Search

Objective: Literature reviews are essential to the scientific process and allow clinician researchers to advance general knowledge. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the artificial intelligence (AI) programs ChatGPT and Perplexity.AI can perform an orthopedic surgery literature review. Materials and Methods: Five different search topics of varying specificity within orthopedic surgery were chosen for each search arm to investigate. A consolidated list of unique articles for each search topic was recorded for the experimental AI search arms and compared with the results of the control arm of two independent reviewers. Articles in the experimental arms were examined by the two independent reviewers for relevancy and validity. Results: ChatGPT was able to identify a total of 61 unique articles. Four articles were not relevant to the search topic and 51 articles were deemed to be fraudulent, resulting in 6 valid articles. Perplexity.AI was able to identify a total of 43 unique articles. Nineteen were not relevant to the search topic but all articles were able to be verified, resulting in 24 valid articles. The control arm was able to identify 132 articles. Success rates for ChatGPT and Perplexity. AI were 4.6% (6 of 132) and 18.2% (24 of 132), respectively. Conclusion: The current iteration of ChatGPT cannot perform a reliable literature review, and Perplexity.AI is only able to perform a limited review of the medical literature. Any utilization of these open AI programs should be done with caution and human quality assurance to promote responsible use and avoid the risk of using fabricated search results. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(3):e125–e130.] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a bioinductive patch augmentation following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) in terms of patient-reported outcomes, motion, and complications stratified by tear size., Methods: A retrospective review of patients undergoing primary RCR with and without bioinductive bovine collagen patch augmentation for supraspinatus/infraspinatus tears from 2014 to 2022 at two centers was performed. Exclusion criteria included: age <18 years, revisions, or lack of 6-month postoperative follow-up. Patients were propensity-score matched 2:1 to patch-augmented patients based on age, sex, BMI, and tear size. Outcomes were compared between the patch and control groups after being stratified by tear size., Results: A total of 125 patients patch augmented RCRs were matched to 250 controls. No significant differences in demographics or comorbidities between groups. Following stratification by tear size, VAS for partial and small/medium tears in the patch cohorts were lower ( p  = 0.02) at 3 months. Functional scores were not statistically different. Patch-augmented partial and small/medium tears showed increased forward elevation ( p  < 0.05) at 1-year follow-up. Retear rates were statistically similar., Conclusions: Bioinductive patch augmentation demonstrates equivalent outcomes for pain and function, retear rate, but is associated with improved forward elevation up to 1-year for partial and small/medium tears., Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study., Competing Interests: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Shariff K. Bishai reports a relationship with Smith and Nephew Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. Shariff K. Bishai reports a relationship with DePuy Synthes Mitek Sports Medicine that includes: consulting or advisory. Shariff K. Bishai reports a relationship with CONMED Corporation that includes: consulting or advisory. Shariff K. Bishai reports a relationship with Shoulder Innovations that includes:. Shariff K. Bishai reports a relationship with Pacira BioSciences Inc that includes: consulting or advisory. Stephanie Muh reports a relationship with Smith and Nephew Inc that includes: funding grants. The other authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© The Author(s) 2025.)

Background: This study aimed to determine if smokers at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair met the minimally clinical important difference and substantial clinical benefit for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity, Depression, and Pain Interference scores in comparison to nonsmoking patients in a retrospective review., Methods: Clinical outcomes and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores were compared between a cohort of nonsmokers and current or former smokers (smokers). Further sub-analysis compared a cohort of nonsmokers propensity-matched 1:1 to a cohort of current/former smokers via age, body mass index, and tear size., Results: A total of 182 patients, 80 smokers and 102 nonsmokers, were included. Smokers had statistically different-sized tears with more rated massive ( P  = 0.02) and more reoperations ( P  = 0.02). Smokers met substantial clinical benefit thresholds at a lower rate than nonsmokers for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity ( P  = 0.03). In the sub-analysis, 74 smokers were matched to 74 nonsmokers. Smokers had a lower change in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity ( P  = 0.007) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Interference ( P  = 0.03) postoperatively. Fewer smokers met minimally clinical important difference for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity postoperatively ( P  = 0.003) and more had reoperations ( P  = 0.02)., Discussion: Overall, smokers demonstrated smaller improvements in function, and pain, and were less likely to meet minimally clinical important differences and substantial clinical benefits for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity at 6 months follow-up when compared to nonsmokers after rotator cuff repair., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes measures, complication rates, and return to hospital in a cohort of patients undergoing anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) with at least one functional somatic syndrome (FSS) to a control cohort., Methods: A retrospective review identifying patients who underwent rTSA or aTSA from 2015 to 2022 was performed. Patients with one or more FSS diagnosis (irritable bowel syndrome, chronic headache, chronic low back pain, or fibromyalgia) were compared against a control cohort. Demographic data, comorbidities, operative data, and patient recorded outcomes including Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression (D) were collected. A 1:1 propensity matching to control for age, gender, and body mass index was performed., Results: A total of 54 patients in the FSS cohort and 125 control patients without FSS were included. The FSS cohort had significantly higher rates of depression ( p  < 0.001), anxiety ( p  < 0.001), and postoperative complications (35.2% vs. 14.4%, p  = 0.002). No significant differences in change in PROMIS-UE, -PI, and -D scores or proportion meeting minimal clinically important difference were seen at one year among the propensity-matched cohort., Discussion: Patients with FSS undergoing shoulder arthroplasty had higher rates of complications; however, PROMIS scores were similar between cohorts., Level of Evidence: Level III., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Background and objective During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many elective orthopedic surgeries, including anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), were temporarily postponed. The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of ACLR in patients who underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic with those in a cohort treated before the pandemic. Materials and methods This retrospective review compared patients who underwent primary ACLR during two periods: March to June 2020 (the pandemic group) and January to December 2018 (the pre-pandemic group). Matched cohorts (1:1) were created using propensity matching. Time from injury-to-first visit, injury-to-surgery, and first visit-to-surgery were calculated. Subjective and objective outcomes, minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement, and complication rates were recorded for up to two years postoperatively. Statistical analysis included 𝛘2 or Fisher's exact tests for categorical data, and t- or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for continuous data with significance set at P  < 0.05. Results The pandemic and pre-pandemic groups consisted of 33 and 217 patients, respectively. Matched cohorts consisted of 33 patients each. The time from injury-to-surgery and the first visit-to-surgery was prolonged in the pandemic group. When unmatched, visual analog scale (VAS) scores at three months postoperatively and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-pain interference (PI) at six months postoperatively and at the final follow-up were higher in the pandemic group. When matched, PROMIS-PI at six months postoperatively was higher in the pandemic group, and VAS scores at one year postoperatively were higher in the pre-pandemic group. MCID achievement and complication rates did not significantly differ between the groups. Conclusions ACLR procedures were significantly delayed in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. While patients treated before and during the pandemic experienced varying pain levels during recovery, their functional outcomes, MCID achievement, and complication rates did not differ significantly., Competing Interests: The authors have declared financial relationships, which are detailed in the next section., (Copyright © 2024, Wolterink et al.)