Purpose: The purpose of this article is to explore the potential of digital twin technologies in orthopaedics and to evaluate how their integration with artificial intelligence (AI) and deep learning (DL) can improve orthopaedic evaluation and treatment. This review addresses key applications of digital twins, including surgical planning, patient‐specific outcome prediction, augmented reality‐assisted surgery and simulation‐based surgical training.Methods: Existing studies on digital twins in various domains, including engineering, biomedical and orthopaedics are reviewed. We also reviewed advancements in AI and DL relevant to digital twins. We focused on identifying key benefits, challenges and future directions for the implementation of digital twins in orthopaedic practice.Results: The review highlights that digital twins offer significant potential to revolutionise orthopaedic care by enabling precise surgical planning, real‐time outcome prediction and enhanced training. Digital twins can model patient‐specific anatomy using advanced imaging techniques and dynamically update with real‐time data, providing valuable insights during surgery and postoperative care. However, challenges such as the need for large‐scale data sets, technological limitations and integration issues must be addressed to fully realise these benefits.Conclusion: Digital twins represent a promising frontier in orthopaedic research and practice, with the potential to improve patient outcomes and enhance surgical precision. To enable widespread adoption, future research must focus on overcoming current challenges and further refining the integration of digital twins with AI and DL technologies.Level of Evidence: Level V.

The potential of Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly recognized in musculoskeletal radiology, offering solutions to challenges posed by increasing imaging volumes and fellowship trained radiologist shortages. The integration of AI is not intended to replace radiologists but to augment their capabilities, improving workflow efficiency and diagnostic accuracy. This narrative review examines the current landscape of AI applications in musculoskeletal imaging, focusing on both general‐purpose multimodal models and specialized foundation models. AI has proven effective in musculoskeletal imaging, enhancing fracture detection, scoliosis assessment, and lower limb alignment analysis. In osteoarthritis, AI aids early detection by identifying subtle structural changes. AI‐accelerated MRI reconstruction reduces scan times by up to 90% while maintaining diagnostic quality, improving efficiency and accessibility. Emerging multimodal models further integrate imaging with clinical data, advancing precision medicine. Technical challenges persist, particularly in addressing motion artifacts and anatomical complexity. Ethical considerations, including data privacy, algorithmic bias, and model transparency, remain crucial for responsible implementation. While challenges remain in clinical validation and implementation, the combination of broad and narrow AI models shows promise in advancing precision medicine and democratizing quality care.Level of Evidence: Level V.

Background: Based in part on the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that suggest a beneficial effect over alternative treatment options, the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA) is widespread and increasing. However, the extent to which these studies are vulnerable to slight variations in the outcomes of patients remains unknown. Purpose: To evaluate the statistical fragility of conclusions from RCTs that reported outcomes of patients with knee OA who were treated with PRP versus alternative nonoperative management strategies. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All RCTs comparing PRP with alternative nonoperative treatment options for knee OA were identified. The fragility index (FI) and reverse FI were applied to assess the robustness of conclusions regarding the efficacy of PRP for knee OA. Meta-analyses were performed to determine the minimum number of patients from ≥1 trials included in the meta-analysis for which a modification on the event status would change the statistical significance of the pooled treatment effect. Results: In total, this analysis included outcomes from 1993 patients with a mean ± SD age of 58.0 ± 3.8 years. The mean number of events required to reverse significance of individual RCTs (FI) was 4.57 ± 5.85. Based on random-effects meta-analyses, PRP demonstrated a significantly higher rate of successful outcomes when compared with hyaluronic acid ( P = .002; odds ratio [OR], 2.19; 95% CI, 1.33-3.62), as well as higher rates of patient-reported symptom relief ( P = .019; OR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.07-2.24), not requiring a reintervention after the initial injection treatment ( P = .002; OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.33-3.53), and achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for pain improvement ( P = .007; OR, 6.19; 95% CI, 1.63-23.42) when compared with all alternative nonoperative treatments. Overall, the mean number of events per meta-analysis required to change the statistical significance of the pooled treatment effect was 8.67 ± 4.50. Conclusion: Conclusions drawn from individual RCTs evaluating PRP for knee OA demonstrated slight robustness. On meta-analysis, PRP demonstrated a significant advantage over hyaluronic acid as well as improved symptom relief, lower rates of reintervention, and more frequent achievement of the MCID for pain improvement when compared with alternative nonoperative treatment options. Statistically significant pooled treatment effects evaluating PRP for knee OA are more robust than approximately half of all comparable meta-analyses in medicine and health care. Future RCTs and meta-analyses should consider reporting FIs and fragility quotients to facilitate interpretation of results in their proper context.

Artificial intelligence's (AI) accelerating progress demands rigorous evaluation standards to ensure safe, effective integration into healthcare's high‐stakes decisions. As AI increasingly enables prediction, analysis and judgement capabilities relevant to medicine, proper evaluation and interpretation are indispensable. Erroneous AI could endanger patients; thus, developing, validating and deploying medical AI demands adhering to strict, transparent standards centred on safety, ethics and responsible oversight. Core considerations include assessing performance on diverse real‐world data, collaborating with domain experts, confirming model reliability and limitations, and advancing interpretability. Thoughtful selection of evaluation metrics suited to the clinical context along with testing on diverse data sets representing different populations improves generalisability. Partnering software engineers, data scientists and medical practitioners ground assessment in real needs. Journals must uphold reporting standards matching AI's societal impacts. With rigorous, holistic evaluation frameworks, AI can progress towards expanding healthcare access and quality.Level of Evidence: Level V.