Pearle, Andrew D.

AbstractPurposeTo systematically review the literature regarding machine learning in leg length discrepancy (LLD) and to provide insight into the most relevant manuscripts on this topic in order to highlight the importance and future clinical implications of machine learning in the diagnosis and treatment of LLD.MethodsA systematic electronic search was conducted using PubMed, OVID/Medline and Cochrane libraries in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis guidelines. Two observers independently screened the abstracts and titles of potential articles.ResultsA total of six studies were identified in the search. All measurements were calculated using standardized anterior‐posterior long‐leg radiographs. Five (83.3%) of the studies used measurements of the femoral length, tibial length and leg length to assess LLD, whereas one (16.6%) study used the iliac crest height difference to quantify LLD. The deep learning models showed excellent reliability in predicting all length measurements with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.98 to 1.0 and mean absolute error (MAE) values ranging from 0.11 to 0.45 cm. Three studies reported measurements of LLD, and the convolutional neural network model showed the lowest MAE of 0.13 cm in predicting LLD.ConclusionsMachine learning models are effective and efficient in determining LLD. Implementation of these models may reduce cost, improve efficiency and lead to better overall patient outcomes.Clinical RelevanceThis review highlights the potential of deep learning (DL) algorithms for accurate and reliable measurement of lower limb length and leg length discrepancy (LLD) on long‐leg radiographs. The reported mean absolute error and intraclass correlation coefficient values indicate that the performance of the DL models was comparable to that of radiologists, suggesting that DL‐based assessments could potentially be used to automate the measurement of lower limb length and LLD in clinical practice.Level of EvidenceLevel IV.

Purpose To develop a deep learning model for the detection of Segond fractures on anteroposterior (AP) knee radiographs and to compare model performance to that of trained human experts. Methods AP knee radiographs were retrieved from the Hospital for Special Surgery ACL Registry, which enrolled patients between 2009 and 2013. All images corresponded to patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by 1 of 23 surgeons included in the registry data. Images were categorized into 1 of 2 classes based on radiographic evidence of a Segond fracture and manually annotated. Seventy percent of the images were used to populate the training set, while 20% and 10% were reserved for the validation and test sets, respectively. Images from the test set were used to compare model performance to that of expert human observers, including an orthopaedic surgery sports medicine fellow and a fellowship‐trained orthopaedic sports medicine surgeon with over 10 years of experience. Results A total of 324 AP knee radiographs were retrieved, of which 34 (10.4%) images demonstrated evidence of a Segond fracture. The overall mean average precision (mAP) was 0.985, and this was maintained on the Segond fracture class (mAP = 0.978, precision = 0.844, recall = 1). The model demonstrated 100% accuracy with perfect sensitivity and specificity when applied to the independent testing set and the ability to meet or exceed human sensitivity and specificity in all cases. Compared to an orthopaedic surgery sports medicine fellow, the model required 0.3% of the total time needed to evaluate and classify images in the independent test set. Conclusions A deep learning model was developed and internally validated for Segond fracture detection on AP radiographs and demonstrated perfect accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity on a small test set of radiographs with and without Segond fractures. The model demonstrated superior performance compared with expert human observers. Clinical Relevance Deep learning can be used for automated Segond fracture identification on radiographs, leading to improved diagnosis of easily missed concomitant injuries, including lateral meniscus tears. Automated identification of Segond fractures can also enable large‐scale studies on the incidence and clinical significance of these fractures, which may lead to improved management and outcomes for patients with knee injuries.

AbstractDeep learning is a subset of artificial intelligence (AI) with enormous potential to transform orthopaedic surgery. As has already become evident with the deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT (OpenAI Inc.), deep learning can rapidly enter clinical and surgical practices. As such, it is imperative that orthopaedic surgeons acquire a deeper understanding of the technical terminology, capabilities and limitations associated with deep learning models. The focus of this series thus far has been providing surgeons with an overview of the steps needed to implement a deep learning‐based pipeline, emphasizing some of the important technical details for surgeons to understand as they encounter, evaluate or lead deep learning projects. However, this series would be remiss without providing practical examples of how deep learning models have begun to be deployed and highlighting the areas where the authors feel deep learning may have the most profound potential. While computer vision applications of deep learning were the focus of Parts I and II, due to the enormous impact that natural language processing (NLP) has had in recent months, NLP‐based deep learning models are also discussed in this final part of the series. In this review, three applications that the authors believe can be impacted the most by deep learning but with which many surgeons may not be familiar are discussed: (1) registry construction, (2) diagnostic AI and (3) data privacy. Deep learning‐based registry construction will be essential for the development of more impactful clinical applications, with diagnostic AI being one of those applications likely to augment clinical decision‐making in the near future. As the applications of deep learning continue to grow, the protection of patient information will become increasingly essential; as such, applications of deep learning to enhance data privacy are likely to become more important than ever before.Level of Evidence: Level IV.

