Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 9 of 9
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 8 | Pages 909 - 910
1 Aug 2022
Vigdorchik JM Jang SJ Taunton MJ Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 8 | Pages 929 - 937
1 Aug 2022
Gurung B Liu P Harris PDR Sagi A Field RE Sochart DH Tucker K Asopa V

Aims

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are common orthopaedic procedures requiring postoperative radiographs to confirm implant positioning and identify complications. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based image analysis has the potential to automate this postoperative surveillance. The aim of this study was to prepare a scoping review to investigate how AI is being used in the analysis of radiographs following THA and TKA, and how accurate these tools are.

Methods

The Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed libraries were systematically searched to identify relevant articles. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O’Malley framework were followed. Study quality was assessed using a modified Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies tool. AI performance was reported using either the area under the curve (AUC) or accuracy.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1574 - 1581
2 Nov 2020
Zhang S Sun J Liu C Fang J Xie H Ning B

Aims. The diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) is challenging owing to extensive variation in paediatric pelvic anatomy. Artificial intelligence (AI) may represent an effective diagnostic tool for DDH. Here, we aimed to develop an anteroposterior pelvic radiograph deep learning system for diagnosing DDH in children and analyze the feasibility of its application. Methods. In total, 10,219 anteroposterior pelvic radiographs were retrospectively collected from April 2014 to December 2018. Clinicians labelled each radiograph using a uniform standard method. Radiographs were grouped according to age and into ‘dislocation’ (dislocation and subluxation) and ‘non-dislocation’ (normal cases and those with dysplasia of the acetabulum) groups based on clinical diagnosis. The deep learning system was trained and optimized using 9,081 radiographs; 1,138 test radiographs were then used to compare the diagnoses made by deep learning system and clinicians. The accuracy of the deep learning system was determined using a receiver operating characteristic curve, and the consistency of acetabular index measurements was evaluated using Bland-Altman plots. Results. In all, 1,138 patients (242 males; 896 females; mean age 1.5 years (SD 1.79; 0 to 10) were included in this study. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, and specificity of the deep learning system for diagnosing hip dislocation were 0.975, 276/289 (95.5%), and 1,978/1,987 (99.5%), respectively. Compared with clinical diagnoses, the Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement for acetabular index, as determined by the deep learning system from the radiographs of non-dislocated and dislocated hips, were -3.27° - 2.94° and -7.36° - 5.36°, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The deep learning system was highly consistent, more convenient, and more effective for diagnosing DDH compared with clinician-led diagnoses. Deep learning systems should be considered for analysis of anteroposterior pelvic radiographs when diagnosing DDH. The deep learning system will improve the current artificially complicated screening referral process. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1574–1581


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1216 - 1222
1 Nov 2024
Castagno S Gompels B Strangmark E Robertson-Waters E Birch M van der Schaar M McCaskie AW

Aims. Machine learning (ML), a branch of artificial intelligence that uses algorithms to learn from data and make predictions, offers a pathway towards more personalized and tailored surgical treatments. This approach is particularly relevant to prevalent joint diseases such as osteoarthritis (OA). In contrast to end-stage disease, where joint arthroplasty provides excellent results, early stages of OA currently lack effective therapies to halt or reverse progression. Accurate prediction of OA progression is crucial if timely interventions are to be developed, to enhance patient care and optimize the design of clinical trials. Methods. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on 5 May 2024 for studies utilizing ML to predict OA progression. Titles and abstracts were independently screened, followed by full-text reviews for studies that met the eligibility criteria. Key information was extracted and synthesized for analysis, including types of data (such as clinical, radiological, or biochemical), definitions of OA progression, ML algorithms, validation methods, and outcome measures. Results. Out of 1,160 studies initially identified, 39 were included. Most studies (85%) were published between 2020 and 2024, with 82% using publicly available datasets, primarily the Osteoarthritis Initiative. ML methods were predominantly supervised, with significant variability in the definitions of OA progression: most studies focused on structural changes (59%), while fewer addressed pain progression or both. Deep learning was used in 44% of studies, while automated ML was used in 5%. There was a lack of standardization in evaluation metrics and limited external validation. Interpretability was explored in 54% of studies, primarily using SHapley Additive exPlanations. Conclusion. Our systematic review demonstrates the feasibility of ML models in predicting OA progression, but also uncovers critical limitations that currently restrict their clinical applicability. Future priorities should include diversifying data sources, standardizing outcome measures, enforcing rigorous validation, and integrating more sophisticated algorithms. This paradigm shift from predictive modelling to actionable clinical tools has the potential to transform patient care and disease management in orthopaedic practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1216–1222


