nach oben

Erschienen in:

15.01.2024 | Original Paper

Artificial intelligence–based three-dimensional templating for total joint arthroplasty planning: a scoping review

verfasst von: Ausberto Velasquez Garcia, Lainey G. Bukowiec, Linjun Yang, Hiroki Nishikawa, James S. Fitzsimmons, A. Noelle Larson, Michael J. Taunton, Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo, Shawn W. O’Driscoll, Cody C. Wyles

Erschienen in: International Orthopaedics | Ausgabe 4/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current status of research on the application of artificial intelligence (AI)–based three-dimensional (3D) templating in preoperative planning of total joint arthroplasty.

Methods

This scoping review followed the PRISMA, PRISMA-ScR guidelines, and five stage methodological framework for scoping reviews. Studies of patients undergoing primary or revision joint arthroplasty surgery that utilised AI-based 3D templating for surgical planning were included. Outcome measures included dataset and model development characteristics, AI performance metrics, and time performance. After AI-based 3D planning, the accuracy of component size and placement estimation and postoperative outcome data were collected.

Results

Nine studies satisfied inclusion criteria including a focus on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–based AI templating for use in hip or knee arthroplasty. AI-based 3D templating systems reduced surgical planning time and improved implant size/position and imaging feature estimation compared to conventional radiographic templating. Several components of data processing and model development and testing were insufficiently covered in the studies included in this scoping review.

Conclusions

AI-based 3D templating systems have the potential to improve preoperative planning for joint arthroplasty surgery. This technology offers more accurate and personalized preoperative planning, which has potential to improve functional outcomes for patients. However, deficiencies in several key areas, including data handling, model development, and testing, can potentially hinder the reproducibility and reliability of the methods proposed. As such, further research is needed to definitively evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of these systems.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Märtens N, Heinze M, Awiszus F et al (2021) Long-term survival and failure analysis of anatomical stemmed and stemless shoulder arthroplasties. Bone Joint J 103-B:1292–1300. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B7.BJJ-2020-0915.R3CrossRefPubMed

Morrell AT, Layon DR, Scott MJ et al (2021) Enhanced recovery after primary total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 103:1938–1947. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.20.02169CrossRefPubMed

Gil JA, Kamal RN, Cone E, Weiss A-PC (2017) High survivorship and few complications with cementless total wrist arthroplasty at a mean followup of 9 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:3082–3087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5445-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Evans JP, Evans JT, Mohammad HR et al (2022) How long does an elbow replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-series and national registry reports with more than 10 years of follow-up. Acta Orthop 93:495–502. https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2022.2753CrossRefPubMed

Jeyaseelan L, Si-Hyeong Park S, Al-Rumaih H et al (2019) Outcomes following total ankle arthroplasty: a review of the registry data and current literature. Orthop Clin North Am 50:539–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocl.2019.06.004CrossRefPubMed

Goldenberg BT, Samuelsen BT, Spratt JD et al (2020) Complications and implant survivorship following primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients younger than 65 years: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 29:1703–1711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.02.004CrossRefPubMed

Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth NP (2018) Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg - Am 100:1455–1460. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.17.01617CrossRefPubMed

Villatte G, Muller A-S, Pereira B et al (2018) Use of Patient-Specific Instrumentation (PSI) for glenoid component positioning in shoulder arthroplasty. A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 13:e0201759. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201759CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Darwood A, Hurst SA, Villatte G et al (2022) Novel robotic technology for the rapid intraoperative manufacture of patient-specific instrumentation allowing for improved glenoid component accuracy in shoulder arthroplasty: a cadaveric study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 31:561–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2021.08.035CrossRefPubMed

10.

Cabarcas BC, Cvetanovich GL, Gowd AK et al (2019) Accuracy of patient-specific instrumentation in shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JSES Open Access 3:117–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jses.2019.07.002CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Thompson MJ, Consul D, Umbel BD, Berlet GC (2021) Accuracy of weightbearing CT scans for patient-specific instrumentation in total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Orthop 6:24730114211061492. https://doi.org/10.1177/24730114211061493CrossRef

12.

Poliakov A, Pakhaliuk V, Popov VL (2020) Current trends in improving of artificial joints design and technologies for their arthroplasty. Front Mech Eng 6:. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmech.2020.00004

13.

Della Valle AG, Padgett DE, Salvati EA (2005) Preoperative planning for primary total hip arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 13:455–462. https://doi.org/10.5435/00124635-200511000-00005CrossRefPubMed

14.

Hao KA, Sutton CD, Wright TW et al (2022) Influence of glenoid wear pattern on glenoid component placement accuracy in shoulder arthroplasty. JSES Int 6:200–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2021.11.021CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Laver L, Garrigues GE (2014) Avoiding superior tilt in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a review of the literature and technical recommendations. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23:1582–1590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2014.06.029CrossRefPubMed

16.

Bagley JJ, Della Rocca GJ, Smith MJ, Kim HM (2021) Optimal prosthesis sizing for radial head arthroplasty: a review of current evidence and guidelines. JBJS Rev 9:. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.RVW.20.00178

17.

