Artificial Intelligence Models Are Limited in Predicting Clinical Outcomes Following Hip Arthroscopy

Abstract

Background: Hip arthroscopy has seen a significant surge in utilization, but complications remain, and optimal functional outcomes are not guaranteed. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as an effective supportive decision-making tool for surgeons. The purpose of this systematic review was to characterize the outcomes, performance, and validity (generalizability) of AI-based prediction models for hip arthroscopy in current literature. Methods: Two reviewers independently completed structured searches using PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases on August 10, 2022. The search query used the terms as follows: (artificial intelligence OR machine learning OR deep learning) AND (hip arthroscopy). Studies that investigated AI-based risk prediction models in hip arthroscopy were included. The primary outcomes of interest were the variable(s) predicted by the models, best model performance achieved (primarily based on area under the curve, but also accuracy, etc), and whether the model(s) had been externally validated (generalizable). Results: Seventy-seven studies were identified from the primary search. Thirteen studies were included in the final analysis. Six studies (n = 6,568) applied AI for predicting the achievement of minimal clinically important difference for various patient-reported outcome measures such as the visual analog scale and the International Hip Outcome Tool 12-Item Questionnaire, with area under a receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.572 to 0.94. Three studies used AI for predicting repeat hip surgery with AUC values between 0.67 and 0.848. Four studies focused on predicting other risks, such as prolonged postoperative opioid use, with AUC values ranging from 0.71 to 0.76. None of the 13 studies assessed the generalizability of their models through external validation. Conclusion: AI is being investigated for predicting clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy. However, the performance of AI models varies widely, with AUC values ranging from 0.572 to 0.94. Critically, none of the models have undergone external validation, limiting their clinical applicability. Further research is needed to improve model performance and ensure generalizability before these tools can be reliably integrated into patient care. Level of Evidence: Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.