Purpose of ReviewWith the unprecedented advancement of data aggregation and deep learning algorithms, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are poised to transform the practice of medicine. The field of orthopedics, in particular, is uniquely suited to harness the power of big data, and in doing so provide critical insight into elevating the many facets of care provided by orthopedic surgeons. The purpose of this review is to critically evaluate the recent and novel literature regarding ML in the field of orthopedics and to address its potential impact on the future of musculoskeletal care. Recent Findings Recent literature demonstrates that the incorporation of ML into orthopedics has the potential to elevate patient care through alternative patient-specific payment models, rapidly analyze imaging modalities, and remotely monitor patients. Summary Just as the business of medicine was once considered outside the domain of the orthopedic surgeon, we report evidence that demonstrates these emerging applications of AI warrant ownership, leverage, and application by the orthopedic surgeon to better serve their patients and deliver optimal, value-based care.

Peripheral nerve blocks such as a femoral + sciatic block have demonstrated significant pain relief following TKA. However, these nerve blocks have residual motor deficits which prevent immediate postoperative ambulation. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes in patients undergoing primary TKA with femoral and sciatic (Fem + Sci) motor nerve blocks versus an adductor canal and the interspace between the popliteal artery and the capsule of the posterior knee and adductor canal block (IPACK + ACB) sensory nerve blocks. A total of 100 consecutive patients were reviewed, 50 received Fem + Sci nerve blocks and 50 received IPACK + ACB blocks preoperatively. There were no differences in the two groups with respect to surgical technique, implant type, postoperative pain, and physical therapy protocols. Differences in opioid requirements, length of stay (LOS), distance walked, and common knee scoring systems were analyzed. Among them, 62% IPACK + ACB patients were discharged on postoperative day 1 compared with 14% in the Fem + Sci group (p < 0.0001). The IPACK + ACB patients had a shorter LOS (mean 1.48 days vs. 2.02 days, p < 0.001), ambulated further on postoperative day 0 (mean 21.4 feet vs. 5.3 feet, p < 0.001), and required less narcotics the day after surgery (mean, 15.7 vs. 24.0 morphine equivalents p < 0.0001) and at 2 weeks (mean, 6.2 vs. 9.3 morphine equivalents, p = 0.025). The use of this combination IPACK and ACB demonstrated improved early ambulation with a decrease in opioid use and length of stay compared with a femoral and sciatic motor nerve block in patients undergoing primary TKA.

Antibiotic-loaded cement (ABLC) has been widely utilized as an adjuvant treatment for patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) but has also evolved to play a prophylactic role against infection in primary total joint arthroplasties (TJA). Nevertheless, there is currently a paucity of studies that systematically investigated this concept. This review aimed at answering the following questions: (I) Can routine use of ABLC help reduce the current infection rates in primary TJA? (II) What are the risks associated with this approach? And (III) can routine use be justified in primary TJA from an economic standpoint? Multiple databases were queried including PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO Host, and SCOPUS. Studies published between January 1, 1990 and March 31, 2018 were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were studies reporting: (I) clinical outcomes of routine use of ABLC in primary hip and knee arthroplasty with 2-year minimum follow-up, (II) complications related to the use of ABLC, (III) cost of using ABLC. The final analysis included 24 studies. Data from multiple studies demonstrate contradictory results for infection rates when ABLC is used in all primary procedures with a majority of studies showing similar infection rates between ABLC and plain cement. The main concerns associated with routine use of ABLC are negative effects on the mechanical stability of cement, possible systemic and local toxicity of the absorbed antibiotic, and development of resistant bacterial strains. However, current literature has not clinically validated these concerns. Lastly, with an estimated increase in 117 million dollars with the routine use of ABLC in only 50% of TJAs performed each year, it is difficult to justify the use of ABLC without clear superiority in reducing infection. The use of ABLC has undeniably changed the way orthopaedic surgeons deal with PJI today. However, the large-scale, prophylactic use of ABLC in primary TJAs requires further research and justification.

No abstract