You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Bioengineering
  • Editor’s Choice
  • Review
  • Open Access

7 May 2025

Branding a New Technological Outlook for Future Orthopaedics

and
1
Institute of Continuum Mechanics and Biomechanics, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
2
Department of Orthopaedics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL 60612, USA
3
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Northshore University HealthSystem, Skokie, IL 60076, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Engineering Technologies in Orthopaedic Research

Abstract

Orthopedics is undergoing a transformative shift driven by personalized medical technologies that enhance precision, efficiency, and patient outcomes. Virtual surgical planning, robotic assistance, and real-time 3D navigation have revolutionized procedures like total knee arthroplasty and hip replacement, offering unparalleled accuracy and reducing recovery times. Integrating artificial intelligence, advanced imaging, and 3D-printed patient-specific implants further elevates surgical precision, minimizes intraoperative complications, and supports individualized care. In sports orthopedics, wearable sensors and motion analysis technologies are revolutionizing diagnostics, injury prevention, and rehabilitation, enabling real-time decision-making and improved patient safety. Health-tracking devices are advancing recovery and supporting preventative care, transforming athletic performance management. Concurrently, breakthroughs in biologics, biomaterials, and bioprinting are reshaping treatments for cartilage defects, ligament injuries, osteoporosis, and meniscal damage. These innovations are poised to establish new benchmarks for regenerative medicine in orthopedics. By combining cutting-edge technologies with interdisciplinary collaboration, the field is redefining surgical standards, optimizing patient care, and paving the way for a highly personalized and efficient future.

1. Introduction

Orthopedic research is a collaborative endeavor that bridges two key domains: clinical expertise and technological innovation. Clinical practitioners, including physical therapists, doctors, and pharmacists, offer valuable insights from their patient interactions, identifying recurring conditions and emerging challenges. This practical knowledge drives innovation by highlighting areas for further exploration and improvement [1,2].
At the same time, advancements in medical engineering, biomaterials, and biomechanics provide new tools to address these challenges. From nanoscale biosensors to multidisciplinary molecular research, technical specialists collaborate closely with clinicians to develop and deliver tailored solutions, enhancing patient care and effectively managing costs [3,4]. This paper examines how such collaborations shape orthopedics’ future, particularly in imaging, surgical planning, and rehabilitation.
In an era where patients are increasingly informed and proactive about their healthcare options, staying abreast of research is vital [5,6]. This knowledge enables hospitals and clinics to adapt to evolving demands, including integrating wireless and intelligent technologies. Recent developments in telemedicine and virtual hospitals are promising innovations that could soon serve as essential platforms for outreach communities while complementing specialty care in modern healthcare systems [7,8] (World Health Organization, 2021). Furthermore, advancements in imaging technologies, such as 3D visualization and augmented reality for surgical planning, are paving the way for precision medicine in orthopedics [9,10].
The mission of orthopedics is deeply rooted in patient care: to provide the finest care possible by addressing pain, enhancing mobility, and ensuring safety, comfort, accessibility, convenience, and affordability [11]. Through the collaboration of clinical and technical expertise, the field is meeting the needs of today’s patients and paving the way for future innovations that will redefine healthcare delivery.
Building upon this foundational premise, this paper explores the dynamic evolution of orthopedic practices, highlighting the profound impact of recent advancements in imaging technologies, the strategic use of virtual planning, and groundbreaking surgical innovations [12]. These trends are reshaping the landscape of orthopedics and enhancing patient outcomes and operational efficiencies within the field.

3. A Look into the Future

Orthopedic surgery is shifting toward less invasive and more precise procedures, increasing outpatient and overnight procedures. In addition, the current and future development of innovative technologies will make surgery more selective and the orthopedic surgeon more focused on caring for injuries and diseases.
Collaboration between clinical and technological leaders will be essential for the future of orthopedic research and applications. As discussed, the interaction between the two entities resolves complex patient health concerns by designing adaptive models to comprehend the condition and individualized treatment and rehabilitation methods. Currently, orthopedic residency programs are developing a unique set of orthopedic surgeons who increasingly rely on technology.
