Exploring the Role of a Large Language Model on Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Management: An Observation Study of ChatGPT.

PURPOSE: Recently, large language models, such as ChatGPT, have emerged as promising tools to facilitate scientific research and health care management. The present study aimed to explore the extent of knowledge possessed by ChatGPT concerning carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), a compressive neuropathy that may lead to impaired hand function and that is frequently encountered in the field of hand surgery. METHODS: Six questions pertaining to diagnosis and management of CTS were posed to ChatGPT. The responses were subsequently analyzed and evaluated based on their accuracy, coherence, and comprehensiveness. In addition, ChatGPT was requested to provide five high-level evidence references in support of its answers. A simulated doctor-patient consultation was also conducted to assess whether ChatGPT could offer safe medical advice. RESULTS: ChatGPT supplied clinically relevant information regarding CTS, although at a relatively superficial level. In the context of doctor-patient interaction, ChatGPT suggested a diagnostic pathway that deviated from the widely accepted clinical consensus on CTS diagnosis. Nevertheless, it incorporated differential diagnoses and valuable management options for CTS. Although ChatGPT demonstrated the ability to retain and recall information from previous patient conversations, it infrequently produced pertinent references, many of which were either nonexistent or incorrect. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT displayed the capability to deliver validated medical information on CTS to nonmedical individuals. However, the generation of nonexistent and inaccurate references by ChatGPT presents a challenge to academic integrity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: To increase their utility in medicine and academia, large language models must go through specialized reputable data set training and validation from experts. It is essential to note that at present, large language models cannot replace the expertise of health care professionals and may act as a supportive tool.

The role of corticosteroid injections in treating plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Plantar fasciitis is a recurrent cause of heel pain and is often treated by corticosteroid infections (CSI). The current study reviewed and analysed the role of CSI with platelet rich plasma (PRP), and CSI with extracorporeal shock wave therapy (EWST) for plantar fasciitis treatment. METHODS: PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases were searched for relevant studies. Preferred Reporting in Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines were used to search relevant studies published from infinity to April 2021. The risk of bias was performed using Cochrane Collaboration's tool. GRADE assessment was used for quality of evidence. Data analysis was performed with the use of R software and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. CSI was compared with PRP and EWST. RESULTS: Eighteen studies comprising 1180 patients were included in this meta-analysis. When compared to PRP, CSI with lignocaine/lidocaine had significantly higher mean difference on visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores at 3 months (0.62 [0.13; 1.12], P = 0.01) and 6 months (MD = 1.49 [0.22; 2.76], P = 0.02). At 6 months, VAS scores were higher in the CSI group than the ESWT group (MD = 0.8 [0.38; 1.22], P = 0.1). At 6 months, a significant reduction in the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS) was observed in the CSI group compared to PRP (MD = - 11.53 [- 16.62; - 6.43], P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Patients suffering from plantar fasciitis, PRP achieved better VAS scores compared to CSI at 3 and 6-month follow-up. In addition, ESWT had better VAS score outcomes at 6 months compared to CSI. Regarding AOFAS score, PRP was more efficacious than CSI at 6 months of follow-up. Only through the development of high-quality, large-scale longitudinal studies, will the findings and conclusions of this meta-analysis be strengthened and influence our clinical practice in the treatment of plantar fasciitis. LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE: II.

High Tibial Osteotomy Versus Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty for Unicompartmental Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Purpose: High tibial osteotomy (HTO) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) are commonly performed procedures for the treatment of compartmental knee osteoarthritis; however, the optimal procedure remains controversial. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the functional outcomes and assess complications and revision rates between the two techniques. Methods: We searched electronic databases for relevant studies comparing HTO versus UKA for unicompartmental knee osteoarthritis. Continuous data as visual analogue scale (VAS), range of motion, and free walking speed were pooled as mean differences (MDs). Dichotomous data as functional knee outcomes, complications, and revision were pooled as odds ratios (ORs), with 95% confidence interval (CI), using R software for windows. Results: Twenty-five studies involving 8185 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that HTO was associated with higher risk of complications (OR = 2.47, 95% CI [1.52, 4.04]), poorer functional results (excellent/good) (OR = 0.32, 95% CI [0.21, 0.49]), and greater range of motion (MD = 7.05, 95% CI [2.41, 11.68]) compared to UKA. No significant differences were found between the compared groups in terms of VAS (MD = 0.14, 95% CI [- 0.08, 0.36]), revision rates (OR = 1.30, 95% CI [0.65, 2.60]), and free walking speed (MD = - 0.05, 95% CI [- 0.11, 0.00]). Conclusion: This study showed that UKA achieved fewer complications, better functional outcomes, and less range of motion compared to HTO. No significant differences were detected between HTO and UKA in terms of VAS and revision rate. Treatment options should be personalized to each patient considering factors such as their age, activities of daily living, their body mass index, and severity of osteoarthritis. Level of evidence: II. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-022-00620-9.