Tanzer M, Makhdom AM (2016) Preoperative planning in primary total knee arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 24:220–230. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-14-00332CrossRefPubMed

18.

Lecerf G, Fessy MH, Philippot R et al (2009) Femoral offset: anatomical concept, definition, assessment, implications for preoperative templating and hip arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 95:210–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2009.03.010CrossRefPubMed

19.

Crooijmans HJA, Laumen AMRP, van Pul C, van Mourik JBA (2009) A new digital preoperative planning method for total hip arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:909–916. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0486-yCrossRefPubMed

20.

Carli A, Jerabek S (2015) Principles of design and fixation. Semin Musculoskelet Radiol 19:003–011. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1396762CrossRef

21.

Wu X, Zhou Y, Shao H et al (2023) Robotic-assisted revision total joint arthroplasty: a state-of-the-art scoping review. EFORT Open Rev 8:18–25. https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-22-0105CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

MacDessi SJ, Griffiths-Jones W, Harris IA et al (2021) Coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) classification. Bone Joint J 103-B:329–337. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.103B2.BJJ-2020-1050.R1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Lilley BM, Lachance A, Peebles AM et al (2022) What is the deviation in 3D preoperative planning software? A systematic review of concordance between plan and actual implant in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 31:1073–1082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2021.12.006CrossRefPubMed

24.

Matsuo T, Iwamoto T, Suzuki T (2022) Accuracy of computed tomography-based three-dimensional preoperative planning for total wrist arthroplasty. J Hand Surg Eur Vol 17531934221136420

25.

Johns WL, Layon D, Golladay GJ et al (2020) Preoperative risk factor screening protocols in total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Arthroplasty 35:3353–3363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.05.074CrossRefPubMed

26.

Smith JBV, Bishi H, Wang C et al (2021) The accuracy and reliability of preoperative digital 2D templating in prosthesis size prediction in uncemented versus cemented total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EFORT Open Rev 6:1020–1039. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.6.210048CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Lambrechts A, Ganapathi M, Wirix-Speetjens R (2020) Clinical evaluation of artificial intelligence based preoperative plans for total knee arthroplasty. pp 169–163

28.

Vigdorchik JM, Sharma AK, Jerabek SA et al (2021) Templating for total hip arthroplasty in the modern age. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 29:e208–e216. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-20-00693CrossRefPubMed

29.

Olaiya OR, Nadeem I, Horner NS et al (2020) Templating in shoulder arthroplasty – a comparison of 2D CT to 3D CT planning software: a systematic review. Shoulder Elbow 12:303–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758573219888780CrossRefPubMed

30.

Iwamoto T, Suzuki T, Oki S et al (2018) Computed tomography–based 3-dimensional preoperative planning for unlinked total elbow arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 27:1792–1799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2018.04.013CrossRefPubMed

31.

Bishi H, Smith JBV, Asopa V et al (2022) Comparison of the accuracy of 2D and 3D templating methods for planning primary total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EFORT Open Rev 7:70–83. https://doi.org/10.1530/EOR-21-0060CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Rechenmacher AJ, Goltz DE, Wickman JR et al (2022) Concordance of preoperative 3D templating in stemless anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 30:e1269–e1278. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOS-D-22-00309CrossRefPubMed

33.

Iannotti JP, Weiner S, Rodriguez E et al (2015) Three-dimensional imaging and templating improve glenoid implant positioning. J Bone Joint Surg Am 97:651–658. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.00493CrossRefPubMed

34.

Pietrzak JRT, Rowan FE, Kayani B et al (2019) Preoperative CT-based three-dimensional templating in robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty more accurately predicts implant sizes than two-dimensional templating. J Knee Surg 32:642–648. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1666829CrossRefPubMed

35.

Shukla DR, McLaughlin RJ, Lee J et al (2020) Automated three-dimensional measurements of version, inclination, and subluxation. Shoulder Elbow 12:31–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758573218825480CrossRefPubMed

36.

Sanchez-Sotelo J (2023) Computer-assisted planning for revision shoulder arthroplasty. Seminars in Arthroplasty JSES 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sart.2023.03.005

37.

Wu D, Chai W, Liu X et al (2021) Study on artificial intelligence-based algorithm for acetabular cup in total hip arthroplasty. Chin J Orthopaedics 41:176–185. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn121113-20201110-00653CrossRef

38.

Chen X, Wang Y, Ma R et al (2022) Validation of CT-based three-dimensional preoperative planning in comparison with acetate templating for primary total hip arthroplasty. Orthop Surg 14:1152–1160. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.13298CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Huo J, Huang G, Han D et al (2021) Value of 3D preoperative planning for primary total hip arthroplasty based on artificial intelligence technology. J Orthop Surg Res 16:156. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13018-021-02294-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Wu D, Liu X, Zhang Y et al (2020) Research and application of artificial intelligence based three-dimensional preoperative planning system for total hip arthroplasty. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 34:1077–1084. https://doi.org/10.7507/1002-1892.202005007CrossRefPubMed

41.

Chen X, Liu X, Wang Y, et al (2022) Development and validation of an artificial intelligence preoperative planning system for total hip arthroplasty. Front Med (Lausanne) 9:. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.841202

42.

