHS vs IMN (11 vs 12 days and 20 vs 24 days respectively; p<0.001). Findings were similar across a sub-group analysis of 559 AO A1/A2 fracture configurations.

Differences in LOS potentially increases costs by £1230 per-patient, irrespective of the higher costs of IMN's v SHS.

Appropriate SHS use is associated with early mobilisation, reduced LOS and likely with reduced cost of treatment. Further research exploring potential reasons for the identified differences in early mobilisation are warranted.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(4):256–258.

The hip fracture burden on health and social care services in Scotland is anticipated to increase significantly, primarily driven by an ageing population. This study forecasts future hip fracture incidence and the annual number of hip fractures in Scotland until 2029.

The monthly number of patients with hip fracture aged ≥ 50 admitted to a Scottish hospital between 01/01/2017 and 31/12/2021 was identified through data collected by the Scottish Hip Fracture Audit. This data was analysed using Exponential Smoothing and Auto Regressive Integrated Moving Average forecast modelling to project future hip fracture incidence and the annual number of hip fractures until 2029. Adjustments for population change were accounted for by integrating population projections published by National Records of Scotland.

Between 2017 and 2021 the annual number of hip fractures in Scotland increased from 6675 to 7797, with a respective increase in hip fracture incidence from 313 to 350 per 100,000. By 2029, the averaged projected annual number of hip fractures is 10311, with an incidence rate of 463 per 100,000. The largest percentage increase in hip fracture occurs in the 70-79 age group (57%), with comparable increases in both sexes (30%). Based upon these projections, overall length of stay following hip fracture will increase from 142713 bed days per annum in 2021, to 203412 by 2029, incurring an additional cost of over £25 million.

Forecast modelling demonstrates that the annual number of hip fractures in Scotland will rise substantially by 2029, with considerable implications for health and social care services.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(12):890–892.

Aims

The extended wait that most patients are now experiencing for hip and knee arthroplasty has raised questions about whether reliance on waiting time as the primary driver for prioritization is ethical, and if other additional factors should be included in determining surgical priority. Our Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY (PATHWAY) project will explore which perioperative factors are important to consider when prioritizing those on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty, and how these factors should be weighted. The final product will include a weighted benefit score that can be used to aid in surgical prioritization for those awaiting elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty.

One potential approach to addressing the current hip and knee arthroplasty backlog is via adoption of surgical prioritisation methods, such as use of pre-operative health related quality of life (HRQOL) assessment. We set out to determine whether dichotomization using a previously identified bimodal EuroQol Five-Dimension (EQ-5D) distribution could be used to triage waiting lists.

516 patients had data collected regarding demographics, perioperative variables and patient reported outcome measures (pre-operative & 1-year post-operative EQ-5D-3L and Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS/OKS). Patients were split into two equal groups based on pre-operative EQ-5D Time Trade-Off (TTO) scores and compared (Group1 [worse HRQOL] = −0.239 to 0.487; Group2 [better HRQOL] = 0.516 to 1 (best)). The EQ5D TTO is a widely used and validated HRQOL measure that generates single values for different combinations of health-states based upon how individuals compare x years of healthy living to x years of illness.

We identified that those in Group1 had significantly greater improvement in post-operative EQ-5D TTO scores compared to Group2 (Median 0.67vs.0.19; p<0.0001 respectively), as well as greater improvement in OHS/OKS (Mean 22.4vs16.4; p<0.0001 respectively). Those in Group2 were significantly less likely to achieve EQ-5D MCID attainment (OR 0.13, 95%CI 0.07–0.23; p<0.0001) with a trend towards lower OHS/OKS MCID attainment (OR 0.66, 95%CI 0.37–1.19; p=0.168). There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events.

These finding suggest that a pre-operative EQ-5D cut-off of ≤0.487 for hip and knee arthroplasty prioritisation may help to maximise clinical utility and cost-effectiveness in a limited resource setting post COVID-19.

The rising prevalence of osteoarthritis, associated with an ageing population, is expected to deliver increasing demand across Scotland for arthroplasty services in the future. Understanding the scale of potential change to operative workflow is essential to ensure adequate provision of services and prevent prolonged waiting times that can cause patient harm. This future service demand for primary and revision hip arthroplasty across Scotland, and the rest of the U.K., is hitherto unknown.

