Citations

Background: Value-based decision-making regarding nonoperative management versus early surgical stabilization for first-time anterior shoulder instability (ASI) events remains understudied. Purpose: To perform (1) a systematic review of the current literature and (2) a Markov model–based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing an initial trial of nonoperative management to arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) for first-time ASI. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A Markov chain Monte Carlo probabilistic model was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of 1000 simulated patients (mean age, 20 years; range, 12-26 years) with first-time ASI undergoing nonoperative management versus ABR. Utility values, recurrence rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined based on the typical patient undergoing each treatment strategy at the authors’ institution. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: The Markov model with Monte Carlo microsimulation demonstrated mean (± standard deviation) 10-year costs for nonoperative management and ABR of $38,649 ± $10,521 and $43,052 ± $9352, respectively. Total QALYs acquired over the 10-year time horizon were 7.67 ± 0.43 and 8.44 ± 0.46 for nonoperative management and ABR, respectively. The ICER comparing ABR with nonoperative management was found to be just $5725/QALY, which falls substantially below the $50,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The mean numbers of recurrences were 2.55 ± 0.31 and 1.17 ± 0.18 for patients initially assigned to the nonoperative and ABR treatment groups, respectively. Of 1000 samples run over 1000 trials, ABR was the optimal strategy in 98.7% of cases, with nonoperative management the optimal strategy in 1.3% of cases. Conclusion: ABR reduces the risk for recurrent dislocations and is more cost-effective despite higher upfront costs when compared with nonoperative management for first-time ASI in the young patient. While all these factors are important to consider in surgical decision-making, ultimate treatment decisions should be made on an individual basis and occur through a shared decision-making process.

AbstractPurposeThe present study reviews the available scientific literature on artificial intelligence (AI)‐assisted ultrasound‐guided regional anaesthesia (UGRA) and evaluates the reported intraprocedural parameters and postprocedural outcomes.MethodsA literature search was performed on 19 September 2023, using the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar databases by experts in electronic searching. All study designs were considered with no restrictions regarding patient characteristics or cohort size. Outcomes assessed included the accuracy of AI‐model tracking, success at the first attempt, differences in outcomes between AI‐assisted and unassisted UGRA, operator feedback and case‐report data.ResultsA joint adaptive median binary pattern (JAMBP) has been applied to improve the tracking procedure, while a particle filter (PF) is involved in feature extraction. JAMBP combined with PF was most accurate on all images for landmark identification, with accuracy scores of 0.83, 0.93 and 0.93 on original, preprocessed and filtered images, respectively. Evaluation of first‐attempt success of spinal needle insertion revealed first‐attempt success in most patients. When comparing AI application versus UGRA alone, a significant statistical difference (p < 0.05) was found for correct block view, correct structure identification and decrease in mean injection time, needle track adjustments and bone encounters in favour of having AI assistance. Assessment of operator feedback revealed that expert and nonexpert operator feedback was overall positive.ConclusionAI appears promising to enhance UGRA as well as to positively influence operator training. AI application of UGRA may improve the identification of anatomical structures and provide guidance for needle placement, reducing the risk of complications and improving patient outcomes.Level of EvidenceLevel IV.

Abstract Explorative data analysis (EDA) is a critical step in scientific projects, aiming to uncover valuable insights and patterns within data. Traditionally, EDA involves manual inspection, visualization, and various statistical methods. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) has the potential to improve EDA, offering more sophisticated approaches that enhance its efficacy. This review explores how AI and ML algorithms can improve feature engineering and selection during EDA, leading to more robust predictive models and data‐driven decisions. Tree‐based models, regularized regression, and clustering algorithms were identified as key techniques. These methods automate feature importance ranking, handle complex interactions, perform feature selection, reveal hidden groupings, and detect anomalies. Real‐world applications include risk prediction in total hip arthroplasty and subgroup identification in scoliosis patients. Recent advances in explainable AI and EDA automation show potential for further improvement. The integration of AI and ML into EDA accelerates tasks and uncovers sophisticated insights. However, effective utilization requires a deep understanding of the algorithms, their assumptions, and limitations, along with domain knowledge for proper interpretation. As data continues to grow, AI will play an increasingly pivotal role in EDA when combined with human expertise, driving more informed, data‐driven decision‐making across various scientific domains. Level of Evidence: Level V ‐ Expert opinion.

AbstractArtificial intelligence's (AI) accelerating progress demands rigorous evaluation standards to ensure safe, effective integration into healthcare's high‐stakes decisions. As AI increasingly enables prediction, analysis and judgement capabilities relevant to medicine, proper evaluation and interpretation are indispensable. Erroneous AI could endanger patients; thus, developing, validating and deploying medical AI demands adhering to strict, transparent standards centred on safety, ethics and responsible oversight. Core considerations include assessing performance on diverse real‐world data, collaborating with domain experts, confirming model reliability and limitations, and advancing interpretability. Thoughtful selection of evaluation metrics suited to the clinical context along with testing on diverse data sets representing different populations improves generalisability. Partnering software engineers, data scientists and medical practitioners ground assessment in real needs. Journals must uphold reporting standards matching AI's societal impacts. With rigorous, holistic evaluation frameworks, AI can progress towards expanding healthcare access and quality.Level of EvidenceLevel V.

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.

Background: Factors relating to the patient and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction may help to identify prognostic factors of long-term outcome after reconstruction. Purpose: To determine 10-year risk factors for inferior knee function after ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Prospectively collected data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register were extracted for patients who underwent ACL reconstruction between January 2005 and December 2006. Patients who had no data at the 10-year follow-up for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were excluded. Multivariable proportional odds regression modeling was used to assess 10-year patient- and surgery-related risk factors across all the KOOS subscales and the KOOS 4 (mean score of 4 subscales: pain, knee-related symptoms, function in sport and recreation, and knee-related quality of life). Results: A total of 874 (41%) patients were included (male, 51.5%; median age at the time of ACL reconstruction, 27.5 years [range, 11.2-61.5 years]). An increase in the severity of concomitant articular cartilage injuries resulted in a reduced KOOS on 4 subscales (odds ratio, 0.64-0.80; P < .05). A higher preoperative KOOS pain score increased the odds of a higher score on the pain, symptoms, and sport subscales and the KOOS 4 . In addition, a higher preoperative body mass index was a significant risk factor for lower scores on 3 KOOS subscales and the KOOS 4 . No patient- or surgery-related predictor was significant across all KOOS subscales. Conclusion: This 10-year risk factor analysis identified several factors that can affect long-term knee function after ACL reconstruction. Most risk factors were related to preoperative patient-reported outcome and potentially modifiable. On the other hand, most of the surgery-related risk factors were nonmodifiable. Nevertheless, this information may be helpful to physicians and physical therapists counseling patients on their expectations of outcome after ACL reconstruction.