Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35350703›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in robotics and AI2022

Artificial Intelligence Based Patient-Specific Preoperative Planning Algorithm for Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Adriaan Lambrechts, Roel Wirix-Speetjens, Frederik Maes, Sabine Van Huffel

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in robotics and AI, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 38 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
12.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Artificial Intelligence Applications in Musculoskeletal Imaging.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Adriaan LambrechtsMaterialise NV, Leuven, Belgium.
Roel Wirix-SpeetjensMaterialise NV, Leuven, Belgium.
Frederik MaesDepartment of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), Processing Speech and Images (PSI), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Sabine Van HuffelDepartment of Electrical Engineering (ESAT), STADIUS Center for Dynamical Systems, Signal Processing and Data Analytics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BEÉcole Supérieure des Arts Saint-Luc de Liège · BEMaterialise (Belgium) · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that the manufacturer's default preoperative plans for total knee arthroplasty with patient-specific guides require frequent, time-consuming changes by the surgeon. Currently, no research has been done on predicting preoperative plans for orthopedic surgery using machine learning. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate whether artificial intelligence (AI) driven planning tools can create surgeon and patient-specific preoperative plans that require fewer changes by the surgeon. A dataset of 5409 preoperative plans, including the manufacturer's default and the plans corrected by 39 surgeons, was collected. Features were extracted from the preoperative plans that describe the implant sizes, position, and orientation in a surgeon- and patient-specific manner. Based on these features, non-linear regression models were employed to predict the surgeon's corrected preoperative plan. The average number of corrections a surgeon has to make to the preoperative plan generated using AI was reduced by 39.7% compared to the manufacturer's default plan. The femoral and tibial implant size in the manufacturer's plan was correct in 68.4% and 73.1% of the cases, respectively, while the AI-based plan was correct in 82.2% and 85.0% of the cases, respectively, compared to the surgeon approved plan. Our method successfully demonstrated the use of machine learning to create preoperative plans in a surgeon- and patient-specific manner for total knee arthroplasty.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencemachine learningorthopedic surgerypatient-specificpreoperative planningsupport vector machinetotal knee arthroplasty

Identifiers

PMID35350703
PMCPMC8957999
OpenAlexW4221090694

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.