Digital learning refers to the educational use of electronic media and digital technologies. It encompasses computer-based, internet-based, web-based, online, and virtual education through a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), which comprises online tools, databases, and control resources that work in conjunction to support teaching and learning. It has been demonstrated that digital learning is more effective, less expensive, and more satisfying for students than traditional approaches [84]. However, digital learning cannot replace direct consultant supervision at surgical trainees’ workplaces, and blended learning has proven to be the most effective method.
The impact of nanobiomaterials is a work in progress. The clinical benefits of nanobiomaterials science require a deep understanding of the cellular and molecular basis governing the function of nanostructures and cells. While this topic is receiving considerable attention, challenges at all levels are still being investigated to develop an optimized structure with properties that mimic those of natural bone or cartilage and respond to load and stress without premature failure.
The application of nanotechnology combined with bioprinting is a new frontier in orthopedic research. The future of these technologies holds immense potential to enhance current orthopedic biomaterials and facilitate the development of innovative tissue engineering scaffolds and tissue regeneration solutions for muscles, tendons, bones, and biodegradable implants.
  • Towards more automation:
The operating room is changing. The continuous development of augmented reality and artificial intelligence will enable intelligent, automated workflows and more effective robotic operations with real-time feedback.
Automation will enable the collection of patient information, the conversion of 2D images into 3D models, and the easy sharing of data between surgeons and biomedical engineers, instilling confidence throughout the entire surgical team. Proper planning before surgery also enables intelligent sizing, resulting in reduced inventory needs during surgery and a more successful outcome. With automated, patient-specific, 3D-printed implants, surgical instruments will be tailored to the individual patient.
  • Description of implant design and Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
Implant design in orthopedics focuses on creating biomedical devices that can effectively replace or support damaged tissues, enhancing patient outcomes. The design process involves understanding the anatomical and biomechanical requirements specific to the injury or condition being treated. Key factors include material selection, geometry, and surface properties, which are crucial for ensuring the implant’s biocompatibility, mechanical strength, and longevity.
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) plays a crucial role in optimizing implant design. This computational technique allows for the simulation and analysis of implants’ behavior under various physiological loads and conditions. Using FEA, designers can identify stress distributions, potential points of failure, and areas for improvement in the implant’s structure.
  • The optimization process involves several steps:
1. Model Creation: A detailed CAD model of the implant is developed, incorporating anatomical features and the desired specifications for the implant’s functionality.
2. Mesh Generation: The CAD model is discretized into smaller elements, creating a finite element mesh that enables detailed stress and strain analysis across the entire implant.
3. Boundary Conditions and Loads: Realistic boundary conditions, including forces generated by muscle activity, weight-bearing, and other physiological factors, are applied to simulate the environment where the implant will operate.
4. Simulation and Analysis: Using FEA software, various loading scenarios are simulated to determine how the implant performs under different conditions. This analysis helps identify areas of high stress and potential failure.
5. Optimization Iteration: Based on the FEA results, the implant design may be iteratively adjusted to reduce stress concentrations, enhance stability, and improve overall performance. This can involve changing geometrical features, selecting different materials, or modifying the surface texture.
6. Validation: Once optimization is complete, the final design must be validated through physical testing, such as mechanical testing and biocompatibility assays, to ensure it meets the necessary standards for safety and efficacy.
By integrating advanced computational techniques, such as FEA, the design of orthopedic implants becomes more precise and tailored to individual patient needs, ultimately leading to improved surgical outcomes and an enhanced quality of life for patients.
AI technologies will give surgeons abilities they have never possessed before. Automation also facilitates the smooth flow of communication and storing all data in a readily accessible and organized format while managing surgery by keeping track of all inventories and ensuring that all components arrive at the hospital or ASC on time. Inventory is another factor that can occasionally cause surgical delays.
Automation and AI will redefine the surgical landscape, enabling the development of patient-specific implants and facilitating real-time simulations. This vision is captured in Figure 10, which illustrates the flowchart of the process from patient-specific imaging to 3D printing and surgical application.
Figure 10. Processing patient-specific implants: Workflow from imaging to 3D printing and surgical application. Automation and AI transform surgery with real-time simulations and personalized implants.
Thanks to patient-specific instruments and implants, improved surgical outcomes and quicker recoveries are now possible during the treatment or surgical phase. Additionally, augmented reality will enhance the visualization and understanding of the condition, improving the surgeon’s precision and reducing errors.