Purpose To (1) review definitions and concepts necessary to interpret applications of deep learning (DL; a domain of artificial intelligence that leverages neural networks to make predictions on media inputs such as images) and (2) identify knowledge and translational gaps in the literature to provide insight into specific areas for improvement as adoption of this technology continues. Methods A comprehensive search of the literature was performed in December 2023 for articles regarding the use of DL in sports medicine. For each study, information regarding the joint of focus, specific anatomic structure/pathology to which DL was applied, imaging modality utilized, source of images used for model training and testing, data set size, model performance, and whether the DL model was externally validated was recorded. A numerical scale was used to rate each DL model’s clinical impact, with 1 corresponding to proof‐of‐concept studies with little to no direct clinical impact and 5 corresponding to practice‐changing clinical impact and ready for clinical deployment. Results Fifty‐five studies were identified, all of which were published within the past 5 years, while 82% were published within the past 3 years. Of the DL models identified, 84% were developed for classification tasks, 9% for automated measurements, and 7% for segmentation. A total of 62% of studies utilized magnetic resonance imaging as the imaging modality, 25% radiographs, and 7% ultrasound, while 1 study each used computed tomography, arthroscopic images, or arthroscopic video. Sixty‐five percent of studies focused on the detection of tears (anterior cruciate ligament [ACL], rotator cuff [RC], and meniscus). The diagnostic performance of ACL tears, as determined by the area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC), ranged from 0.81 to 0.99 for ACL tears (excellent to near perfect), 0.83 to 0.94 for RC tears (excellent), and from 0.75 to 0.96 for meniscus tears (acceptable to excellent). In addition, 3 studies focused on detection of cartilage lesions had AUROC ranging from 0.90 to 0.92 (excellent performance). However, only 4 (7%) studies externally validated their models, suggesting that they may not be generalizable or may not perform well when applied to populations other than that used to develop the model. Finally, the mean clinical impact score was 2 (range, 1‐3) on scale of 1 to 5, corresponding to limited clinical applicability. Conclusions DL models in orthopaedic sports medicine show generally excellent performance (high internal validity) but require external validation to facilitate clinical deployment. In addition, current models have low clinical applicability and fail to advance the field due to a focus on routine tasks and a narrow conceptual framework. Level of Evidence Level IV, scoping review of Level I to IV studies.

AbstractDeep learning has the potential to be one of the most transformative technologies to impact orthopedic surgery. Substantial innovation in this area has occurred over the past 5 years, but clinically meaningful advancements remain limited by a disconnect between clinical and technical experts. That is, it is likely that few orthopedic surgeons possess both the clinical knowledge necessary to identify orthopedic problems, and the technical knowledge needed to implement deep learning‐based solutions. To maximize the utilization of rapidly advancing technologies derived from deep learning models, orthopedic surgeons should understand the steps needed to design, organize, implement, and evaluate a deep learning project and its workflow. Equipping surgeons with this knowledge is the objective of this three‐part editorial review. Part I described the processes involved in defining the problem, team building, data acquisition, curation, labeling, and establishing the ground truth. Building on that, this review (Part II) provides guidance on pre‐processing and augmenting the data, making use of open‐source libraries/toolkits, and selecting the required hardware to implement the pipeline. Special considerations regarding model training and evaluation unique to deep learning models relative to “shallow” machine learning models are also reviewed. Finally, guidance pertaining to the clinical deployment of deep learning models in the real world is provided. As in Part I, the focus is on applications of deep learning for computer vision and imaging.

