header advert
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 5, Issue 1 | Pages 46 - 52
19 Jan 2024
Assink N ten Duis K de Vries JPM Witjes MJH Kraeima J Doornberg JN IJpma FFA

Aims

Proper preoperative planning benefits fracture reduction, fixation, and stability in tibial plateau fracture surgery. We developed and clinically implemented a novel workflow for 3D surgical planning including patient-specific drilling guides in tibial plateau fracture surgery.

Methods

A prospective feasibility study was performed in which consecutive tibial plateau fracture patients were treated with 3D surgical planning, including patient-specific drilling guides applied to standard off-the-shelf plates. A postoperative CT scan was obtained to assess whether the screw directions, screw lengths, and plate position were performed according the preoperative planning. Quality of the fracture reduction was assessed by measuring residual intra-articular incongruence (maximum gap and step-off) and compared to a historical matched control group.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 5, Issue 1 | Pages 9 - 19
16 Jan 2024
Dijkstra H van de Kuit A de Groot TM Canta O Groot OQ Oosterhoff JH Doornberg JN

Aims

Machine-learning (ML) prediction models in orthopaedic trauma hold great promise in assisting clinicians in various tasks, such as personalized risk stratification. However, an overview of current applications and critical appraisal to peer-reviewed guidelines is lacking. The objectives of this study are to 1) provide an overview of current ML prediction models in orthopaedic trauma; 2) evaluate the completeness of reporting following the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement; and 3) assess the risk of bias following the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) tool.

Methods

A systematic search screening 3,252 studies identified 45 ML-based prediction models in orthopaedic trauma up to January 2023. The TRIPOD statement assessed transparent reporting and the PROBAST tool the risk of bias.


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 4, Issue 3 | Pages 168 - 181
14 Mar 2023
Dijkstra H Oosterhoff JHF van de Kuit A IJpma FFA Schwab JH Poolman RW Sprague S Bzovsky S Bhandari M Swiontkowski M Schemitsch EH Doornberg JN Hendrickx LAM

Aims

To develop prediction models using machine-learning (ML) algorithms for 90-day and one-year mortality prediction in femoral neck fracture (FNF) patients aged 50 years or older based on the Hip fracture Evaluation with Alternatives of Total Hip arthroplasty versus Hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH) and Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trials.

Methods

This study included 2,388 patients from the HEALTH and FAITH trials, with 90-day and one-year mortality proportions of 3.0% (71/2,388) and 6.4% (153/2,388), respectively. The mean age was 75.9 years (SD 10.8) and 65.9% of patients (1,574/2,388) were female. The algorithms included patient and injury characteristics. Six algorithms were developed, internally validated and evaluated across discrimination (c-statistic; discriminative ability between those with risk of mortality and those without), calibration (observed outcome compared to the predicted probability), and the Brier score (composite of discrimination and calibration).


Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 2, Issue 10 | Pages 879 - 885
20 Oct 2021
Oliveira e Carmo L van den Merkhof A Olczak J Gordon M Jutte PC Jaarsma RL IJpma FFA Doornberg JN Prijs J

Aims

The number of convolutional neural networks (CNN) available for fracture detection and classification is rapidly increasing. External validation of a CNN on a temporally separate (separated by time) or geographically separate (separated by location) dataset is crucial to assess generalizability of the CNN before application to clinical practice in other institutions. We aimed to answer the following questions: are current CNNs for fracture recognition externally valid?; which methods are applied for external validation (EV)?; and, what are reported performances of the EV sets compared to the internal validation (IV) sets of these CNNs?

Methods

The PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched from January 2010 to October 2020 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The type of EV, characteristics of the external dataset, and diagnostic performance characteristics on the IV and EV datasets were collected and compared. Quality assessment was conducted using a seven-item checklist based on a modified Methodologic Index for NOn-Randomized Studies instrument (MINORS).