We set out to provide projections of future primary & revision hip arthroplasty out to 2038 utilising historical trend data (2008–2018) from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project. All analyses were performed using the Holt's exponential smoothing projection method with the forecast package in R statistics. Results were adjusted for projected future population estimates provided by National Records of Scotland. Independent age & sex group predictions were also performed. All results are presented per 100,000 population at-risk per year (/100k/year).

The predicted rise of primary hip arthroplasty for all ages is from 120/100k/year in 2018 to 152/100k/year in 2038, a 27% increase. Based on a static 3 day length of stay average this would see 4280 additional patient bed days required for primary hip arthroplasty patients per annum. The number of revision hip arthroplasty procedures for all ages is projected to fall from 14/100k/year to 4/100k/year based on historical trend data. This does not however take into account the suspect increase in primary arthroplasty numbers that is likely to influence future revision rates.

Anticipated future demand for primary hip arthroplasty will require significant additional resource and funding to prevent deterioration in quality of care and an increase in patient wait times. Demand for revision arthroplasty is set to decrease, likely on account of improved implant materials, technique, and understanding of best practice to minimise complication risk. This doesn't however take into account the impact of the complex interaction between an increasing primary arthroplasty rate and revision risk. Understanding presented projections of changes to arthroplasty demand is key to future service delivery.

The rising prevalence of osteoarthritis, associated with an ageing population, is expected to deliver increasing demand across Scotland for primary hip and knee arthroplasty in the future.

Understanding the scale of potential change to operative workflow is essential to ensure adequate provision of services, and prevent prolonged waiting times that can cause patient harm.

We therefore set out to provide projections of future primary hip and knee arthroplasty out to 2038 utilising historical trend data (2008–2018) from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project. All analyses were performed using the Holt's exponential smoothing projection method with the forecast package in R statistics. Results were adjusted for projected future population estimates provided by National Records of Scotland. Independent age & sex group predictions were also performed. All results are presented per 100,000 population at-risk per year (/100k/year).

The predicted rise of primary hip arthroplasty for all ages is from 120/100k/year in 2018 to 152/100k/year in 2038, a 27% increase. The predicted rise of primary knee arthroplasty for all ages is from 164/100k/year in 2018 to 220/100k/year in 2038, a 34% increase. Based on a static 3 day length of stay average this would see 4280 additional patient bed days for hips, and 7392 for knees, required nationally per year by 2038. The associated supplementary cost to the NHS is anticipated to be around £21 million per annum.

Knowledge of increasing resource utilisation and cost associated with predicted future demand for primary hip and knee arthroplasty provides key information for service organisation and delivery.

The aims were: (1) assess the influence of COVID-19 on mortality in hip fracture; (2) identify predictors of COVID-19 status, and (3) investigate whether social lockdown influenced the epidemiology of hip fracture.

A multicentre retrospective study was conducted of all patients presenting to six hospitals with hip fracture over a 46-day period (23 days pre-/post-lockdown). Demographics, residence, place of injury, presentation blood tests, Nottingham Hip Fracture Score, time to surgery, operation, ASA grade, anaesthetic, length of stay, COVID-19 status, and 30-day mortality were recorded.

Of 317 patients with hip fracture 27 (8.5%) had a positive COVID-19 test; only 7 (26%) had symptoms on admission. COVID-19-positive patients had significantly lower 30-day survival compared to those without COVID-19 (67% versus 92%, p<0.001). COVID-19 was independently associated with increased 30-day mortality adjusting for: (1) age, sex, residence (HR 2.93, p=0.008); (2) Nottingham Hip Fracture Score (HR 3.52, p=0.001), and (3) ASA (HR 3.45, p=0.004). Platelet count predicted subsequent COVID-19 status; a value <217 ×109/L was 68% specific and sensitive (95% CI 58 to 77, p=0.002). A similar number of patients presented with hip fracture pre-lockdown (n=160) and post-lockdown (n=157); there was no significant difference in demographics, place of injury, Nottingham Hip Fracture Score, time to surgery, ASA, or management.

COVID-19 was independently associated with an increased 30-day mortality in hip fracture. Most patients with COVID-19 lacked suggestive symptoms at presentation. Platelet count was an indicator of risk of COVID-19 infection. These findings have urgent implications for the delivery of hip fracture services.

