Objective We performed a retrospective study to compare the accuracy of preoperative planning using three-dimensional AI-HIP software and traditional two-dimensional manual templating to predict the size and position of prostheses. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of AI-HIP in preoperative planning for primary total hip arthroplasty. Methods In total, 316 hips treated from April 2019 to June 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. A typical preoperative planning process for patients was implemented to compare the accuracy of the two preoperative planning methods with respect to prosthetic size and position. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to evaluate the homogeneity between the actual prosthetic size and position and the preoperative planning method. Results When AI-HIP software and manual templating were used for preoperative planning, the stem agreement was 87.7% and 58.9%, respectively, and the cup agreement was 94.0% and 65.2%, respectively. The results showed that when AI-HIP software was used, an extremely high level of consistency (ICC > 0.95) was achieved for the femoral stem size, cup size, and femoral osteotomy level (ICC = 0.972, 0.962, and 0.961, respectively). Conclusion AI-HIP software showed excellent reliability for predicting the component size and implant position in primary total hip arthroplasty.

Preoperative planning with computed tomography (CT)-based 3-dimensiona (3D) templating has been achieved precise placement of hip components. This study investigated the role of the software (3-dimensional preoperative planning for primary total hip arthroplasty [THA] based on artificial intelligence technology, artificial intelligence hip [AIHIP]) for surgeons with different experience levels in primary THA. In this retrospective cohort study, we included patients, who had undergone THA with the help of the AIHIP, and matched to patients, who had undergone THA without the help of the AIHIP, by age and the doctor who operated on them. The subjects were divided into 4 groups, senior surgeon (Chief of Surgery) with AIHIP group, senior surgeon without AIHIP group, junior surgeon (Associate Chief of Surgery) with AIHIP group and junior surgeon without AIHIP group. The general data, imaging index, clinical outcomes and accuracy of stem size prediction and cup size prediction were retrospectively documented for all patients. There was a significant difference in discrepancy in leg length (P = .010), neck-shaft angle (P = .025) and femoral offset (P = .031) between the healthy side and the affected side, operation duration (P < .001), decrease in hemoglobin (Hb) per 24 hours (P = .046), intraoperative radiation exposure frequency (P < .050) and postoperative complications (overall P = .035) among the patients in junior surgeon group. No significant differences were found between senior surgeon groups with respect to discrepancy in leg length (P = .793), neck-shaft angle (P = .088)and femoral offset (P = .946) between the healthy side and the affected side, operation duration (P = .085), decrease in Hb per 24 hours (P = .952), intraoperative radiation exposure frequency (P = .094) and postoperative complications (overall P = .378). The stem sizes of 95% were accurately estimated to be within 1 stem size, and 97% of the cup size estimates were accurate to within 1 cup size in senior surgeon group with AIHIP. A total of 87% stem sizes were accurately estimated to be within 1 stem size, and 85% cup sizes were accurate to within 1 cup size in junior surgeon group with AIHIP. In conclusion, our study suggests that an AI-based preoperative 3D planning system for THA is a valuable adjunctive tool for junior doctor and should routinely be performed preoperatively.

BackgroundPreoperative planning with computed tomography (CT)-based three-dimensional templating has been achieved more precise placement of hip components. This study investigated the value of the software for preoperative planning (artificial intelligence hip system, AIHIP) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for surgeons with different experience levels.MethodsWe performed a retrospective study of 240 hips in 240 patients who underwent cementless primary THA. The patients were divided into four groups: A1) senior surgeon without AIHIP, A2) senior surgeon with AIHIP, B1) junior surgeon without AIHIP, and B2) junior surgeon with AIHIP. All preoperative planning evaluations were completed using the AIHIP software. We analysed the accuracy of stem size prediction and cup size prediction, the absolute value of postoperative discrepancy in leg length, discrepancy of neck-shaft angle and femoral offset between the healthy side and the affected side from the anteroposterior radiographic view of the hip, intraoperative and postoperative complications, operative times, the reduction in the haemoglobin (Hb) level during the first 24 hours and the number of intraoperative radiations.ResultsThe sizes of 95% were accurately estimated to be within one stem size, and 97% of the cup size estimates were accurate to within one cup size in group A2. A total of 87% were accurately estimated to be within one stem size, and 85% were accurate to within one cup size in group B2. There was a significant difference in radiological indicators (P<0.050), postoperative complications (overall P=0.035), operation duration (P<0.001), decrease in Hb per 24 hours (P=0.046) and intraoperative radiation frequency (P<0.050) among the patients in group B. There was also a significant difference in postoperative complications (overall P=0.01) between groups A1 and B1.ConclusionOur results suggest that the AIHIP is a favourable tool for young surgeons, and the accuracy is good.