Smart instrumentation targets optimal joint hardware installation. Intelligent implants target the chronic assessment of joint health and hardware condition. Intelligent implants would facilitate the collection of data, closing the loop to drive best surgical practice, joint system design, and the improvement of outcomes. Intelligent devices could assist post-op in managing pain and promoting recovery. Intelligent implants could offer opportunity for early detection and less invasive intervention should problems arise acutely, or even long after implant. While the development of smart instrumentation is tactically important, the development of intelligent implants is vital to the improvement of outcomes, and should be central to the strategic vision for orthopedic technology development. Define “smart” instruments in orthopedics and why there is a need for developing these devices to achieve optimal joint hardware installation. Define “intelligent” implants in orthopedics and why there is a need for developing these devices to facilitate the collection of data, and thereby “closing the loop” with smart instrumentation to drive best surgical practice and joint system design. Review clinical benefits of intelligent implants in post-operation pain management and recovery, as well as early problem detection facilitating less invasive intervention both acutely and chronically. Understand the latest advances in sensors and related technologies for orthopedic implants and implementing best practices for their use in medical design. Describe the reduction to practice of an intelligent implant tray capable of measuring and monitoring load, position, and the early onset of infection, and capable of delivering neuro-stimulation for pain management.KEY DISCUSSION POINTS
A prospective study of 295 infantry recruits has shown that the mediolateral width of the tibia measured radiographically at each of three different levels in the bone had a statistically significant correlation with the total incidence of stress fractures as well as with those in the tibia alone or the femur alone. A narrow tibial width was shown to be a risk factor, but cortical thickness was not found to be significant.
Of 66 recruits who sustained stress fractures during basic training and returned to training after a period of rest, seven (10.6%) suffered recurrent fractures within one year. None of the recurrences was at the original anatomical site. All of the recruits with recurrent stress fractures had had at least one of their initial stress fractures in the femur. This suggests that a femoral stress fracture carries a high risk of recurrence at other sites.
In a prospective study of 295 male Israeli military recruits a 31% incidence of stress fractures was found. Eighty per cent of the fractures were in the tibial or femoral shaft, while only 8% occurred in the tarsus and metatarsus. Sixty-nine per cent of the femoral stress fractures were asymptomatic, but only 8% of those in the tibia. Even asymptomatic stress fractures do, however, need to be treated. Possible explanations for the unusually high incidence of stress fractures in this study are discussed.