Hip fracture care is complex multi-disciplinary. We hypothesise that quality of care is affected by variance in resources between ‘in-hours’ (Monday-Friday, 0800–1700) and ‘out-of-hours’ services.

This prospective multicentre national cohort study assessed quality of care by evaluating adherence to the evidence-based Scottish Standards of Care for Hip Fracture Patients. Data was collected by the Scottish Hip Fracture Audit for 15174 patients admitted to any of 22 Scottish hospitals from January 2014-April 2018.

11197/15174 (73.8%) patients were admitted out-of-hours. They were significantly less likely to meet the following Standards: ED Big-6-Bundle (OR 0.85, p= 0.002); Time in ED <4 hours (OR 0.76, p< 0.001); avoidance of repeated fasting (OR 0.80, p< 0.001), and avoidance of prolonged fluid fasting (OR 0.83, p< 0.001). Out-of-hours admissions were more likely to receive: geriatric assessment <3 days (OR 1.16, p< 0.001); OT input <3 days (OR 1.10, p= 0.013), and PT input <2 days (OR 1.44, p< 0.001). There were no significant differences for: Time to Theatre <36 hours; Inpatient Care Bundle <24 hours, and Post-op Day 1 Mobilisation.

Quality of hip fracture care is affected by time of admission. ED care is poorer out-of-hours, which may reflect limited resources, and out-of-hours admissions are more likely to be excessive fasted excessively. Weekday in-hours admissions are less likely to receive geriatric and allied health professional input in the days following admission, which may reflect the reduced weekend services. Examination of out-of-hours service organisation is required for the pursuit of consistent, equitable care for hip fracture patients.

Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) is an increasingly prevalent complication of lower limb arthroplasty (LLA). Even a transient decrease in kidney function has been shown to be associated with increased mortality and development of subsequent Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD).

We set out to determine which perioperative factors are associated with AKI development at our institution through a retrospective cohort methodology. Patients who underwent primary elective LLA from 01/10/16 to 31/09/17 were included, with relevant perioperative data collected from electronic patient records. AKI was classified according to the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) criteria.

Overall 6.6% of 686 patients developed an AKI post-operatively. These individuals had a significantly longer length of stay (Median 7 days vs 5 days for no AKI [p<0.001]). Independent predictors of AKI on multivariate regression analysis included: Diabetes (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.34 to 7.20; p=0.008) CKD (OR 5.07, 95% CI 2.60 to 9.86; p=<0.001) and male sex (OR female sex 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.63; p=0.001). A model including any of these three risk factors predicted 82.2% of patients with an AKI. The overall AKI rate for this model was 11.2% compared to 2.3% for those without any of the three criteria. Only 11% of patients had IV fluid continued beyond the recovery room.

AKI is a significant problem in LLA. Knowledge of associated risk factors will allow for targeted interventions to decrease AKI incidence. Continuation of IV fluids until the first post-operative morning for high risk individuals may be a simple method of reducing AKI.

Evidence suggests as little as 32percnt; of those with a displaced intracapsular hip fracture who meet the NICE eligibility criteria currently undergo a total hip replacement (THR). The reason for this discrepancy is not clear. This study therefore set out to examine the reasons behind this lack of adherence to these guidelines through the use of a questionnaire to current Trauma & Orthopaedic surgery consultants across Scotland.

An invitation to take part in the survey was distributed through the Scottish Committee for Orthopaedics & Trauma (SCOT) email address list. A series of 10 questions were designed to determine the background of participants, their experience at performing hip fracture surgery (including THR) and their thoughts regarding its use in the hip fracture setting. Results were collated at the end of the study period and quantitatively analysed where possible.

There were 91 responses in total. 53percnt; of individuals said they would offer those meeting the NICE criteria a THR less than 76percnt; of the time. The most commonly used alternative was a cemented bipolar hemiarthroplasty (51percnt;). Hip surgeons were more likely to perform or supervise THR for hip fracture than non-hip surgeons (p<0.0001). There were a wide variety of reasons why people would not offer a THR including dislocation rate, technical complexity and inadequate evidence for use.

Overall this study highlights current trends and barriers in the provision of THR to hip fracture patients. This knowledge can be used to ascertain research priorities to maximise the quality of care in this setting.