Background Innovation in computer‐assisted surgery (CAS) aims to increase operative accuracy and improve safety by decreasing procedure‐related complications. The application of reality technologies, to CAS has begun to revolutionize orthopedic training and practice. Methods For this review, relevant published reports were found via searches of Medline (PubMed) data base using the following medical subject headings (MeSH) terms: “virtual reality” or “augmented reality” or “mixed reality” with “orthopedics” or “orthopedic surgery” and all relevant reports we utilized. Results Trainees now have authentic and highly interactive operative simulations without the need for supervision. The practicing orthopedic surgeon is better able to pre‐operatively plan and intra‐operatively navigate without the use of fluoroscopy, gain access to three‐dimensional reconstructions of patient imaging, and remotely interact with colleagues located outside the operating room. Conclusion This review provides a current and comprehensive examination of the reality technologies and their applications in Orthopedic surgery.

Aims Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) is theoretically more accurate for component positioning than TKA performed with mechanical instruments (M-TKA). Furthermore, the ability to incorporate soft-tissue laxity data into the plan prior to bone resection should reduce variability between the planned polyethylene thickness and the final implanted polyethylene. The purpose of this study was to compare accuracy to plan for component positioning and precision, as demonstrated by deviation from plan for polyethylene insert thickness in measured-resection RA-TKA versus M-TKA. Methods A total of 220 consecutive primary TKAs between May 2016 and November 2018, performed by a single surgeon, were reviewed. Planned coronal plane component alignment and overall limb alignment were all 0° to the mechanical axis; tibial posterior slope was 2°; and polyethylene thickness was 9 mm. For RA-TKA, individual component position was adjusted to assist gap-balancing but planned coronal plane alignment for the femoral and tibial components and overall limb alignment remained 0 ± 3°; planned tibial posterior slope was 1.5°. Mean deviations from plan for each parameter were compared between groups for positioning and size and outliers were assessed. Results In all, 103 M-TKAs and 96 RA-TKAs were included. In RA-TKA versus M-TKA, respectively: mean femoral positioning (0.9° (SD 1.2°) vs 1.7° (SD 1.1°)), mean tibial positioning (0.3° (SD 0.9°) vs 1.3° (SD 1.0°)), mean posterior tibial slope (-0.3° (SD 1.3°) vs 1.7° (SD 1.1°)), and mean mechanical axis limb alignment (1.0° (SD 1.7°) vs 2.7° (SD 1.9°)) all deviated significantly less from the plan (all p < 0.001); significantly fewer knees required a distal femoral recut (10 (10%) vs 22 (22%), p = 0.033); and deviation from planned polyethylene thickness was significantly less (1.4 mm (SD 1.6) vs 2.7 mm (SD 2.2), p < 0.001). Conclusion RA-TKA is significantly more accurate and precise in planning both component positioning and final polyethylene insert thickness. Future studies should investigate whether this increased accuracy and precision has an impact on clinical outcomes. The greater accuracy and reproducibility of RA-TKA may be important as precise new goals for component positioning are developed and can be further individualized to the patient. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):74–80.

Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently used to assess the impact of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on patients. However, mere statistical comparison of PROMs is not sufficient to assess the value of TKA to the patient, especially given the risk profile of arthroplasty. Evaluation of treatment effect sizes is important to support the use of an intervention; this is often quantified with the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). MCIDs are unique to specific PROMs, as they vary by calculation methodology and study population. Therefore, a systematic review of calculated MCID values, their respective ranges, and assessment of their applications is important to guide and encourage their use as a critical measure of effect size in TKA outcomes research. Questions/purposes In this systematic review of MCID calculations and reporting in primary TKA, we asked: (1) What are the most frequently reported PROM MCIDs and their reported ranges in TKA? (2) What proportion of studies report distribution-versus anchor-based MCID values? (3) What are the most common methods by which these MCID values are derived for anchor-based values? (4) What are the most common derivation methods for distribution-based values? (5) How do the reported medians and corresponding interquartile ranges (IQR) compare between calculation methods for each PROM? Methods Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases from inception through March 2022 for TKA articles reporting an MCID value for any PROMs. Two independent reviewers screened articles for eligibility, including any article that calculated new MCID values for PROMs after primary TKA, and extracted these data for analysis. Overall, 576 articles were identified, 38 of which were included in the final analysis. These studies had a total of 710,128 patients with a median age of 67.7 years and median BMI of 30.9 kg/m 2 . Women made up more than 50% of patients in most studies, and the median follow-up period was 17 months (range 0.25 to 72 months). The overall risk of bias was assessed as moderate using the Jadad criteria for one randomized controlled trial (3 of 5 ideal global score) and the modified Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies criteria for comparative studies (mean 17.2 6 1.8) and noncomparative studies (mean 9.6 6 1.3). There were 49 unique PROMs for which 233 Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

