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:
The hypothesis of this study was that thigh circumference, distinct from body mass index (BMI), may be associated with the positioning of components when undertaking total hip arthroplasty (THA) using the direct anterior approach (DAA), and that an increased circumference might increase the technical difficulty. We performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected data involving 155 consecutive THAs among 148 patients undertaken using the DAA at an academic medical centre by a single fellowship-trained surgeon. Preoperatively, thigh circumference was measured at 10 cm, 20 cm, and 30 cm distal to the anterior superior iliac spine, in quartiles. Two blinded reviewers assessed the inclination and anteversion of the acetabular component, radiological leg-length discrepancy, and femoral offset. The radiological outcomes were considered as continuous and binary outcome variables based on Lewinnek’s ‘safe zone’.Aims
Patients and Methods
