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. Results. Of the 455 studies identified, only 12 were suitable for inclusion. Nine reported implant identification and three described predicting risk of implant failure. Of the 12, three studies compared AI performance with orthopaedic surgeons. AI-based implant identification achieved AUC 0.992 to 1, and most algorithms reported an accuracy > 90%, using 550 to 320,000 training radiographs. AI prediction of dislocation risk post-THA, determined after five-year follow-up, was satisfactory (AUC 76.67; 8,500 training radiographs). Diagnosis of hip implant loosening was good (accuracy 88.3%; 420 training radiographs) and measurement of postoperative acetabular angles was comparable to humans (mean absolute difference 1.35° to 1.39°). However, 11 of the 12 studies had several methodological limitations introducing a high risk of bias. None of the studies were externally validated. Conclusion. These studies show that AI is promising. While it already has the ability to analyze images with significant precision, there is currently insufficient high-level evidence to support its widespread clinical use. Further research to design robust studies that follow standard reporting guidelines should be encouraged to develop AI models that could be easily translated into real-world conditions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):929–937

Aims. α-defensin is a biomarker which has been described as having a high degree of accuracy in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Current meta-analyses are based on the α-defensin laboratory-based immunoassay rather than the quick on-table lateral flow test kit. This study is the first meta-analysis to compare the accuracy of the α-defensin laboratory-based immunoassay and the lateral flow test kit for the diagnosis of PJI. Materials and Methods. A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria were all clinical studies where the diagnosis of PJI was uncertain. All studies selected used the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) or modified MSIS criteria. Two independent reviewers reviewed the studies and extracted data. A meta-analysis of results was carried out: pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, heterogeneity and areas under curves are reported. Results. Ten studies (759 patients) were included. Of these, seven studies (640 patients) evaluated the laboratory-based α-defensin immunoassay and three (119 patients) the lateral flow test. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the qualitative α-defensin laboratory immunoassay was 0.953 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 0.984) and 0.965 (95% CI 0.943 to 0.979) respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were 34.86 (95% CI 19.34 to 62.85) and 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.11). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the lateral flow test were 0.774 (95% CI 0.637 to 0.870) and 0.913 (95% CI 0.828 to 0.958), respectively. The pooled PLR and NLR were 8.675 (95% CI 4.229 to 17.794) and 0.248 (95% CI 0.147 to 0.418), respectively. Conclusion. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the lateral flow test were lower than those of the α-defensin laboratory-based immunoassay test. Hence, care must be taken with interpretation of the lateral flow test when relying on its results for the intra-operative diagnosis of PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:66–72

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of various non-operative modalities of treatment (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS); neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES); insoles and bracing) on the pain of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. . We conducted a systematic review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify the therapeutic options which are commonly adopted for the management of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. The outcome measurement tools used in the different studies were the visual analogue scale and The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index pain index: all pain scores were converted to a 100-point scale. . A total of 30 studies met our inclusion criteria: 13 on insoles, seven on TENS, six on NMES, and four on bracing. The standardised mean difference (SMD) in pain after treatment with TENS was 1.796, which represented a significant reduction in pain. The significant overall effect estimate for NMES on pain was similar to that of TENS, with a SMD of 1.924. The overall effect estimate of insoles on pain was a SMD of 0.992. The overall effect of bracing showed a significant reduction in pain of 1.34. . Overall, all four non-operative modalities of treatment were found to have a significant effect on the reduction of pain in OA of the knee. . This study shows that non-operative physical modalities of treatment are of benefit when treating OA of the knee. However, much of the literature reviewed evaluates studies with follow-up of less than six months: future work should aim to evaluate patients with longer follow-up. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):89–94

Aims

There is uncertainty regarding the optimal means of thromboprophylaxis following total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA, TKA). This systematic review presents the evidence for acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) as a thromboprophylactic agent in THA and TKA and compares it with other chemoprophylactic agents.

Aims

Increasing demand for total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) and associated follow-up has placed huge demands on orthopaedic services. Feasible follow-up mechanisms are therefore essential.

A new generation of knee prostheses has been introduced with the intention of improving post-operative knee flexion. In order to evaluate whether this goal has been achieved we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic literature searches were conducted on MEDLINE and EMBASE from their inception to December 2007, and proceedings of scientific meetings were also searched. Only randomised, clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. The mean difference in the maximum post-operative flexion between the ‘high-flex’ and conventional types of prosthesis was defined as the primary outcome measure. A total of five relevant articles was identified.

Analysis of these trials suggested that no clinically relevant or statistically significant improvement was obtained in flexion with the ‘high-flex’ prostheses. The weighted mean difference was 2.1° (95% confidence interval −0.2 to +4.3; p = 0.07).