Liu H, Qian H, Zhao J (2015) Automatic extraction of 3D anatomical feature curves of hip bone models reconstructed from CT images. Biomed Mater Eng 26:S1297–S1314. https://doi.org/10.3233/BME-151428CrossRefPubMed

43.

Liu W, Wang Y, Jiang T, et al (2020) Landmarks detection with anatomical constraints for total hip arthroplasty preoperative measurements. In: Martel AL, Abolmaesumi P, Stoyanov D, et al (eds) Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH, pp 670–679

44.

La Barbera L, Larson AN, Rawlinson J, Aubin CE (2021) In silico patient-specific optimization of correction strategies for thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Clin Biomech 81:105200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2020.105200CrossRef

45.

La Barbera L, Larson AN, Aubin CE (2021) How do spine instrumentation parameters influence the 3D correction of thoracic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis? A patient-specific biomechanical study. Clin Biomech 84:105346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2021.105346CrossRef

46.

Siddique N, Paheding S, Elkin CP, Devabhaktuni V (2021) U-net and its variants for medical image segmentation: a review of theory and applications. IEEE Access 82031–82057. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3086020

47.

Patton DM, Henning EN, Goulet RW, et al (2021) Deep learning-based segmentation of high-resolution computed tomography image data outperforms commonly used automatic bone segmentation methods. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.27.453890

48.

Ko S, Pareek A, Ro DH et al (2022) Artificial intelligence in orthopedics: three strategies for deep learning with orthopedic specific imaging. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 30:758–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06838-8CrossRefPubMed

49.

Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W et al (2018) PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 169:467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850CrossRefPubMed

52.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W et al (2018) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist section. Ann Intern Med 169:11–12. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850.2CrossRef

53.

Arksey H, O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol Theory Practice 8:19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616CrossRef

54.

McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Ryan RE et al (2019) Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis. In: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley, pp 33–65

55.

Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104CrossRef

56.

Maimaitiyiming M, Wusiman Y, Sun R, Abulaiti A (2023) Application of artificial intelligence preoperative planning system in total hip arthroplasty for adult developmental dysplasia of the hip. Chin J Reparative Reconstruct Surg 37:25–30. https://doi.org/10.7507/1002-1892.202209098CrossRef

57.

Xia T, Liu X, Liu J et al (2021) Artificial intelligence assisted total hip arthroplasty for patients with Crowe type IV developmental dysplasia of the hip. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 35:1265–1272. https://doi.org/10.7507/1002-1892.202106103CrossRefPubMed

58.

Lambrechts A, Wirix-Speetjens R, Maes F, Van Huffel S (2022) Artificial intelligence based patient-specific preoperative planning algorithm for total knee arthroplasty. Front Robot AI 9:. https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2022.840282

59.

Ding X, Zhang B, Li W et al (2021) Value of preoperative three-dimensional planning software (AI-HIP) in primary total hip arthroplasty: a retrospective study. J Int Med Res 49:3000605211058874. https://doi.org/10.1177/03000605211058874CrossRefPubMed

60.

Barton C, Noshchenko A, Patel V et al (2016) Early experience and initial outcomes with patient-specific spine rods for adult spinal deformity. Orthopedics 39:79–86. https://doi.org/10.3928/01477447-20160304-04CrossRefPubMed

61.

Branche K, Netsanet R, Noshchenko A et al (2020) Radius of curvature in patient-specific short rod constructs versus standard pre-bent rods. Int J Spine Surg 14:944–948. https://doi.org/10.14444/7143CrossRefPubMed

62.

Hernigou P, Tannyeres P, Barbier O, Chenaie P (2023) Revision hip arthroplasty dislocation risk calculator: when to select dual mobility, large heads, constrained liners, or a standard head size? Testing one hundred thousand hip revisions with artificial intelligence. Int Orthop 47:2003–2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-023-05856-0CrossRefPubMed

63.

Schwarz GM, Simon S, Mitterer JA et al (2023) Can an artificial intelligence powered software reliably assess pelvic radiographs? Int Orthop 47:945–953. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-023-05722-zCrossRefPubMed

64.

Lopez CD, Gazgalis A, Boddapati V et al (2021) Artificial learning and machine learning decision guidance applications in total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Arthroplast Today 11:103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2021.07.012CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

65.

Yang W, Gao T, Liu X et al (2023) Clinical application of artificial intelligence-assisted three-dimensional planning in direct anterior approach hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-023-06029-9CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Artificial intelligence–based three-dimensional templating for total joint arthroplasty planning: a scoping review
verfasst von: Ausberto Velasquez Garcia
Lainey G. Bukowiec
Linjun Yang
Hiroki Nishikawa
James S. Fitzsimmons
A. Noelle Larson
Michael J. Taunton
Joaquin Sanchez-Sotelo
Shawn W. O’Driscoll
Cody C. Wyles
Publikationsdatum: 15.01.2024
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: International Orthopaedics / Ausgabe 4/2024
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-024-06088-6

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Artificial intelligence–based three-dimensional templating for total joint arthroplasty planning: a scoping review