Nwachukwu, Benedict U.

Objectives: Based in part on the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that suggest a beneficial effect over alternative treatment options, the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) is widespread and increasing. However, the extent to which these studies are vulnerable to slight variations in the outcomes of patients remains unknown. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the statistical fragility of conclusions from RCTs that reported outcomes of patients with knee OA who were treated with PRP versus alternative nonoperative management strategies. Methods: All RCTs comparing PRP to alternative nonoperative treatment options for knee OA were identified. The fragility index (FI) and reverse fragility index (RFI) were applied to assess the robustness of conclusions regarding the efficacy of PRP for knee OA. Meta-analyses were performed to determine the minimum number of patients from one or more trials included in the meta-analysis for which a modification on the event status would change the statistical significance of the pooled treatment effect. Results: In total, this analysis included outcomes from 1993 patients with a mean (± standard deviation) age of 58.0 ± 3.8 years. The mean number of events required to reverse significance (FI) was 4.57 ± 5.85. This corresponded to a fragility quotient of 0.060 ± 0.075, meaning the significance of the results was contingent on 6 events per 100 participants. For non-significant outcome events, the mean number of events required to reverse statistical nonsignificance (RFI) was 4.41 ± 2.22. This corresponded to a reverse fragility quotient of 0.065 ± 0.056, meaning the non-significance of the results was contingent on 6.5 events per 100 participants (Figure 1). Based on random-effects meta-analyses, PRP demonstrated a significantly higher rate of successful outcomes when compared to hyaluronic acid (p = 0.002, odds ratio 95% CI = 2.19 [1.33-3.62]) (Figure 2) as well as higher rates of patient-reported symptom relief (p = 0.019, odds ratio [95% CI] = 1.55 [1.07-2.24]) (Figure 3), not requiring a reintervention after the initial injection treatment (p = 0.002, odds ratio [95% CI] = 2.17 [1.33-3.53]) (Figure 4), and achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for pain improvement (p = 0.007, odds ratio [95% CI] = 6.19[1.63-23.42]) when compared to all alternative nonoperative treatments. Overall, the mean number of events per meta-analysis required to change the statistical significance of the pooled treatment effect was 8.67 ± 4.50. Conclusions: Individual RCTs evaluating PRP for knee OA possess slight robustness. Upon meta-analysis, PRP demonstrated a significant advantage over HA as well as improved symptom relief, lower rates of reintervention, and more frequent achievement of the MCID for pain improvement when compared to alternative, nonoperative treatment options. Statistically significant pooled treatment effects evaluating PRP for knee OA are more robust than approximately half of all comparable meta-analyses in medicine and healthcare. Future RCTs and meta-analyses should consider reporting fragility indices and quotients to facilitate interpretation of results in their proper context. In addition, the robustness of these findings suggests that reconsideration of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guidelines around the use of PRP for knee OA may be warranted.

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.

Background: Based in part on the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that suggest a beneficial effect over alternative treatment options, the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) is widespread and increasing. However, the extent to which these studies are vulnerable to slight variations in the outcomes of patients remains unknown. Purpose: To evaluate the statistical fragility of conclusions from RCTs that reported outcomes of patients with knee OA who were treated with PRP versus alternative nonoperative management strategies. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All RCTs comparing PRP with alternative nonoperative treatment options for knee OA were identified. The fragility index (FI) and reverse FI were applied to assess the robustness of conclusions regarding the efficacy of PRP for knee OA. Meta-analyses were performed to determine the minimum number of patients from ≥1 trials included in the meta-analysis for which a modification on the event status would change the statistical significance of the pooled treatment effect. Results: In total, this analysis included outcomes from 1993 patients with a mean ± SD age of 58.0 ± 3.8 years. The mean number of events required to reverse significance of individual RCTs (FI) was 4.57 ± 5.85. Based on random-effects meta-analyses, PRP demonstrated a significantly higher rate of successful outcomes when compared with hyaluronic acid ( P = .002; odds ratio [OR], 2.19; 95% CI, 1.33-3.62), as well as higher rates of patient-reported symptom relief ( P = .019; OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.07-2.24), not requiring a reintervention after the initial injection treatment ( P = .002; OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.33-3.53), and achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for pain improvement ( P = .007; OR, 6.19; 95% CI, 1.63-23.42) when compared with all alternative nonoperative treatments. Overall, the mean number of events per meta-analysis required to change the statistical significance of the pooled treatment effect was 8.67 ± 4.50. Conclusion: Conclusions drawn from individual RCTs evaluating PRP for knee OA demonstrated slight robustness. On meta-analysis, PRP demonstrated a significant advantage over hyaluronic acid as well as improved symptom relief, lower rates of reintervention, and more frequent achievement of the MCID for pain improvement when compared with alternative nonoperative treatment options. Statistically significant pooled treatment effects evaluating PRP for knee OA are more robust than approximately half of all comparable meta-analyses in medicine and health care. Future RCTs and meta-analyses should consider reporting FIs and fragility quotients to facilitate interpretation of results in their proper context.

