Search

Objective: To determine the criterion validity and test–retest reliability of isometric finger-strength testing in 6 differentiated grip techniques for the assessment of bouldering ability among male climbers. Methods: We recruited participants at climbing gyms in Sweden and through online advertisements. We included climbers over 15 years of age with a minimum bouldering performance level of 17 International Rock Climbing and Research Association (IRCRA) for men and 15 IRCRA for women. We tested unilateral, maximal isometric peak finger strength in the front 3 drag, half crimp, closed crimp, 35 sloper, 45 × 90-mm, and 90 × 90-mm pinch through maximal force deloaded of a force plate. We analyzed criterion validity, test–retest reliability, and capacity to determine bouldering performance ability using a stepwise multivariable regression model. Results: Women were excluded from the analysis due to insufficient sample size (n = 16). Thirty-two male participants were included in the primary analysis. The median (interquartile range) age in the advanced and elite group was 27 (25; 35) and 23 (22; 32) years, respectively. The half crimp for the participants' weak and strong hand displayed the highest ability to determine bouldering grade performance, explaining 48% to 58% of the variance. In the stepwise regression, maximal strength in the half crimp and the front 3 drag collectively explained 66% of the variance for performance. Conclusion: Strength in the half crimp proved the most important performance indicator. The results of this study provide a reliable and valid framework for maximal isometric peak finger-strength testing in advanced and elite male boulderers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is concern that physiologic knee hyperextension may be associated with inferior outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using hamstring tendon (HT) autografts. Purpose: To assess whether there is an association between contralateral passive preoperative knee hyperextension (≤−5°) and postoperative anterior knee laxity, subjective knee function, or revision surgery after ACLR using HT autografts. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients without concomitant ligament injuries who underwent primary ACLR using an HT autograft at Capio Artro Clinic, Stockholm, Sweden, between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2018, were identified. The cohort was dichotomized into the hyperextension group (≤−5°) and the no hyperextension group (>–5°) depending on preoperative contralateral passive knee extension degree. Anterior knee laxity (KT-1000 arthrometer; 134 N) was assessed preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was collected preoperatively and at 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively. Patients who underwent revision ACLR at any institution in Sweden within 5 years of the primary surgery were identified in the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Results: A total of 6104 patients (53.5% male) for whom knee range of motion measurements were available were identified (hyperextension group [≤−5°]: 2350 [38.5%]; mean extension, −6.1°± 2.3° [range, −20° to −5°]; no hyperextension group [>−5°]: 3754 [61.5%]; mean extension, 0°± 1.4° [range, −4° to 15°]). There were no intergroup differences in anterior knee laxity preoperatively (hyperextension group, 3.6 ± 2.8 mm; no hyperextension group, 3.7 ± 2.7 mm; P =.24) or postoperatively (hyperextension group, 1.8 ± 2.3 mm; no hyperextension group, 1.8 ± 2.2 mm; P =.41). The only significant but nonclinically relevant intergroup differences were seen in the KOOS Symptoms subscale at the 1-year follow-up (hyperextension group, 81.4 ± 16.0; no hyperextension group, 80.3 ± 16.5; P =.03) and in the Sport and Recreation subscale at the 5-year follow-up (hyperextension group, 73.0 ± 25.6; no hyperextension group, 75.7 ± 24.3; P =.02). No other significant intergroup differences were noted preoperatively or at 1, 2, or 5 years postoperatively in any of the KOOS subscales. The overall revision ACLR rate at ≤5 years after the primary surgery was 4.9% (302 of 6104 patients). The hazard for revision ACLR in the no hyperextension group (4.5%; 170 of 3754 patients) was not significantly different from that in the hyperextension group (5.6%; 132 of 2350 patients) (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.71 to −1.12; P =.34). A subsequent subanalysis showed that the hazard of revision ACLR in patients with no hyperextension was not significantly different from that of patients with ≤−10° of extension (5.8%; 27 of 467 patients) (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.36; P =.65). Conclusion: Preoperative passive contralateral knee hyperextension (≤−5°) was not associated with postoperative anterior knee laxity, subjective knee function, or revision surgery ≤5 years after ACLR using HT autografts. Therefore, the presence of knee hyperextension alone should not be considered a contraindication per se for the use of HT autografts in ACLR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the fragility index (FI) as a statistical tool used to assess the robustness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in orthopaedics. It highlights the increasing number of studies using the FI to evaluate RCTs and the common conclusion that RCTs in orthopaedics are frequently fragile. However, the article argues that direct comparisons between the FI and the number of patients lost to follow-up are misleading and inaccurate. It suggests that the interpretation of fragility values should be done in the context of each individual RCT and that multiple metrics, including p values, confidence intervals, and FIs, should be considered to determine the validity of RCT conclusions. [Extracted from the article]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess the possibility of using Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) specifically in the context of orthopaedic trauma surgery by questions posed to ChatGPT and to evaluate responses (correctness, completeness and adaptiveness) by orthopaedic trauma surgeons. Methods: ChatGPT (GPT‐4 of 12 May 2023) was asked to address 34 common orthopaedic trauma surgery‐related questions and generate responses suited to three target groups: patient, nonorthopaedic medical doctor and expert orthopaedic surgeon. Three orthopaedic trauma surgeons independently assessed ChatGPT's responses by using a three‐point response scale with a response range between 0 and 2, where a higher number indicates better performance (correctness, completeness and adaptiveness). Results: A total of 18 (52.9%) of all responses were assessed to be correct (2.0) for the patient target group, while 22 (64.7%) and 24 (70.5%) of the responses were determined to be correct for nonorthopaedic medical doctors and expert orthopaedic surgeons, respectively. Moreover, a total of 18 (52.9%), 25 (73.5%) and 28 (82.4%) of the responses were assessed to be complete (2.0) for patients, nonorthopaedic medical doctors and expert orthopaedic surgeons, respectively. The average adaptiveness was 1.93, 1.95 and 1.97 for patients, nonorthopaedic medical doctors and expert orthopaedic surgeons, respectively. Conclusion: The study results indicate that ChatGPT can yield valuable and overall correct responses in the context of orthopaedic trauma surgery across different target groups, which encompassed patients, nonorthopaedic medical surgeons and expert orthopaedic surgeons. The average correctness scores, completeness levels and adaptiveness values indicated the ability of ChatGPT to generate overall correct and complete responses adapted to the target group. Level of Evidence: Not applicable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: To compare the time to return to sport (RTS) between patients who did and did not suffer a second anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury after ACL reconstruction. DESIGN: Etiology systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, AMED, and PEDro databases were searched in August 2021 and again in November 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Clinical studies reporting time to RTS after ACL reconstruction and second ACL injury were eligible. DATA SYNTHESIS: We pooled continuous data (time [months] and proportions [%]), with random-effects meta-analyses. Pooled estimates were summarized in forest plots. A qualitative data synthesis was also performed. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included in the meta-analysis and 33 in the qualitative synthesis. Pooled incidence of second ACL injury was 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.8, 21.6). Patients who suffered a second ACL injury returned to sport significantly earlier (25 days; 95% CI: 9.5, 40.4) than those who did not suffer another injury. There was no difference in time to RTS for professional athletes who suffered a second ACL injury and those who did not. The certainty of evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: There was very low-certainty evidence that patients who suffered a second ACL injury had returned to sport 25 days earlier than patients who did not have another injury. For professional athletes, there was no difference in time to RTS between athletes who suffered a second ACL injury and athletes who did not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]