The post-treatment phase is also changing, thanks to user-friendly applications accessible via smartphones and wearable devices. These allow the medical team to monitor the patient’s real-time health condition and adjust the treatment.
Challenges, Risks, Costs, and Implementation
Technical Limitations: Many VR systems may not accurately replicate real-world scenarios, potentially creating a gap in training effectiveness. Furthermore, issues with system compatibility and integration with existing healthcare technologies can hinder usability.
User Acceptance: Patients may be reluctant to engage with new technologies, particularly older adults who may not be comfortable with virtual reality (VR) or telehealth systems. This could impact participation rates and overall satisfaction with therapy.
Data Security and Privacy: As more patient data are shared on digital platforms; the risk of data breaches is heightened. Ensuring the privacy and security of patient information is critical to maintaining trust.
Cost of Implementation: While the long-term benefits may be significant, the initial costs for advanced systems and training can be prohibitive for some healthcare institutions. These costs include software licensing, hardware purchases, and ongoing maintenance expenses.
Regulatory Compliance: Meeting FDA regulations for new devices and therapies can be lengthy and complex, potentially delaying innovative technology adoption.
Dependence on Technology: Over-reliance on virtual platforms may lead to a lack of hands-on training for medical professionals, potentially reducing the quality of care in cases where in-person evaluations are necessary.
Initial Investment: The upfront costs of purchasing VR, AR, or mixed reality systems can be high. These costs include hardware (headsets and sensors), software (licenses and subscriptions), and necessary accessories.
Training Expenses: Staff will require training to utilize new technologies effectively. This can involve initial training sessions and ongoing education as systems are updated or expanded.
Maintenance and Upgrades: Regular software updates and hardware maintenance will incur ongoing costs. Institutions must allocate funds for these expenditures to ensure their systems remain functional and secure.
Telehealth Infrastructure: Implementing virtual visits requires an investment in the necessary infrastructure, including reliable internet connections, digital platforms, and security measures to protect patient data.
Pilot Programs: Initiating small pilot programs can help gauge the effectiveness of new technologies before implementing them on a full scale. This allows for adjustments based on feedback and can help overcome resistance from staff and patients.
Stakeholder Engagement: It is crucial to involve all stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, patients, and IT teams, in the planning and implementation process. Their input can inform design choices and increase buy-in for the technology.
Integration with Existing Systems: Ensuring that new platforms can integrate seamlessly with current electronic health records and other healthcare systems is essential for providing a cohesive experience for staff and patients.
Feedback Mechanisms: Establishing robust systems to gather patient and provider feedback can help continuously refine the technology and its applications based on real-world experiences.
Regulatory Planning: Healthcare institutions should plan for regulatory approval timelines early to avoid implementation interruptions due to compliance delays.
Healthcare facilities can effectively leverage advanced technologies to enhance patient care in orthopedics and rehabilitation by thoroughly addressing these challenges and costs during the planning and implementation stages.

4. Discussion

The future of orthopedic research and basic science will be significantly impacted by the rapid increase in the use of patient-specific printing techniques for implants, materials, imaging, and sensory feedback tools, such as navigation, tracking mobility, and sensor support for diagnosis and balance, as seen in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This technology will help us better understand how complex surgeries are performed and render primary Total hip arthroplasty or Total knee arthroplasty routine. Artificial intelligence works best when a highly advanced orthopedic platform is fully operational. Training, education, and performance optimization of skills and procedures will benefit from AI and other computer-generated algorithms. As large databases are created around various patient pathologies, diagnosis and surgical planning improvements will lead to a dramatic shift toward automation and technological integration that has never been seen before.
The role of biomechanics has expanded beyond testing and experimentation in the last decade. CT, segmentation, and 3D modeling have created a new paradigm in simulation, extensive use of FEA, and patient-specific design of implants. While virtual testing is becoming the norm, it has bridged into surgical pre-planning and augmented reality. Surgeons will be able to interact with a natural environment and request immediate answers from AR simulations and FEA. As new products are introduced, feedback will be sought on the engineering of bone–implant interfaces and how new implant materials affect human joint function. This interactive simulation, which allows for real-time surgery, is made possible through real-time simulation and analysis.