Background: Routine hip magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before arthroscopy for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) offers questionable clinical benefit, delays surgery, and wastes resources. Purpose: To assess the clinical utility of preoperative hip MRI for patients aged ≤40 years who were undergoing primary hip arthroscopy and who had a history, physical examination findings, and radiographs concordant with FAIS. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included were 1391 patients (mean age, 25.8 years; 63% female; mean body mass index, 25.6) who underwent hip arthroscopy between August 2015 and December 2021 by 1 of 4 fellowship-trained hip surgeons from 4 referral centers. Inclusion criteria were FAIS, primary surgery, and age ≤40 years. Exclusion criteria were MRI contraindication, reattempt of nonoperative management, and concomitant periacetabular osteotomy. Patients were stratified into those who were evaluated with preoperative MRI versus those without MRI. Those without MRI received an MRI before surgery without deviation from the established surgical plan. All preoperative MRI scans were compared with the office evaluation and intraoperative findings to assess agreement. Time from office to arthroscopy and/or MRI was recorded. MRI costs were calculated. Results: Of the study patients, 322 were not evaluated with MRI and 1069 were. MRI did not alter surgical or interoperative plans. Both groups had MRI findings demonstrating anterosuperior labral tears treated intraoperatively (99.8% repair, 0.2% debridement, and 0% reconstruction). Compared with patients who were evaluated with MRI and waited 63.0 ± 34.6 days, patients who were not evaluated with MRI underwent surgery 6.5 ± 18.7 days after preoperative MRI. MRI delayed surgery by 24.0 ± 5.3 days and cost a mean $2262 per patient. Conclusion: Preoperative MRI did not alter indications for primary hip arthroscopy in patients aged ≤40 years with a history, physical examination findings, and radiographs concordant with FAIS. Rather, MRI delayed surgery and wasted resources. Routine hip MRI acquisition for the younger population with primary FAIS with a typical presentation should be challenged.

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.

AbstractMean, median, and mode are among the most basic and consistently used measures of central tendency in statistical analysis and are crucial for simplifying data sets to a single value. However, there is a lack of understanding of when to use each metric and how various factors can impact these values. The aim of this article is to clarify some of the confusion related to each measure and explain how to select the appropriate metric for a given data set. The authors present this work as an educational resource, ensuring that these common statistical concepts are better understood throughout the Orthopedic research community.

AbstractSupervised learning is the most common form of machine learning utilized in medical research. It is used to predict outcomes of interest or classify positive and/or negative cases with a known ground truth. Supervised learning describes a spectrum of techniques, ranging from traditional regression modeling to more complex tree boosting, which are becoming increasingly prevalent as the focus on “big data” develops. While these tools are becoming increasingly popular and powerful, there is a paucity of literature available that describe the strengths and limitations of these different modeling techniques. Typically, there is no formal training for health care professionals in the use of machine learning models. As machine learning applications throughout medicine increase, it is important that physicians and other health care professionals better understand the processes underlying application of these techniques. The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of commonly used supervised learning techniques with recent case examples within the orthopedic literature. An additional goal is to address disparities in the understanding of these methods to improve communication within and between research teams.

