Aims. Short-stemmed femoral implants have been used for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in young and active patients to conserve bone, provide physiological loading, and reduce the incidence of thigh pain. Only short- to mid-term results have been presented and there have been concerns regarding component malalignment, incorrect sizing, and subsidence. This systematic review reports clinical and radiological outcomes, complications, revision rates, and implant survival in THA using short-stemmed femoral components. Materials and Methods. A literature review was performed using the EMBASE, Medline, and Cochrane databases. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to identify studies reporting clinical and radiological follow-up for short-stemmed hip arthroplasties. Results. A total of 28 studies were eligible for inclusion. This included 5322 hips in 4657 patients with a mean age of 59 years (13 to 94). The mean follow-up was 6.1 years (0.5 to 20). The mean Harris Hip Score improved from 46 (0 to 100) to 92 (39 to 100). The mean Oxford Hip Score improved from 25 (2 to 42.5) to 35 (12.4 to 48). The mean Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index improved from 54 (2 to 95) to 22 (0 to 98). Components were aligned in a neutral coronal alignment in up to 90.9% of cases. A total of 15 studies reported component survivorship, which was 98.6% (92% to 100%) at a mean follow-up of 12.1 years. Conclusion. Short-stemmed femoral implants show similar improvement in clinical and radiological outcomes compared with conventional length implants. Only mid-term survivorship, however, is known. An abundance of short components have been developed and used commercially without staged clinical trials. Long-term survival is still unknown for many of these components. There remains tension between innovation and the moral duty to ensure that the introduction of new implants is controlled until safety and patient benefit are demonstrated. Implant innovation and subsequent use should be driven by proven clinical outcomes, rather than market and financial forces, and ethical practice must be ensured. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:502–511

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

Whether to perform hybrid surgery (HS) in contrast to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) when treating patients with multilevel cervical disc degeneration remains a controversial subject. To resolve this we have undertaken a meta-analysis comparing the outcomes from HS with ACDF in this condition.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine how the short- and medium- to long-term outcome measures after total disc replacement (TDR) compare with those of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), using a systematic review and meta-analysis.