These new in silico ideas will add a new dimension to residents’ training and knowledge, enabling future surgeons to collaborate on complex surgical procedures. In parallel, the orthopedic industry, medical device manufacturers, implant suppliers, and surgical tool developers will integrate virtual laboratory AR and VR into their existing platforms to optimize their design.
COVID-19 has required medical professionals to work remotely. It has, in turn, created ideas, tools, and resources that have compelled hospitals to collaborate with the private sector to develop new platforms and opportunities that were previously unavailable. Technology is constantly evolving and will continue to be in high demand. However, maintaining course and training our surgeons to stay abreast of modern technology integration for remote and virtual patient care is crucial to elevating surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction.
In contrast to the revolution of novel technologies and devices derived from basic science in orthopedics, clinical life’s evolution appears to be slower. A challenge of clinical research in orthopedics is the large variety of patients with increasing treatment options offered by basic science. Therefore, international, industry-independent, randomized controlled trials must prove the clinical relevance of new and existing devices and therapies on the market that are derived from basic science.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Glyn-Jones, S.; Palmer, A.J.R.; Agricola, R.; Price, A.J.; Vincent, T.L.; Weinans, H.; Carr, A.J. Osteoarthritis. Lancet 2015, 386, 376–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Miller, M.D.; Thompson, S.R. DeLee, Drez & Miller’s Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, 5th ed.; Elsevier: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2020; Available online: http://www.engineeringvillage.com/controller/servlet/OpenURL?genre=book&isbn=9780323544733 (accessed on 1 January 2025).
  3. Obermeyer, Z.; Emanuel, E.J. Predicting the Future—Big Data, Machine Learning, and Clinical Medicine. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 1216–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Mavrogenis, A.F.; Megaloikonomos, P.D.; Panagopoulos, G.N.; Maffulli, N. Biomechanics in Orthopaedics. J. Biomed. 2017, 2, 89–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Longtin, Y.; Sax, H.; Leape, L.L.; Sheridan, S.E.; Donaldson, L.; Pittet, D. Patient Participation: Current Knowledge and Applicability to Patient Safety. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2010, 85, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Toosizadeh, N.; Yen, T.C.; Howe, C.; Dohm, M.; Mohler, J.; Najafi, B. Gait behaviors as an objective surgical outcome in low back disorders: A systematic review. Clin. Biomech. 2015, 30, 528–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sim, A.J.; Redler, G.; Peacock, J.; Naso, C.; Wasserman, S.; McNitt, K.B.; Hoffe, S.E.; Johnstone, P.A.S.; Harrison, L.B.; Rosenberg, S.A. Harnessing COVID-Driven Technical Innovations for Improved Multi-Disciplinary Cancer Care in the Post-COVID Era: The Virtual Patient Room. Cancer Control 2020, 27, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Saigí-Rubió, F.; Borges Do Nascimento, I.J.; Robles, N.; Ivanovska, K.; Katz, C.; Azzopardi-Muscat, N.; Ortiz, D.N. The Current Status of Telemedicine Technology Use Across the World Health Organization European Region: An Overview of Systematic Reviews. J. Med. Internet Res. 2022, 24, e40877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bae, D.K.; Song, S.J. Computer Assisted Navigation in Knee Arthroplasty. Clin. Orthop. Surg. 2011, 3, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Laverdière, C.; Corban, J.; Khoury, J.; Ge, S.M.; Schupbach, J.; Harvey, E.J.; Reindl, R.; Martineau, P.A. Augmented Reality in Orthopaedics. Bone Jt. J. 2019, 101-B, 1479–1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Neal-Smith, G.; Butler, K.; Patel, B.; Huntley, D.; Wood, A. “Ergopaedics”: The Future of Ergonomics in Orthopaedics. Br. J. Hosp. Med. 2021, 82, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Picard, F.; Deakin, A.H.; Riches, P.E.; Deep, K.; Baines, J. Computer Assisted Orthopaedic Surgery: Past, Present and Future. Med. Eng. Phys. 2019, 72, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Buraimoh, M.A.; Massie, L.W.; Montgomery, D.M. Lateral Atlantoaxial Osteoarthritis: A Narrative Literature Review. Clin. Spine Surg. 2017, 30, E1426–E1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Mah, E.T.; Metaverse, A.R. Machine Learning & AI in Orthopaedics? J. Orthop. Surg. 2023, 31, 10225536231165362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Aubert, O.; Divard, G.; Pascual, J.; Oppenheimer, F.; Sommerer, C.; Citterio, F.; Tedesco, H.; Chadban, H.; Henry, M.; Vincenti, F.; et al. Application of the iBox Prognostication System as a Surrogate Endpoint in the TRANSFORM Randomised Controlled Trial: Proof-of-Concept Study. