[Procedures of complementary medicine in rheumatology]. / Komplementärmedizinische Verfahren in der Rheumatologie.

Patients with diseases of the musculoskeletal system are confronted with a large quantity of treatment offers based on methods of complementary medicine. Despite a considerable number of publications on this topic, the scientific evidence is still poor. This article focuses on Ayurvedic medicine (AM), traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), mind-body medicine and homeopathy. These procedures have a longstanding tradition of practice and each claims to have its own theoretical concept; however, the application in the field of rheumatology can only be recommended either for specific entities or, in the case of homeopathy, not at all. In addition, this article summarizes the evidence for dietary recommendations, nutritional supplements and herbal medicine in rheumatology. The latter topics are frequently discussed in the popular press and are a much-debated issue between physicians and patients; however, clear-cut recommendations for the application on a scientific basis are the exception and mainly consist of the endorsement to adhere to the principles of a Mediterranean diet.

[What is the potential of ChatGPT for qualified patient information? : Attempt of a structured analysis on the basis of a survey regarding complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in rheumatology]. / Welches Potential hat ChatGPT 3.5 für eine qualifizierte Patienteninformation? : Versuch einer systematischen Analyse anhand einer Befragung zu komplementärmedizinischen Verfahren in der Rheumatologie.

INTRODUCTION: The chatbot ChatGPT represents a milestone in the interaction between humans and large databases that are accessible via the internet. It facilitates the answering of complex questions by enabling a communication in everyday language. Therefore, it is a potential source of information for those who are affected by rheumatic diseases. The aim of our investigation was to find out whether ChatGPT (version 3.5) is capable of giving qualified answers regarding the application of specific methods of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in three rheumatic diseases: rheumatoid arthritis (RA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA). In addition, it was investigated how the answers of the chatbot were influenced by the wording of the question. METHODS: The questioning of ChatGPT was performed in three parts. Part A consisted of an open question regarding the best way of treatment of the respective disease. In part B, the questions were directed towards possible indications for the application of CAM in general in one of the three disorders. In part C, the chatbot was asked for specific recommendations regarding one of three CAM methods: homeopathy, ayurvedic medicine and herbal medicine. Questions in parts B and C were expressed in two modifications: firstly, it was asked whether the specific CAM was applicable at all in certain rheumatic diseases. The second question asked which procedure of the respective CAM method worked best in the specific disease. The validity of the answers was checked by using the ChatGPT reliability score, a Likert scale ranging from 1 (lowest validity) to 7 (highest validity). RESULTS: The answers to the open questions of part A had the highest validity. In parts B and C, ChatGPT suggested a variety of CAM applications that lacked scientific evidence. The validity of the answers depended on the wording of the questions. If the question suggested the inclination to apply a certain CAM, the answers often lacked the information of missing evidence and were graded with lower score values. CONCLUSION: The answers of ChatGPT (version 3.5) regarding the applicability of CAM in selected rheumatic diseases are not convincingly based on scientific evidence. In addition, the wording of the questions affects the validity of the information. Currently, an uncritical application of ChatGPT as an instrument for patient information cannot be recommended.

[Recommendations of the committee on complementary medicine and nutrition in ayurvedic medicine, homeopathy, nutrition and Mediterranean diet]. / Empfehlungen der Kommission Komplementäre Heilverfahren und Ernährung zu ayurvedischer Medizin, Homöopathie, Ernährung und mediterraner Kost.

Methods of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are appealing for many patients with rheumatic diseases. The scientific data are currently characterized by a large number of publications that stand in contrast to a remarkable shortage of valid clinical studies. The applications of CAM procedures are situated in an area of conflict between efforts for an evidence-based medicine and high-quality therapeutic concepts on the one hand and ill-founded or even dubious offers on the other hand. In 2021 the German Society of Rheumatology (DGRh) launched a committee for CAM and nutrition, which aims to collect and to evaluate the current evidence for CAM applications and nutritional medical interventions in rheumatology, in order to elaborate recommendations for the clinical practice. The current article presents recommendations for nutritional interventions in the rheumatological routine for four areas: nutrition, Mediterranean diet, ayurvedic medicine and homeopathy.

Clinical benefit and improvement of activity level after reconstruction surgery of Charcot feet using external fixation: 24-months results of 292 feet.

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of Charcot feet remains a surgical challenge. The goal of this study was to investigate safety and clinical benefit from reconstruction of Charcot feet using an external fixator. There is limited valid data regarding long-term outcomes for Charcot foot procedures. METHODS: In a retrospective study, 292 Charcot feet (282 patients) undergoing reconstructive procedures in our clinic from 1996-2010 were included (93 female, 189 male, mean age 57.9 years). Average follow-up was 24.1 months. Exclusion criteria were previous major amputation on the same side. All patients underwent surgery using a Hoffmann II external fixator for six to eight weeks with offloading. The fixator was then removed, and a customized AFO with full weight bearing was applied for another 11 months. After one year, patients received customized orthopedic shoes. RESULTS: Initial amputations were avoided. Patient activity improved significantly by more than 1 level (SD 0.67, p < .001) according to the Hoffer activity score for lower limb amputees. The most common minor complication was persistent or recurrent ulceration in 67 feet (23%). Secondary amputation (after failure of external fixation) was required in only 12 patients (6.2%). Orthopedic shoes were used by approximately 34% of patients 18 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Reconstructive surgery of Charcot feet using external fixation is a safe and economically feasible procedure. Activity levels improved significantly by more than 1 level (p < 0.01), severe complications were rare, and secondary amputation was required in only 12 patients (6.2%) of a high-risk patient population. Use of an external fixator offers the advantage that all extraneous material is removed after six weeks; thus, there is no risk of broken screws or plates and the associated potential complications.