Search

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to describe the outcomes after operative repair of ballistic femoral neck fractures. To better highlight the devastating nature of these injuries, we compared a cohort of ballistic femoral neck fractures to a cohort of young, closed, blunt-injury femoral neck fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified all patients presenting with ballistic femoral neck fractures treated at three academic trauma centers between January 2016 and December 2021, as well as patients aged ≤50 with closed, blunt-injury femoral neck fractures who received ORIF. The primary outcome was failure of ORIF, which includes the diagnosis of non-union, avascular necrosis, conversion to total hip arthroplasty, and conversion to Girdlestone procedure. Additional outcomes included deep infection, postoperative osteoarthritis, and ambulatory status at last follow-up. RESULTS: Fourteen ballistic femoral neck fractures and 29 closed blunt injury fractures were identified. Of the ballistic fractures, 7 (50%) patients had a minimum of 1-year follow-up or met the failure criteria. Of the closed fractures, 16 (55%) patients had a minimum of 1-year follow-up or met the failure criteria. Median follow-up was 21 months. 58% of patients with ballistic fractures were active tobacco users. Five of 7 (71%) ballistic fractures failed, all of which involved non-union, whereas 8 of 16 (50%) closed fractures failed (p=0.340). No outcomes were significantly different between cohorts. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that ballistic femoral neck fractures are associated with high rates of non-union. Large-scale multicenter studies are necessary to better determine optimal treatment techniques for these fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. Retrospective cohort study.

This retrospective cohort study aims to investigate the clinical outcomes of Girdlestone resection arthroplasty (GRA) in injection drug users with septic hip arthritis. Patients who underwent primary GRA for septic hip arthritis secondary to injection drug use at two academic trauma centers from 2015 to 2023 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, surgical details, and follow-up outcomes, including patient-reported outcome measures, were collected and analyzed. The cohort included 15 patients, with a mean age of 44 ± 11 years and a mean follow-up period of 25 ± 20 months. Among the 15 patients, overall mortality was 27%, and only 4 patients underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) following GRA. Infection resolution rates were significantly higher in patients who received an antibiotic spacer (75% vs. 0%, p = 0.048). GRA in injection drug users is associated with high mortality and low conversion rates to THA. The use of an antibiotic spacer during GRA significantly improves infection resolution rates. Larger studies are required to determine the optimal management strategies for this patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The artificial intelligence language model Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) has shown potential as a reliable and accessible educational resource in orthopaedic surgery. Yet, the accuracy of the references behind the provided information remains elusive, which poses a concern for maintaining the integrity of medical content. This study aims to examine the accuracy of the references provided by ChatGPT-4 concerning the Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, Exposure (ABCDE) approach in trauma surgery., Methods: Two independent reviewers critically assessed 30 ChatGPT-4-generated references supporting the well-established ABCDE approach to trauma protocol, grading them as 0 (nonexistent), 1 (inaccurate), or 2 (accurate). All discrepancies between the ChatGPT-4 and PubMed references were carefully reviewed and bolded. Cohen's Kappa coefficient was used to examine the agreement of the accuracy scores of the ChatGPT-4-generated references between reviewers. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the mean reference accuracy scores. To compare the variance of the means across the 5 categories, one-way analysis of variance was used., Results: ChatGPT-4 had an average reference accuracy score of 66.7%. Of the 30 references, only 43.3% were accurate and deemed "true" while 56.7% were categorized as "false" (43.3% inaccurate and 13.3% nonexistent). The accuracy was consistent across the 5 trauma protocol categories, with no significant statistical difference (p = 0.437)., Discussion: With 57% of references being inaccurate or nonexistent, ChatGPT-4 has fallen short in providing reliable and reproducible references-a concerning finding for the safety of using ChatGPT-4 for professional medical decision making without thorough verification. Only if used cautiously, with cross-referencing, can this language model act as an adjunct learning tool that can enhance comprehensiveness as well as knowledge rehearsal and manipulation., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJSOA/A667)., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated. All rights reserved.)