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e052138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jia, G.; Huang, X.; Tao, S.; Zhang, X.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, H.; He, J.; Hao, J.; Liu, B.; Zhou, J.; et al. Artificial intelligence-based medical image segmentation for 3D printing and naked eye 3D visualization. Intell. Med. 2022, 2, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Al-Mukhtar, A.M. Fracture Mechanics and Micro Crack Detection in Bone. J. Mech. Behav. Mater. 2020, 29, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dhillon, J.; Tanguilig, G.; Kraeutler, M.J. Virtual and Augmented Reality Simulators Show Intraoperative, Surgical Training, and Athletic Training Applications: A Scoping Review. Arthroscopy 2025, 41, 505–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Khoury, A.; Liebergall, M.; Weil, Y.; Mosheiff, R. Computerized Fluoroscopic-Based Navigation-Assisted Intramedullary Nailing. J. Orthop. Trauma 2007, 21, 550–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sutherland, D.H. The Evolution of Clinical Gait Analysis Part I: Kinesiological EMG. Gait Posture 2001, 14, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Alawi, M.; Begum, A.; Harraz, M.; Alawi, H.; Bamagos, S.; Yaghmour, A.; Hafiz, L. Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DEXA) Scan Versus Computed Tomography for Bone Density Assessment. Cureus 2021, 13, e13261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  22. Apard, T. Ultrasonography for the Orthopaedic Surgeon. Orthop. Traumatol. Surg. Res. 2019, 105, S7–S14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Roberts, C.S.; Beck, D.J.; Heinsen, J.; Seligson, D. Diagnostic Ultrasonography: Applications in Orthopaedic Surgery. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2002, 401, 248–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Wilson, I.; Bohm, E.; Lübbeke, A.; Lyman, S.; Overgaard, S.; Rolfson, O.; W-Dahl, A.; Wilkinson, M.; Dunbar, M. Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures. EFORT Open Rev. 2019, 4, 357–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Brodke, D.J.; Hung, M.; Bozic, K.J. Item Response Theory and Computerized Adaptive Testing for Orthopaedic Outcomes Measures. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2016, 24, 750–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wong, L.H.; Meeker, J.E. The Promise of Computer Adaptive Testing in Collection of Orthopaedic Outcomes: An Evaluation of PROMIS Utilization. J. Patient-Rep. Outcomes 2022, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Francoise, V.; Sahbani, A.; Morel, G. A Comanipulation Device for Orthopedic Surgery That Generates Geometrical Constraints with Real-Time Registration on Moving Bones. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics, Karon Beach, Thailand, 7–11 December 2011; pp. 38–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Merle, G.; Parent-Harvey, A.; Harvey, E.J. Sensors and Digital Medicine in Orthopaedic Surgery. OTA Int. 2022, 5, e189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Furrer, M.; Bichsel, L.; Niederer, M.; Baur, H.; Schmid, S. Validation of a Smartphone-Based Measurement Tool for the Quantification of Level Walking. Gait Posture 2015, 42, 289–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. van Dijk-Huisman, H.C.; Weemaes, A.T.R.; Boymans, T.A.E.J.; Lenssen, A.F.; de Bie, R.A. Smartphone App with an Accelerometer Enhances Patients’ Physical Activity Following Elective Orthopedic Surgery: A Pilot Study. Sensors 2020, 20, 4317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Moreta-Martinez, R.; Pose-Díez-de-la-Lastra, A.; Calvo-Haro, J.A.; Mediavilla-Santos, L.; Pérez-Mañanes, R.; Pascau, J. Combining Augmented Reality and 3D Printing to Improve Surgical Workflows in Orthopedic Oncology: Smartphone Application and Clinical Evaluation. Sensors 2021, 21, 1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cooke, R.E.; Gaeta, M.G.; Kaufman, D.M.; Henrici, J.G. Picture Archiving and Communication Systems in Orthopedics. J. Digit. Imaging 2003, 16, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Barretto, M.D.A.; Melhem-Elias, F.; Deboni, M.C.Z. The Untold History of Planning in Orthognathic Surgery: A Narrative Review From the Beginning to Virtual Surgical Simulation. J. Stomatol. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2022, 123, e251–e259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Atesok, K.; Mabrey, J.D.; Jazrawi, L.M.; Egol, K.A. Surgical Simulation in Orthopaedic Skills Training. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2012, 20, 410–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Saad, A.; Winters, R.; Wise, M.W.; Dupin, C.L.; St. Hilaire, H. Virtual Surgical Planning in Complex Composite Maxillofacial Reconstruction. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2013, 132, 626–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ha, H.G.; Hong, J. Augmented Reality in Medicine. Hanyang Med. Rev. 2016, 36, 242–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Eckert, M.; Volmerg, J.S.; Friedrich, C.M. Augmented Reality in Medicine: Systematic and Bibliographic Review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019, 7, e10967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bin, S.; Masood, S.; Jung, Y. Virtual and Augmented Reality in Medicine. In Biomedical Information Technology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 673–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Haleem, A.; Vaishya, R.; Javaid, M.; Khan, I.H. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Applications in Orthopaedics: An Innovative Technology to Embrace. J. Clin. Orthop. Trauma 2020, 11, S80–S81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kurmis, A.P.; Ianunzio, J.R. Artificial Intelligence in Orthopedic Surgery: Evolution, Current State and Future Directions. Arthroplasty 2022, 4, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hsu, A.R.; Gross, C.E.; Bhatia, S.; Levine, B.R. Template-directed Instrumentation in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Cost Savings Analysis. Orthopedics 2012, 35, e1596–e1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Whiddon, D.R.; Bono, J.V.; Lang, J.E.; Smith, E.L.; Salyapongse, A.K. Accuracy of Digital Templating in Total Hip Arthroplasty. Am. J. Orthop. 2011, 40, 395–398. [Google Scholar]
  43. Han, X.G.; Tian, W. Artificial Intelligence in Orthopedic Surgery: Current State and Future Perspective. Chin. Med. J. 2019, 132, 2521–2523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Federer, S.J.; Jones, G.G. Artificial Intelligence in Orthopaedics: A Scoping Review. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0260471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Yu, C.; Jiang, J. A Perspective on Using Machine Learning in 3D Bioprinting. Int. J. Bioprint. 2020, 6, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Shin, J.; Lee, Y.; Li, Z.; Hu, J.; Park, S.S.; Kim, K. Optimized 3D Bioprinting Technology Based on Machine Learning: A Review of Recent Trends and Advances. Micromachines 2022, 13, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lopez, C.D.; Boddapati, V.; Schweppe, E.A.; Levine, W.N.; Lehman, R.A.; Lenke, L.G. Recent Trends in Medicare Utilization and Reimbursement for Orthopaedic Procedures Performed at Ambulatory Surgery Centers. J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 2021, 103, 1383–1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Carbone, A.; Wang, K.; Chu, B.; Darden, C.; Shrestha, N.; Colvin, A.; Anthony, S.; Gladstone, J.; Tiao, J. Poster 264: Ambulatory Surgery Centers Reduce Day-of-Surgery Expenditures for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Without Increasing Patient Out-of-Pocket Expenditure: A Breakdown and Comparison of Expenditures on 34,862 Patients. Orthop. J. Sports Med. 2022, 10, 2325967121S0082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Fabricant, P.D.; Seeley, M.A.; Rozell, J.C.; Fieldston, E.; Flynn, J.M.; Wells, L.M.; Ganley, T.J. Cost Savings from Utilization of an Ambulatory Surgery Center for Orthopaedic Day Surgery. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2016, 24, 865–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Barcali, E.; Iadanza, E.; Manetti, L.; Francia, P.; Nardi, C.; Bocchi, L. Augmented Reality in Surgery: A Scoping Review. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Buraimoh, M.A.; Liu, J.Z.; Sundberg, S.B.; Mott, M.P. Eponymous Instruments in Orthopaedic Surgery. Iowa Orthop. J. 2017, 37, 211–217. [Google Scholar]
