No abstract

Identifying the design of a failed implant is a key step in the preoperative planning of revision total joint arthroplasty. Manual identification of the implant design from radiographic images is time‐consuming and prone to error. Failure to identify the implant design preoperatively can lead to increased operating room time, more complex surgery, increased blood loss, increased bone loss, increased recovery time, and overall increased healthcare costs. In this study, we present a novel, fully automatic and interpretable approach to identify the design of total hip replacement (THR) implants from plain radiographs using deep convolutional neural network (CNN). CNN achieved 100% accuracy in the identification of three commonly used THR implant designs. Such CNN can be used to automatically identify the design of a failed THR implant preoperatively in just a few seconds, saving time and improving the identification accuracy. This can potentially improve patient outcomes, free practitioners' time, and reduce healthcare costs.

A crucial step in the preoperative planning for a revision total hip replacement (THR) surgery is the accurate identification of the failed implant design, especially if one or more wellfixed/functioning components are to be retained. Manual identification of the implant design from preoperative radiographic images can be time-consuming and inaccurate, which can ultimately lead to increased operating room time, more complex surgery, and increased healthcare costs. Method: In this study, we present a novel approach to identifying THR femoral implants' design from plain radiographs using a convolutional neural network (CNN). We evaluated a total of 402 radiographs of nine different THR implant designs including, Accolade II (130 radiographs), Corail (89 radiographs), M/L Taper (31 radiographs), Summit (31 radiographs), Anthology (26 radiographs), Versys (26 radiographs), S-ROM (24 radiographs), Taperloc Standard Offset (24 radiographs), and Taperloc High Offset (21 radiographs). We implemented a transfer learning approach and adopted a DenseNet-201 CNN architecture by replacing the final classifier with nine fully connected neurons. Furthermore, we used saliency maps to explain the CNN decision-making process by visualizing the most important pixels in a given radiograph on the CNN's outcome. We also compared the CNN's performance with three board-certified and fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons. Results: The CNN achieved the same or higher performance than at least one of the surgeons in identifying eight of nine THR implant designs and underperformed all of the surgeons in identifying one THR implant design (Anthology). Overall, the CNN achieved a lower Cohen's kappa (0.78) than surgeon 1 (1.00), the same Cohen's kappa as surgeon 2 (0.78), and a slightly higher Cohen's kappa than surgeon 3 (0.76) in identifying all the nine THR implant designs. Furthermore, the saliency maps showed that the CNN generally focused on each implant's unique design features to make a decision. Regarding the time spent performing the implant identification, the CNN accomplished this task in~0.06 s per radiograph. The surgeon's identification time varied based on the method they utilized. When using their personal experience to identify the THR implant design, they spent negligible time. However, the identification time increased to an average of 8.4 min (standard deviation 6.1 min) per radiograph when they used another identification method (online search, consulting with the orthopedic company representative, and using image atlas), which occurred in about 17% of cases in the test subset (40 radiographs).