Aims. The goal of the current systematic review was to assess the impact of implant placement accuracy on outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using the Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases in order to assess the impact of the patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) and implant placement accuracy on outcomes following TKA. Studies assessing the impact of implant alignment, rotation, size, overhang, or condylar offset were included. Study quality was assessed, evidence was graded (one-star: no evidence, two-star: limited evidence, three-star: moderate evidence, four-star: strong evidence), and recommendations were made based on the available evidence. Results. A total of 49 studies were identified for inclusion. With respect to PROMs, there was two-star evidence in support of mechanical axis alignment (MAA), femorotibial angle (FTA), femoral coronal angle (FCA), tibial coronal angle (TCA), femoral sagittal angle (FSA), femoral rotation, tibial and combined rotation/mismatch, and implant size/overhang or offset on PROMs, and one-star evidence in support of tibial sagittal angle (TSA), impacting PROMs. With respect to survival, there was three- to four-star evidence in support FTA, FCA, TCA, and TSA, moderate evidence in support of femoral rotation, tibial and combined rotation/mismatch, and limited evidence in support of MAA, FSA, and implant size/overhang or offset impacting survival. Conclusion. Overall, there is limited evidence to suggest that PROMs are impacted by the accuracy of implant placement, and malalignment does not appear to be a significant driver of the observed high rates of patient dissatisfaction following TKA. However, FTA, FCA, TCA, TSA, and implant rotation demonstrate a moderate-strong relationship with implant survival. Efforts should be made to improve the accuracy of these parameters in order to improve TKA survival. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(9):1449–1456

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.

Aims

As an increasing number of female surgeons are choosing orthopaedics, it is important to recognize the impact of pregnancy within this cohort. The aim of this review was to examine common themes and data surrounding pregnancy, parenthood, and fertility within orthopaedics.

The application of robotics in the operating theatre for knee arthroplasty remains controversial. As with all new technology, the introduction of new systems might be associated with a learning curve. However, guidelines on how to assess the introduction of robotics in the operating theatre are lacking. This systematic review aims to evaluate the current evidence on the learning curve of robot-assisted knee arthroplasty. An extensive literature search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was conducted. Randomized controlled trials, comparative studies, and cohort studies were included. Outcomes assessed included: time required for surgery, stress levels of the surgical team, complications in regard to surgical experience level or time needed for surgery, size prediction of preoperative templating, and alignment according to the number of knee arthroplasties performed. A total of 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most were of medium to low quality. The operating time of robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is associated with a learning curve of between six to 20 cases and six to 36 cases respectively. Surgical team stress levels show a learning curve of seven cases in TKA and six cases for UKA. Experience with the robotic systems did not influence implant positioning, preoperative planning, and postoperative complications. Robot-assisted TKA and UKA is associated with a learning curve regarding operating time and surgical team stress levels. Future evaluation of robotics in the operating theatre should include detailed measurement of the various aspects of the total operating time, including total robotic time and time needed for preoperative planning. The prior experience of the surgical team should also be evaluated and reported.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(4):407–413.