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1292 - 1303
1 Dec 2022
Polisetty TS Jain S Pang M Karnuta JM Vigdorchik JM Nawabi DH Wyles CC Ramkumar PN

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.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1348 - 1360
1 Nov 2024
Spek RWA Smith WJ Sverdlov M Broos S Zhao Y Liao Z Verjans JW Prijs J To M Åberg H Chiri W IJpma FFA Jadav B White J Bain GI Jutte PC van den Bekerom MPJ Jaarsma RL Doornberg JN

Aims

The purpose of this study was to develop a convolutional neural network (CNN) for fracture detection, classification, and identification of greater tuberosity displacement ≥ 1 cm, neck-shaft angle (NSA) ≤ 100°, shaft translation, and articular fracture involvement, on plain radiographs.

Methods

The CNN was trained and tested on radiographs sourced from 11 hospitals in Australia and externally validated on radiographs from the Netherlands. Each radiograph was paired with corresponding CT scans to serve as the reference standard based on dual independent evaluation by trained researchers and attending orthopaedic surgeons. Presence of a fracture, classification (non- to minimally displaced; two-part, multipart, and glenohumeral dislocation), and four characteristics were determined on 2D and 3D CT scans and subsequently allocated to each series of radiographs. Fracture characteristics included greater tuberosity displacement ≥ 1 cm, NSA ≤ 100°, shaft translation (0% to < 75%, 75% to 95%, > 95%), and the extent of articular involvement (0% to < 15%, 15% to 35%, or > 35%).


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 8 | Pages 760 - 763
1 Aug 2024
Mancino F Fontalis A Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1754 - 1758
1 Dec 2021
Farrow L Zhong M Ashcroft GP Anderson L Meek RMD

There is increasing popularity in the use of artificial intelligence and machine-learning techniques to provide diagnostic and prognostic models for various aspects of Trauma & Orthopaedic surgery. However, correct interpretation of these models is difficult for those without specific knowledge of computing or health data science methodology. Lack of current reporting standards leads to the potential for significant heterogeneity in the design and quality of published studies. We provide an overview of machine-learning techniques for the lay individual, including key terminology and best practice reporting guidelines.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1754–1758.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1442 - 1448
1 Sep 2021
McDonnell JM Evans SR McCarthy L Temperley H Waters C Ahern D Cunniffe G Morris S Synnott K Birch N Butler JS

In recent years, machine learning (ML) and artificial neural networks (ANNs), a particular subset of ML, have been adopted by various areas of healthcare. A number of diagnostic and prognostic algorithms have been designed and implemented across a range of orthopaedic sub-specialties to date, with many positive results. However, the methodology of many of these studies is flawed, and few compare the use of ML with the current approach in clinical practice. Spinal surgery has advanced rapidly over the past three decades, particularly in the areas of implant technology, advanced surgical techniques, biologics, and enhanced recovery protocols. It is therefore regarded an innovative field. Inevitably, spinal surgeons will wish to incorporate ML into their practice should models prove effective in diagnostic or prognostic terms. The purpose of this article is to review published studies that describe the application of neural networks to spinal surgery and which actively compare ANN models to contemporary clinical standards allowing evaluation of their efficacy, accuracy, and relatability. It also explores some of the limitations of the technology, which act to constrain the widespread adoption of neural networks for diagnostic and prognostic use in spinal care. Finally, it describes the necessary considerations should institutions wish to incorporate ANNs into their practices. In doing so, the aim of this review is to provide a practical approach for spinal surgeons to understand the relevant aspects of neural networks.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1442–1448.