Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35024899›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2022

Machine learning algorithms predict within one size of the final implant ultimately used in total knee arthroplasty with good-to-excellent accuracy.

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

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
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

6 authors.

Kyle N KunzeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 E. 70th Street, New York, NY, USA. Kylekunze7@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0363-3482
Evan M PolceSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, 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.
Scott M SporerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Brett R LevineDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo develop a novel machine learning algorithm capable of predicting TKA implant sizes using a large, multicenter database.

methodsA consecutive series of primary TKA patients from two independent large academic and three community medical centers between 2012 and 2020 was identified. The primary outcomes were final tibial and femoral implant sizes obtained from an automated inventory system. Five machine learning algorithms were trained using six routinely collected preoperative features (age, sex, height, weight, and body mass index). Algorithms were validated on an independent set of patients and evaluated through accuracy, mean absolute error (MAE), and root mean-squared error (RMSE).

resultsA total of 11,777 patients were included. The support vector machine (SVM) algorithm had the best performance for femoral component size(MAE = 0.73, RMSE = 1.06) with accuracies of 42.2%, 88.3%, and 97.6% for predicting exact size, ± one size, and ± two sizes, respectively. The elastic-net penalized linear regression (ENPLR) algorithm had the best performance for tibial component size (MAE 0.70, RMSE = 1.03) with accuracies of 43.8%, 90.0%, and 97.7% for predicting exact size, ± one size, and ± two sizes, respectively.

conclusionMachine learning algorithms demonstrated good-to-excellent accuracy for predicting within one size of the final tibial and femoral components used for TKA. Patient height and sex were the most important factors for predicting femoral and tibial component size, respectively. External validation of these algorithms is imperative prior to use in clinical settings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case-control, III.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, KneeKnee ProsthesisAlgorithmsHumansMachine LearningRetrospective StudiesArtificial intelligenceImplant sizeMachine learningTemplatingTKATotal 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.