We report the kinematic and early clinical results
of a patient- and observer-blinded randomised controlled trial in which
CT scans were used to compare potential impingement-free range of
movement (ROM) and acetabular component cover between patients treated
with either the navigated ‘femur-first’ total hip arthroplasty (THA) method
(n = 66; male/female 29/37, mean age 62.5 years; 50 to 74) or conventional
THA (n = 69; male/female 35/34, mean age 62.9 years; 50 to 75).
The Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, the Harris hip score, the
Euro-Qol-5D and the Mancuso THA patient expectations score were
assessed at six weeks, six months and one year after surgery. A
total of 48 of the patients (84%) in the navigated ‘femur-first’
group and 43 (65%) in the conventional group reached all the desirable
potential ROM boundaries without prosthetic impingement for activities
of daily living (ADL) in flexion, extension, abduction, adduction
and rotation (p = 0.016). Acetabular component cover and surface
contact with the host bone were >
87% in both groups. There was
a significant difference between the navigated and the conventional
groups’ Harris hip scores six weeks after surgery (p = 0.010). There
were no significant differences with respect to any clinical outcome
at six months and one year of follow-up. The navigated ‘femur-first’
technique improves the potential ROM for ADL without prosthetic
impingement, although there was no observed clinical difference
between the two treatment groups. Cite this article:
The August 2024 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Calcification’s role in knee osteoarthritis: implications for surgical decision-making; Lower complication rates and shorter lengths of hospital stay with technology-assisted total knee arthroplasty; Revision surgery: the hidden burden on surgeons; Are preoperative weight loss interventions worthwhile?; Total knee arthroplasty with or without prior bariatric surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis; Aspirin triumphs in knee arthroplasty: a decade of evidence; Efficacy of DAIR in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a glimpse from Oxford.
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly growing across many domains, of which the medical field is no exception. AI is an umbrella term defining the practical application of algorithms to generate useful output, without the need of human cognition. Owing to the expanding volume of patient information collected, known as ‘big data’, AI is showing promise as a useful tool in healthcare research and across all aspects of patient care pathways. Practical applications in orthopaedic surgery include: diagnostics, such as fracture recognition and tumour detection; predictive models of clinical and patient-reported outcome measures, such as calculating mortality rates and length of hospital stay; and real-time rehabilitation monitoring and surgical training. However, clinicians should remain cognizant of AI’s limitations, as the development of robust reporting and validation frameworks is of paramount importance to prevent avoidable errors and biases. The aim of this review article is to provide a comprehensive understanding of AI and its subfields, as well as to delineate its existing clinical applications in trauma and orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, this narrative review expands upon the limitations of AI and future direction. Cite this article:
Surgeons need to be able to measure angles and distances in three dimensions in the planning and assessment of knee replacement. Computed tomography (CT) offers the accuracy needed but involves greater radiation exposure to patients than traditional long-leg standing radiographs, which give very little information outside the plane of the image. There is considerable variation in CT radiation doses between research centres, scanning protocols and individual scanners, and ethics committees are rightly demanding more consistency in this area. By refining the CT scanning protocol we have reduced the effective radiation dose received by the patient down to the equivalent of one long-leg standing radiograph. Because of this, it will be more acceptable to obtain the three-dimensional data set produced by CT scanning. Surgeons will be able to document the impact of implant position on outcome with greater precision.
