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. Current guidelines recommend surgery within 48 hours among patients presenting with hip fractures; however, optimal surgical timing for patients on oral anticoagulants (OACs) remains unclear. Individual studies are limited by small sample sizes and heterogeneous outcomes. The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the effect of pre-injury OACs on time-to-surgery (TTS) and all-cause mortality among older adults with hip fracture treated surgically. Methods. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception to 14 October 2019 to identify studies directly comparing outcomes among hip fracture patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) prior to hospital admission to hip fracture patients not on OACs. Random effects meta-analyses were used to pool all outcomes (TTS, in-hospital mortality, and 30-day mortality). Results. A total of 34 studies (involving 39,446 patients) were included in our systematic review. TTS was 13.7 hours longer (95% confidence interval (CI) 9.8 to 17.5; p < 0.001) among hip fracture patients on OACs compared to those not on OACs. This translated to a three-fold higher odds of having surgery beyond the recommended 48 hours from admission (odds ratio (OR) 3.0 (95% CI 2.1 to 4.3); p = 0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher (OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.8); p < 0.03) among anticoagulated patients. Among studies comparing anticoagulants, there was no statistically significant difference in time-to-surgery between patients taking a DOAC compared to a VKA. Conclusion. Patients presenting with a hip fracture who were taking OACs prior to injury experience a delay in time-to-surgery and higher mortality than non-anticoagulated patients. Patients on DOACs may be at risk of further delays. Evaluating expedited surgical protocols in hip fracture patients on OACs is an urgent priority, with the potential to decrease morbidity and mortality in this group of high-risk patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):222–233