  52. Zheng, G.; Tian, W.; Zhuang, X. (Eds.) Intelligent Orthopaedics: Artificial Intelligence and Smart Image-Guided Technology for Orthopaedics; Springer: Singapore, 2018; Volume 1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ellis, R.E.; Peters, T.M. (Eds.) Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention—MICCAI 2003; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2003; Volume 2879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. van Oosterom, M.N.; van der Poel, H.G.; Navab, N.; van de Velde, C.J.H.; van Leeuwen, F.W.B. Computer-assisted Surgery: Virtual- and Augmented-reality Displays for Navigation During Urological Interventions. Curr. Opin. Urol. 2018, 28, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mishvelov, A.E.; Ibragimov, A.K.; Amaliev, I.T.; Esuev, A.A.; Remizov, O.V.; Dzyuba, M.A.; Simonov, A.N.; Okolelova, A.I.; Povetkin, S.N. Computer-Assisted Surgery: Virtual- and Augmented-Reality Displays for Navigation During Planning and Performing Surgery on Large Joints. Pharmacophore 2021, 12, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Khor, W.S.; Baker, B.; Amin, K.; Chan, A.; Patel, K.; Wong, J. Augmented and Virtual Reality in Surgery—The Digital Surgical Environment: Applications, Limitations and Legal Pitfalls. Ann. Transl. Med. 2016, 4, 454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Halabi, O.; Balakrishnan, S.; Dakua, S.P.; Navab, N.; Warfa, M. Virtual and Augmented Reality in Surgery. In The Disruptive Fourth Industrial Revolution; Doorsamy, W., Paul, B.S., Marwala, T., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 257–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rush, A.J.; Shepard, N.; Nolte, M.; Siemionow, K.; Phillips, F. Augmented Reality in Spine Surgery: Current State of the Art. Int. J. Spine Surg. 2022, 16, S22–S27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Ahn, J.; Choi, H.; Hong, J.; Hong, J. Tracking Accuracy of a Stereo Camera-Based Augmented Reality Navigation System for Orthognathic Surgery. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2019, 77, e1–e1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Nishio, S.; Hossain, M.; Hossain, B.; Nii, M.; Hiranaka, T.; Kobashi, S. Real-Time Orthopedic Surgery Procedure Recognition Method with Video Images from Smart Glasses Using Convolutional Neural Network. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Miyazaki, Japan, 7–10 October 2018; pp. 379–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cofano, F.; Di Perna, G.; Bozzaro, M.; Longo, A.; Marengo, N.; Zenga, F.; Zullo, N.; Cavalieri, M.; Damiani, L.; Boges, D.J.; et al. Augmented Reality in Medical Practice: From Spine Surgery to Remote Assistance. Front. Surg. 2021, 8, 657901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Langlotz, F.; Nolte, L.P. Technical Approaches to Computer-Assisted Orthopedic Surgery. Eur. J. Trauma 2004, 30, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zheng, G.; Nolte, L.P. Computer-Assisted Orthopedic Surgery: Current State and Future Perspective. Front. Surg. 2015, 2, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Marescaux, J.; Diana, M. Inventing the Future of Surgery. World J. Surg. 2015, 39, 615–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wen, R.; Tay, W.L.; Nguyen, B.P.; Chng, C.B.; Chui, C.K. Hand Gesture Guided Robot-Assisted Surgery Based on a Direct Augmented Reality Interface. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 2014, 116, 68–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Astuto, B.; Flament, I.; Namiri, N.K.; Shah, R.; Bharadwaj, U.; Link, T.M.; Bucknor, M.D.; Pedoia, V.; Majumdar, S. Automatic Deep Learning–Assisted Detection and Grading of Abnormalities in Knee MRI Studies. Radiol. Artif. Intell. 