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

Spinopelvic characteristics influence the hip’s biomechanical behaviour. However, to date there is little knowledge defining what ‘normal’ spinopelvic characteristics are. This study aims to determine how static spinopelvic characteristics change with age and ethnicity among asymptomatic, healthy individuals.

Aims. The safe resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery following the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. A number of institutions have developed a COVID-free pathway for elective surgery patients in order to minimize the risk of viral transmission. The aim of this study is to identify the perioperative viral transmission rate in elective orthopaedic patients following the restart of elective surgery. Methods. This is a prospective study of 121 patients who underwent elective orthopaedic procedures through a COVID-free pathway. All patients underwent a 14-day period of self-isolation, had a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours of surgery, and underwent surgery at a COVID-free site. Baseline patient characteristics were recorded including age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, body mass index (BMI), procedure, and admission type. Patients were contacted 14 days following discharge to determine if they had had a positive COVID-19 test (COVID-confirmed) or developed symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (COVID-19-presumed). Results. The study included 74 females (61.2%) and 47 males (38.8%) with a mean age of 52.3 years ± 17.6 years (18 to 83 years). The ASA grade was grade I in 26 patients (21.5%), grade II in 70 patients (57.9%), grade III in 24 patients (19.8%), and grade IV in one patient (0.8%). A total of 18 patients (14.9%) had underlying cardiovascular disease, 17 (14.0%) had pulmonary disease, and eight (6.6%) had diabetes mellitus. No patients (0%) had a positive COVID-19 test in the postoperative period. One patient (0.8%) developed anosmia postoperatively without respiratory symptoms or a fever. The patient did not undergo a COVID-19 test and self-isolated for seven days. Her symptoms resolved within a few days. Conclusion. The development of a COVID-free pathway for elective orthopaedic patients results in very low viral transmission rates. While both surgeons and patients should remain vigilant, elective surgery can be safely restarted using dedicated pathways and procedures. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:562–567

Aims. Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) describes abnormal bony contact of the proximal femur against the acetabulum. The term was first coined in 1999; however what is often overlooked is that descriptions of the morphology have existed in the literature for centuries. The aim of this paper is to delineate its origins and provide further clarity on FAI to shape future research. Methods. A non-systematic search on PubMed was performed using keywords such as “impingement” or “tilt deformity” to find early anatomical descriptions of FAI. Relevant references from these primary studies were then followed up. Results. Although FAI has existed for almost 5,000 years, the anatomical study by Henle in 1855 was the first to describe it in the literature. The relevance of the deformity was not appreciated at the time but this triggered the development of further anatomical studies. Parallel to this, Poland performed the first surgical correction of FAI in 1898 and subsequently, descriptions of similar procedures followed. In 1965, Murray outlined radiological evidence of idiopathic cam-type deformities and highlighted its significance. This led to a renewed focus on FAI and eventually, Ganz et al released their seminal paper that has become the foundation of our current understanding of FAI. Since then, there has been an exponential rise in published literature but finding a consensus, especially in the diagnosis of FAI, has proven to be difficult. Conclusion. Current research on FAI heavily focuses on new data, but old evidence does exist and studying it could be equally as important in clarifying the aetiology and classification of FAI. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(9):572–577

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(9):598–600.

Aims. The aim of this study was to measure the effect of hospital case volume on the survival of revision total knee arthroplasty (RTKA). Methods. This is a retrospective analysis of Scottish Arthroplasty Project data, a nationwide audit which prospectively collects data on all arthroplasty procedures performed in Scotland. The primary outcome was RTKA survival at ten years. The primary explanatory variable was the effect of hospital case volume per year on RTKA survival. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine the lifespan of RTKA. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards were used to estimate relative revision risks over time. Hazard ratios (HRs) were reported with 95% CI, and p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results. From 1998 to 2019, 8,301 patients (8,894 knees) underwent RTKA surgery in Scotland (median age at RTKA 70 years (interquartile range (IQR) 63 to 76); median follow-up 6.2 years (IQR 3.0 to 10.2). In all, 4,764 (53.6%) were female, and 781 (8.8%) were treated for infection. Of these 8,894 knees, 957 (10.8%) underwent a second revision procedure. Male sex, younger age at index revision, and positive infection status were associated with need for re-revision. The ten-year survival estimate for RTKA was 87.3% (95% CI 86.5 to 88.1). Adjusting for sex, age, surgeon volume, and indication for revision, high hospital case volume was significantly associated with lower risk of re-revision (HR 0.78 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.94, p < 0.001)). The risk of re-revision steadily declined in centres performing > 20 cases per year; risk reduction was 16% with > 20 cases; 22% with > 30 cases; and 28% with > 40 cases. The lowest level of risk was associated with the highest volume centres. Conclusion. The majority of RTKA in Scotland survive up to ten years. Increasing yearly hospital case volume above 20 cases is independently associated with a significant risk reduction of re-revision. Development of high-volume tertiary centres may lead to an improvement in the overall survival of RTKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):602–609

The December 2022 Wrist & Hand Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy for early-stage Dupuytren’s disease; Patient experiences of scaphoid waist fractures and their treatment; Postoperative complications following open a1 pulley release for a trigger finger or thumb; How certain are findings in distal radius fractures: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials; Partial wrist denervation in wrist osteoarthritis: patient-reported outcomes and objective function; Dorsal bridge plating versus bridging external fixation for management of complex distal radius fractures; How is reduction lost in distal radius fractures in females aged 50 years and older; The HAND-Q: psychometrics of a new patient-reported outcome measure for clinical and research applications.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(3):199–201.

The August 2024 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Effect of vitamin D deficiency on periprosthetic joint infection and complications after primary total joint replacement; Postoperative angiotensin receptor blocker use associated with decreased rates of manipulation under anaesthesia in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty; Central sensitization: the missing link between psychological distress and poor outcome following primary total knee arthroplasty; Thromboprophylaxis for the trauma and orthopaedic surgeon; Life expectancy after treatment of metastatic bone disease: an international trend analysis.

This edition of Cochrane Corner looks at some of the work published by the Cochrane Collaboration, covering pharmacological interventions for the prevention of bleeding in people undergoing definitive fixation or joint replacement for hip, pelvic, and long bone fractures; interventions for reducing red blood cell transfusion in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery: an overview of systematic reviews; and pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(12):1120–1122.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):590–592.