Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34255175›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2021

Validation and performance of a machine-learning derived prediction guide for total knee arthroplasty component sizing.

Kyle N Kunze, Evan M Polce, Arpan Patel, P Maxwell Courtney, Brett R Levine

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Reliability of artificial intelligence in predicting total knee arthroplasty component sizes: a systematic review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kyle N KunzeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA. kylekunze7@gmail.com.
Evan M PolceUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Arpan PatelDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
P Maxwell CourtneyRothman Orthopaedic Institute at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Brett R LevineUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8279-418X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAnticipation of patient-specific component sizes prior to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is essential to avoid excessive cost associated with additional surgical trays and morbidity associated with imperfect sizing. Current methods of size prediction, including templating, are inconsistent and time-consuming. Machine learning (ML) algorithms may allow for accurate TKA component size prediction with the ability to make predictions in real-time.

methodsConsecutive patients receiving primary TKA between 2012 and 2020 from two large tertiary academic and six community hospitals were identified. The primary outcomes were the final femoral and tibial component sizes extracted from automated inventory systems. Five ML algorithms were trained with routinely corrected demographic variables (age, height, weight, body mass index, and sex) using 80% of the study population and internally validated on an independent set of the remaining 20% of patients. Algorithm performance was evaluated through accuracy, mean absolute error (MAE), and root mean-squared error (RMSE).

resultsA total of 17,283 patients that received one of 9 TKA implants from independent manufacturers were included. The SGB model accuracy for predicting ± 4-mm of the true femoral anteroposterior diameter was 83.6% and for ± 1 size of the true femoral component size was 95.0%. The SGB model accuracy for predicting ± 4-mm of the true tibial medial/lateral diameter was 83.0% and for ± 1 size of the true tibial component size was 97.8%. Patient sex was the most influential feature in terms of informing the SGB model predictions for both femoral and tibial component sizing. A TKA implant sizing application was subsequently created.

conclusionNovel machine learning algorithms demonstrated good to excellent performance for predicting TKA component size. Patient sex appears to contribute an important role in predicting TKA size. A web-based real-time prediction application was created capable of integrating patient specific data to predict TKA size, which will require external validation prior to clinical use.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisHumansMachine LearningRetrospective StudiesTibiaArtificial intelligenceFemoralKneeMachine learningPatient-specificPredictive modelingSizeTibialTotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.