2021, 3, e200165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Ranganathan, G.; Fernando, X.; Piramuthu, S. (Eds.) Soft Computing for Security Applications; Springer: Singapore, 2023; Volume 1428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yazdanpanah, Z.; Johnston, J.D.; Cooper, D.M.L.; Chen, X. 3D Bioprinted Scaffolds for Bone Tissue Engineering: State-Of-The-Art and Emerging Technologies. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2022, 10, 824156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lam, T.; Dehne, T.; Krüger, J.P.; Hondke, S.; Endres, M.; Thomas, A.; Lauster, R.; Sittinger, M.; Kloke, L. Photopolymerizable gelatin and hyaluronic acid for stereolithographic 3D bioprinting of tissue-engineered cartilage. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B Appl. Biomater. 2019, 107, 2649–2657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Fonseca, A.C.; Melchels, F.P.W.; Ferreira, M.J.S.; Moxon, S.R.; Potjewyd, G.; Dargaville, T.R.; Kimber, S.J.; Domingos, M. Emulating Human Tissues and Organs: A Bioprinting Perspective Toward Personalized Medicine. Chem. Rev. 2020, 120, 11128–11174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  71. Lee, E.H.; Hui, J.H.P. The Potential of Stem Cells in Orthopaedic Surgery. J. Bone Joint Surg. Br. 2006, 88, 841–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Akpancar, S.; Tatar, O.; Turgut, H.; Akyildiz, F.; Ekinci, S. The Current Perspectives of Stem Cell Therapy in Orthopedic Surgery. Arch. Trauma Res. 2016, 5, e37976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Im, G.I. Clinical Use of Stem Cells in Orthopaedics. Eur. Cell. Mater. 2017, 33, 183–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Burke, J.; Kolhe, R.; Hunter, M.; Isales, C.; Hamrick, M.; Fulzele, S. Stem Cell-derived Exosomes: A Potential Alternative Therapeutic Agent in Orthopaedics. Stem Cells Int. 2016, 2016, 5802529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Xie, F.; Liu, Y.; Chen, X.; Li, Q.; Zhong, J.; Dai, B.; Shao, X.; Wu, G. Role of MicroRNA, LncRNA, and Exosomes in the Progression of Osteoarthritis: A Review of Recent Literature. Orthop. Surg. 2020, 12, 708–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wu, R.; Li, H.; Sun, C.; Liu, J.; Chen, D.; Yu, H.; Huang, Z.; Lin, S.; Chen, Y.; Zheng, Q. Exosome-based strategy for degenerative disease in orthopedics: Recent progress and perspectives. J. Orthop. Transl. 2022, 36, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Robbins, C.E.; Casey, D.; Bono, J.V.; Murphy, S.B.; Talmo, C.T.; Ward, D.M. A Multidisciplinary Total Hip Arthroplasty Protocol With Accelerated Postoperative Rehabilitation: Does the Patient Benefit? J. Arthroplasty 2021, 36, S18–S23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kuroda, Y.; Young, M.; Shoman, H.; Punnoose, A.; Norrish, A.R.; Khanduja, V. Advanced Rehabilitation Technology in Orthopaedics—A Narrative Review. Int. Orthop. 2021, 45, 1933–1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Koschmeder, K.T.; Driscoll, J.A.; Hartog, T.D.; Halbur, C.; Bailey, R.; Kuperman, E.; Patterson, B.M.; Olinger, C.; Noiseux, N.O. Orthopedic Surgery <50 Days Following COVID-19 Infection is Not Associated With Increased Postoperative Complications. Orthop. Surg. 2023, 15, 1002–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Lachiewicz, P.F.; Wellman, S.S.; Peterson, J.R. Antibiotic Cement Spacers for Infected Total Knee Arthroplasties. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. 2020, 28, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Nakagawa, T.H.; Moriya, É.T.U.; Maciel, C.D.; Serrão, F.V. Test–retest Reliability of Three-dimensional Kinematics Using an Electromagnetic Tracking System During Single-leg Squat and Stepping Maneuver. Gait Posture 2014, 39, 141–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Berton, A.; Longo, U.G.; Candela, V.; Fioravanti, S.; Giannone, L.; Arcangeli, V.; Alciati, V.; Berton, C.; Facchinetti, G.; Marchetti, A.; et al. Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, Gamification, and Telerehabilitation: Psychological Impact on Orthopedic Patients’ Rehabilitation. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Keshner, E.A.; Weiss, P.T.; Geifman, D.; Raban, D. Tracking the Evolution of Virtual Reality Applications to Rehabilitation as a Field of Study. J. Neuroeng. Rehabil. 2019, 16, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Shuhaiber, J.H. Augmented Reality in Surgery. Arch. Surg. 2004, 139, 170–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.