Background: Clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) connect patient-reported outcome measures data to patient-perceived benefit. Although investigators have established threshold values for various CSOs, the timeline to achieve these outcomes after isolated biceps tenodesis (BT) has yet to be defined. Purpose: To define the time-dependent nature of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) achievement after isolated BT. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and the Constant-Murley score (CMS) were administered preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively to patients undergoing isolated BT between 2014 and 2018 at our institution. Cumulative probabilities for achieving MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Weibull parametric regression evaluated the hazard ratios (HRs) of achieving earlier MCID, SCB, and PASS. Results: Overall cohort (N = 190) achievement rates ranged between 77.8% and 83.2% for MCID, between 42.2% and 80.2% for SCB, and between 59.7% and 62.9% for PASS. Median achievement time was 5.3 to 6.1 months for MCID, 5.9 to 6.4 months for SCB, and 6.07 to 6.1 months for PASS. Multivariate Weibull parametric regression identified older age, male sex, higher body mass index, preoperative thyroid disease, smoking history, and higher preoperative CMS as predictors of delayed CSO achievement (HR, 1.01-6.41), whereas normal tendon on arthroscopy, defined as absence of tenosynovitis or tendon tear on arthroscopy, predicted earlier CSO achievement (HR, 0.19-0.46). Location of tenodesis and worker compensation status did not significantly predict the time to achieve CSOs on multivariate analysis. Conclusion: After isolated BT, patients can expect to attain CSO by 13 months postoperatively, with most patients achieving this between 5 and 8 months. Patients tend to take longer to achieve PASS than MCID and SCB.

Purpose To review the literature on postoperative corticosteroid injections (CSIs) following primary rotator cuff repair (RCR) to evaluate efficacy and adverse effects. Methods A systematic review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were performed to identify all studies published within the last 15 years, which reported on outcomes of postoperative CSIs following RCR. Studies including patients who received only preoperative CSIs and revision RCRs were excluded. Included studies were evaluated for study methodology, patient demographics, outcome measures, physical examination parameters, results of imaging studies, and adverse effects or clinical complications. Results Seven studies comprising 5,528 patients satisfied inclusion criteria. Among included patients, 54.8% were female and mean age range from 52.3 ± 13.0 to 62.7 ± 6.6 years. Only 1 included investigation was a Level I study. Overall, 4 of 5 studies reported significant improvements in pain and outcome scores (Constant score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score) compared with controls. Across all studies, the majority of these effects were statistically significant at 3 months postoperatively but not beyond this time point. Five of the 6 included investigations reported no increased rate of retears after postoperative CSIs. One study did find an increase in retear in patients receiving postoperative CSIs but was unable to determine whether these retears were present before the patient received the CSI. Another investigation reported an increased rate of infection only if the CSI was administered in the first postoperative month. Conclusions Postoperative CSIs may improve pain and function for up to 3 months following primary RCR but not at later follow‐up time points. CSIs should be administered only after the first postoperative month to minimize the potential risk for adverse events. Level of Evidence Systematic review of level I‐IV studies.

Purpose To develop and internally validate a machine‐learning algorithm to reliably predict cost after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Methods A retrospective review of the New York State Ambulatory Surgery and Services database was performed to identify patients who underwent elective ACLR from 2015 to 2016. Features included in initial models consisted of patient characteristics (age, sex, insurance status, income, medical comorbidities as classified by the Clinical Classifications Software diagnosis code) as well as intraoperative variables (type of anesthesia and procedure‐specific factors). Models were generated to predict total charges using 4 algorithms: random forest, extreme gradient boost, elastic net penalized regression, and support vector machines with radial kernels. Training was performed with 10‐fold cross‐validation followed by internal validation via 0.632 bootstrapping. Model discriminative performance was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, calibration, and the Brier score. Decision curve analysis was performed to demonstrate the net benefit of using the final model in practice. Results In total, 7,311 patients undergoing ambulatory ACLR were included. The random forest model demonstrated the best performance assessed via internal validation (area under the curve = 0.85), calibration, and the Brier score (0.208). Cost incurred was influenced by anesthesia type, operating room time, and number of chronic comorbidities. Decision curve analysis revealed a net benefit for use of the random forest model and the model was integrated into a web‐based open‐access application. Conclusions The random forest model predicted cost after ambulatory ACLR using a large, statewide database with good performance. The top variables found to predict increased charges were general anesthesia, operating room time, meniscal repair, self‐pay insurance, patient neighborhood characteristics, and number of chronic conditions. Level of Evidence III, retrospective cohort study.