AbstractDeep learning has a profound impact on daily life. As Orthopedics makes use of this rapid escalation in technology, Orthopedic surgeons will need to take leadership roles on deep learning projects. Moreover, surgeons must possess an understanding of what is necessary to design and implement deep learning‐based project pipelines. This review provides a practical guide for the Orthopedic surgeon to understand the steps needed to design, develop, and deploy a deep learning pipeline for clinical applications. A detailed description of the processes involved in defining the problem, building the team, acquiring and curating the data, labeling the data, establishing the ground truth, pre‐processing and augmenting the data, and selecting the required hardware is provided. In addition, an overview of unique considerations involved in the training and evaluation of deep learning models is provided. This review strives to provide surgeons with the groundwork needed to identify gaps in the clinical landscape that deep learning models may be able to fill and equips them with the knowledge needed to lead an interdisciplinary team through the process of creating novel deep‐learning‐based solutions to fill those gaps.

Purpose To describe the complications that occur following biologic therapeutic injections. Methods We queried physician members of the Biologic Association, a multidisciplinary organization dedicated to providing a unified voice for all matters related to musculoskeletal biologics and regenerative medicine. Patients included in this study must have (1) received a biologic injection, (2) sustained an adverse reaction, and (3) had a minimum of 1‐year follow‐up after the injection. Patient demographic information, medical comorbidities, diagnoses, and previous treatments were recorded. The type of injection, injection setting, injection manufacturers, and specific details about the complication and outcome were collected. Results In total, 14 patients were identified across 6 institutions in the United States (mean age 63 years, range: 36‐83 years). The most common injections in this series were intra‐articular knee injections (50%), followed intra‐articular shoulder injections (21.4%). The most common underlying diagnosis was osteoarthritis (78.5%). Types of injections included umbilical cord blood, platelet‐rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, placental tissue, and unspecified “stem cell” injections. Complications included infection (50%), suspected sterile inflammatory response (42.9%), and a combination of both (7.1%). The most common pathogen identified from infection cases was Escherichia coli (n = 4). All patients who had isolated infections underwent treatment with at least one subsequent surgical intervention (mean: 3.6, range: 1‐12) and intravenous antibiotic therapy. Conclusions This study demonstrates that serious complications can occur following treatment with biologic injections, including infections requiring multiple surgical procedures and inflammatory reactions. Level of Evidence Level IV, case series.

Background: Recent epidemiologic reports have demonstrated rising injury rates in Major League Baseball (MLB) and Minor League Baseball (MiLB). Although several studies have recently been published on specific injuries, the majority of injuries have not yet been formally studied. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to (1) generate a summative analysis of all injuries that occur in MLB and MiLB, (2) identify the 50 most common injuries, and (3) generate focused reports and fact sheets on the characteristics of each of those diagnoses. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The MLB Health and Injury Tracking System was used to identify injuries occurring in MLB and MiLB players from 2011 to 2016. Injuries were defined as those that occurred during normal baseball activity and resulted in at least 1 day out of play. A multitude of player and injury characteristics were analyzed, and detailed reports of the 50 most commonly occurring injuries were generated. Results: A total of 49,955 injuries occurred during the study period; 45,123 were non–season ending, and they resulted in 722,176 days out of play. The mean (median) days missed per injury was 16 (6) days. Overall, 39.1% of all injuries occurred in pitchers. The upper extremity was involved in 39% of injuries, while 35% occurred in the hip/groin/lower extremity. Surgery was required in 6.5% of cases, and 9.7% of injuries were season ending. Hamstring strains were the most common injury (n = 3337), followed by rotator cuff strain/tear (n = 1874), paralumbar muscle strain (n = 1313), biceps tendinitis (n = 1264), oblique strain (n = 1249), and elbow ulnar collateral ligament injury (n = 1191). The diagnoses that were most likely to end a player’s season were elbow ulnar collateral ligament injury (60% season ending) and superior labrum anterior and posterior tear (50.9% season ending). Conclusion: Contrary to prior reports relying on disabled list data, the annual number of injuries in professional baseball remained steady from 2011 to 2016. Similar trends were noted for the annual number of days missed and mean days missed per injury. Although the mean days missed per injury was high (16), the median was much lower at 6 days.