Background and Objectives: The number of patients who undergo multiple operations on a knee is increasing. The objective of this study was to develop a deep learning algorithm that could detect 17 different surgical implants on plain knee radiographs. Materials and Methods: An internal dataset consisted of 5206 plain knee antero-posterior X-rays from a single, tertiary institute for model development. An external set contained 238 X-rays from another tertiary institute. A total of 17 different types of implants including total knee arthroplasty, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, plate, and screw were labeled. The internal dataset was approximately split into a train set, a validation set, and an internal test set at a ratio of 7:1:2. You Only look Once (YOLO) was selected as the detection network. Model performances with the validation set, internal test set, and external test set were compared. Results: Total accuracy, total sensitivity, total specificity value of the validation set, internal test set, and external test set were (0.978, 0.768, 0.999), (0.953, 0.810, 0.990), and (0.956, 0.493, 0.975), respectively. Means ± standard deviations (SDs) of diagonal components of confusion matrix for these three subsets were 0.858 ± 0.242, 0.852 ± 0.182, and 0.576 ± 0.312, respectively. True positive rate of total knee arthroplasty, the most dominant class of the dataset, was higher than 0.99 with internal subsets and 0.96 with an external test set. Conclusion: Implant identification on plain knee radiographs could be automated using a deep learning technique. The detection algorithm dealt with overlapping cases while maintaining high accuracy on total knee arthroplasty. This could be applied in future research that analyzes X-ray images with deep learning, which would help prompt decision-making in clinics.
Artificial intelligence in orthopedics: three strategies for deep learning with orthopedic specific imaging
Automated Risk Stratification of Hip Osteoarthritis Development in Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement Using an Unsupervised Clustering Algorithm: A Study From the Rochester Epidemiology Project
Background: Studies evaluating the natural history of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) are limited. Purpose: To stratify the risk of progression to osteoarthritis (OA) in patients with FAI using an unsupervised machine-learning algorithm, compare the characteristics of each subgroup, and validate the reproducibility of staging. Study Design: Cohort study (prognosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A geographic database from the Rochester Epidemiology Project was used to identify patients with hip pain between 2000 and 2016. Medical charts were reviewed to obtain characteristic information, physical examination findings, and imaging details. The patient data were randomly split into 2 mutually exclusive sets: train set (70%) for model development and test set (30%) for validation. The data were transformed via Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection and were clustered using Hierarchical Density-based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise. Results: The study included 1071 patients with a mean follow-up period of 24.7 ± 12.5 years. The patients were clustered into 5 subgroups based on train set results: patients in cluster 1 were in their early 20s (20.9 ± 9.6 years), female dominant (84%), with low body mass index (<19 ); patients in cluster 2 were in their early 20s (22.9 ± 6.7 years), female dominant (95%), and pincer-type FAI (100%) dominant; patients in cluster 3 were in their mid 20s (26.4 ± 9.7) and were mixed-type FAI dominant (92%); patients in cluster 4 were in their early 30s (32.7 ± 7.8), with high body mass index (≥29 ), and diabetes (17%); and patients in cluster 5 were in their early 30s (30.0 ± 9.1), with a higher percentage of males (43%) compared with the other clusters and with limited internal rotation (14%). Mean survival for clusters 1 to 5 was 17.9 ± 0.6, 18.7 ± 0.3, 17.1 ± 0.4, 15.0 ± 0.5, and 15.6 ± 0.5 years, respectively, in the train set. The survival difference was significant between clusters 1 and 4 ( P = .02), 2 and 4 ( P < .005), 2 and 5 ( P = .01), and 3 and 4 ( P < .005) in the train set and between clusters 2 and 5 ( P = .03) and 3 and 4 ( P = .01) in the test set. Cluster characteristics and prognosis was well reproduced in the test set. Conclusion: Using the clustering algorithm, it was possible to determine the prognosis for OA progression in patients with FAI in the presence of conflicting risk factors acting in combination.