Conventional patient-reported surveys, used for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA), are limited by subjectivity and recall bias. Objective functional evaluation, such as gait analysis, to delineate a patient’s functional capacity and customize surgical interventions, may address these shortcomings. This systematic review endeavours to investigate the application of objective functional assessments in appraising individuals undergoing THA. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were applied. Eligible studies of THA patients that conducted at least one type of objective functional assessment both pre- and postoperatively were identified through Embase, Medline/PubMed, and Cochrane Central database-searching from inception to 15 September 2023. The assessments included were subgrouped for analysis: gait analysis, motion analysis, wearables, and strength tests.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of home-based prehabilitation on pre- and postoperative outcomes in participants awaiting total knee (TKA) and hip arthroplasty (THA). A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prehabilitation interventions for TKA and THA. MEDLINE, CINAHL, ProQuest, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to October 2022. Evidence was assessed by the PEDro scale and the Cochrane risk-of-bias (ROB2) tool.Aims
Methods
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:
A systematic literature review focusing on how long before surgery concurrent viral or bacterial infections (respiratory and urinary infections) should be treated in hip fracture patients, and if there is evidence for delaying this surgery. A total of 11 databases were examined using the COre, Standard, Ideal (COSI) protocol. Bibliographic searches (no chronological or linguistic restriction) were conducted using, among other methods, the Patient, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) template. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for flow diagram and checklist. Final reading of the complete texts was conducted in English, French, and Spanish. Classification of papers was completed within five levels of evidence (LE).Aims
Methods
