Evaluating ChatGPT's Ability to Answer Common Patient Questions Regarding Hip Fracture.

INTRODUCTION: ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence chatbot software programmed for conversational applications using reinforcement learning techniques. With its growing popularity and overall versatility, it is likely that ChatGPT's applications will expand into health care especially because it relates to patients researching their injuries. The purpose of this study was to investigate ChatGPT's ability to accurately answer frequently asked questions regarding hip fractures. METHODS: Eleven frequently asked questions regarding hip fractures were posed to ChatGPT, and the responses were recorded in full. Five of these questions were determined to be high-yield based on the likelihood that a patient would ask the question to a chatbot software. The chatbot's responses were analyzed by five fellowship-trained orthopaedic trauma surgeons for their quality and accuracy using an evidence-based approach. The chatbot's answers were rated as "Excellent response requiring no clarification", "Satisfactory response requiring minimal clarification", "Satisfactory response requiring moderate clarification", or "Unsatisfactory response requiring significant clarification." RESULTS: Of the five high-yield questions posed to the chatbot, no question was determined to be unsatisfactory requiring significant clarification by the authors. The remaining responses were either satisfactory requiring minimal clarification (n = 3) or satisfactory requiring moderate clarification (n = 2). DISCUSSION: The chatbot was generally found to provide unbiased and evidence-based answers that would be clearly understood by most orthopaedic patients. These findings suggest that ChatGPT has the potential to be an effective patient education tool especially because it continues to grow and improve as a chatbot application. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV study.

Shoulder Arthroplasty in the Upper Extremity Weight-bearing Patient: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes and Complications.

BACKGROUND: Patients who rely on their upper extremities for ambulation, or upper extremity ambulators (UEAs), place considerable stress on their shoulders through the use of assistive devices like walkers, crutches, canes, and wheelchairs. It has been postulated that UEAs may be at increased risk for complications following shoulder arthroplasty. This study aimed to systematically review the literature related to (1) patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), (2) functional outcomes, and (3) complications in UEAs who undergo shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: A systematic review of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed to identify studies reporting clinical outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty in UEAs. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, PROMs, radiographic outcomes, and postoperative range of motion were collected and compared to control patients (i.e. bipedal ambulators) from the constituent studies. RESULTS: A total of eight studies evaluating 248 UEA cases and 206 control cases were included for review. Ambulatory assistive devices utilized by UEAs included walkers (39%), wheelchairs (38%), canes (22%), and a crutch (<1%). Among UEA cases, 197 (79%) reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, 37 (15%) anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty, and 14 (6%) hemiarthroplasty were performed. Overall, patients exhibited significant improvements in mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, Constant-Murley scores, Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores postoperatively. Among 3 studies that included comparison with control groups of bipedal ambulators, no significant differences in outcomes were identified. The overall clinical complication rate was 17% for UEAs compared to 9.1% for controls. The rate of revision surgery was 7.7% for UEAs and 4.9% for bipedal ambulators. CONCLUSIONS: UEAs experience satisfactory pain relief, functional improvements, and good subjective outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty. However, complication and revision rates are higher compared to those for bipedal ambulators, and the majority of UEAs undergo reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) compared to anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA).

Six-Week Radiographic Follow-up Does Not Change Management for Nonoperatively Treated Extraarticular Metacarpal Shaft Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Metacarpal fractures are common and account for over 30% of all hand fractures. Previous literature has shown similar outcomes between operative and nonoperative management of metacarpal shaft fractures. There is little information regarding the natural history of conservatively managed metacarpal shaft fractures and changes in management based on follow-up radiographs. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who presented to a single institution with an extraarticular metacarpal shaft or base fracture between 2015 and 2019. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients with 37 metacarpal fractures were included for review: average age 41 years, male 48%, right hand dominant 91%, and average follow-up duration 7.3 weeks. At follow-up, a change of 2.4° in angulation (P = .0005) and a change in shortening of 0.1 mm (P = .0386) were noted over the 6-week time interval. No fractures had malrotation at presentation, and none developed malrotation during the follow-up period. CONCLUSIONS: Recent systematic reviews and meta-analysis have suggested that metacarpal fractures treated nonoperatively had similar outcomes to surgical fixation at 12 months of follow-up. We found that extraarticular metacarpal shaft fractures that do not meet operative indications at the initial visit should be expected to heal reliably with minimal change in angulation and shortening over time. The transition to removable brace or no brace at the 2-week follow-up is likely sufficient, and additional follow-up is not necessary and will reduce cost. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Patient-Reported Reasons for Not Using Primary Prevention Statin Therapy.

Almost half of patients who meet American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) criteria for statin therapy are untreated. We aimed to evaluate patient-reported reasons for not using guideline-recommended statin therapy in a public healthcare system. Achieving this goal is key to addressing gaps in care and reducing preventable cardiovascular morbidity. We surveyed patients who met 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines for statin therapy but were not using statins. The survey probed domains of patient knowledge regarding cardiovascular health and benefits of statins, barriers to use, physician trust, and interest in cardiovascular care. Among 71 patients eligible for guideline-recommended statin therapy but not currently taking statins, 49 (69%) had a high school education or lower, 41 (58%) reported that they were unaware they should be prescribed a statin and 49 (69%) were unaware of the benefits of statins. Almost all patients, 70 (99%), reported caring about their cardiovascular health, 61 (86%) reported that they had a high level of trust in their physician, and 51 (72%) reported a willingness to follow their physician's advice. Despite interest in cardiovascular health, awareness of benefits of statin therapy was low and knowledge of recommended statin therapy was low. Increasing patients' awareness of their eligibility through systematic testing and linkage to statin therapy, along with education, may increase statin use among patients recommended for therapy.