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:
The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of periprosthetic fractures of the humerus and to assess the uniformity of the classifications used for these fractures (including those around elbow and/or shoulder arthroplasties) by performing a systematic review of the literature. A systematic search was conducted using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Healthcare Databases Advance Search. For inclusion, studies had to report clinical outcomes following the management of periprosthetic fractures of the humerus. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database.Aims
Methods
This systematic review asked which patterns of complications are associated with the three reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) prosthetic designs, as classified by Routman et al, in patients undergoing RTSA for the management of cuff tear arthropathy, massive cuff tear, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. The three implant design philosophies investigated were medial glenoid/medial humerus (MGMH), medial glenoid/lateral humerus (MGLH), and lateral glenoid/medial humerus (LGMH). A systematic review of the literature was performed via a search of MEDLINE and Embase. Two reviewers extracted data on complication occurrence and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Meta-analysis was conducted on the reported proportion of complications, weighted by sample size, and PROMs were pooled using the reported standardized mean difference (SMD). Quality of methodology was assessed using Wylde’s non-summative four-point system. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020193041).Aims
Methods
The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcome of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) undertaken for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with TEA performed for post-traumatic conditions with regard to implant failure, functional outcome, and perioperative complications. We completed a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nine cohort studies investigated the outcome of TEA between RA and post-traumatic conditions. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)) guidelines and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were applied to assess the quality of the included studies. We assessed three major outcome domains: implant failures (including aseptic loosening, septic loosening, bushing wear, axle failure, component disassembly, or component fracture); functional outcomes (including arc of range of movement, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire), and perioperative complications (including deep infection, intraoperative fracture, postoperative fracture, and ulnar neuropathy).Aims
Materials and Methods