BackgroundThe minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is intended to detect a change in a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) large enough for a patient to appreciate. Their growing use in orthopaedic research stems from the necessity to identify a metric, other than the p value, to better assess the effect size of an outcome. Yet, given that MCIDs are population-specific and that there are multiple calculation methods, there is concern about inconsistencies. Given the increasing use of MCIDs in total hip arthroplasty (THA) research, a systematic review of calculated MCID values and their respective ranges, as well as an assessment of their applications, is important to guide and encourage their use as a critical measure of effect size in THA outcomes research.Questions/purposesWe systematically reviewed MCID calculations and reporting in current THA research to answer the following: (1) What are the most-reported PROM MCIDs in THA, and what is their range of values? (2) What proportion of studies report anchor-based versus distribution-based MCID values? (3) What are the most common methods by which anchor-based MCID values are derived? (4) What are the most common derivation methods for distribution-based MCID values? (5) How do the reported medians and corresponding ranges compare between calculation methods for each PROM?MethodsThe EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases were systematically reviewed from inception through March 2022 for THA studies reporting an MCID value for any PROMs. Two independent authors reviewed articles for inclusion. All articles calculating new PROM MCID scores after primary THA were included for data extraction and analysis. MCID values for each PROM, MCID calculation method, number of patients, and study demographics were extracted from each article. In total, 30 articles were included. There were 45 unique PROMs for which 242 MCIDs were reported. These studies had a total of 1,000,874 patients with a median age of 64 years and median BMI of 28.7 kg/m2. Women made up 55% of patients in the total study population, and the median follow-up period was 12 months (range 0 to 77 months). The overall risk of bias was assessed as moderate using the modified Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies criteria for comparative studies (the mean score for comparative papers in this review was 18 of 24, with higher scores representing better study quality) and noncomparative studies (for these, the mean score was 10 of a possible 16 points, with higher scores representing higher study quality). Calculated values were classified as anchor-based, distribution-based, or not reported. MCID values for each PROM, MCID calculation method, number of patients, and study demographics were extracted from each study. Anchor-based and distribution-based MCIDs were compared for each unique PROM using a Wilcoxon rank sum test, given the non-normal distribution of values.ResultsThe Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the Hip Injury and Osteoarthritis Score (HOOS) Pain and Quality of Life subscore M...

Background: Bibliometric citation analyses have been widely used in medicine to help researchers gain foundational knowledge about a topic and identify subtopics of popular interest for further investigations. Purpose: To identify the 50 most cited research publications related to American football. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: The Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database was used to generate a list of publications relating to football. Articles were filtered by the total number of citations, and the top 50 most cited articles studying the sport of football were selected for this analysis. Articles were analyzed by author, publication year, country of origin, institution affiliation, journal, article type, main research topic area, competitive level, and the level of evidence. A total of 247 articles were reviewed to reach the top 50 articles. Results: The most studied topic within the top 50 articles was concussion/chronic traumatic encephalopathy (n = 40). Collegiate football was the most studied level of competition (n = 25). The journal publishing the greatest number of top articles was Neurosurgery. Two institutions, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Boston University School of Medicine, produced over one-third of top 50 articles (n = 18). Conclusion: Our analysis indicated that most of the top 50 publications related to the sport of football focused on concussion and CTE, were observational, and were published during or after 2000. The most studied level of competition was collegiate football.

Purpose: To systematically review the literature to examine current understanding of the meniscofemoral ligaments (MFLs), their function, their importance in clinical management, and known anatomical variants. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Studies were included if they reported on the biomechanical, radiographic, or arthroscopic evaluation of human MFLs, or if they reported on an anatomical variant. These were then categorized as cadaveric, radiographic, or clinical. Biomechanical, radiographic, patient-reported, and functional outcomes data were recorded. Results: Forty-seven studies were included in the qualitative analysis, and 26 of them were included in the quantitative analysis. Of these, there were 15 cadaveric, 3 arthroscopic, and 9 radiographic studies that reported on the prevalence of MFLs. Overall, when looking at all modalities, the presence of either the anterior or posterior MFL (aMFL, pMFL) has been noted to be 70.8%, with it being the aMFL 17.4% and the pMFL 40.6%. The presence of both ligaments occurs in approximately 17.6% of individuals. Eleven reported on mean MFL length and thickness. When evaluating mean length in both men and women, the aMFL has been reported between 21.6 and 28.3 mm and the pMFL length in this population is between 23.4 and 31.2 mm. Five reported on cross-sectional area. Nine additional papers report anatomical variants. Conclusions: This review shows that there continues to be a variable incidence of MFLs reported in the literature, but our understanding of their function continues to broaden. A growing number of anatomic and biomechanical studies have demonstrated the importance of the MFLs in supporting knee stability. Specifically, the MFLs serve an important role in protecting the lateral meniscus and augmenting the function of the posterior cruciate ligament. Clinical Relevance: Our findings will aid the clinician in both identifying and treating pathologies of the meniscofemoral ligaments.

No abstract

No abstract