RESUMEN
Background: The annual meetings hosted by the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) present the latest prepublication literature in shoulder and elbow surgery, facilitating early dissemination of novel findings that impact clinical decision-making. Evaluating the publication rate of presented abstracts at ASES conferences becomes crucial in assessing the quality of research showcased, as these presentations often precede the peer-review process. Methods: The ASES conference programs from 2015-2019 were reviewed to identify presented abstracts. For each abstract, the title, author(s), conference year, and meeting type (open vs. closed) were recorded. The names of the author(s) of each abstract were searched in the PubMed and Google Scholar databases to determine if there was an associated published manuscript. For each identified manuscript, the title, author(s), date of publication, publishing journal, impact factor of the publishing journal, level of evidence, and number of citations were recorded. Results: A total of 316 abstracts were presented as podium lectures at ASES open and closed meetings between 2015 and 2019. Within 3 years of presentation, 240 (75.9%) of the presented abstracts resulted in publication. There was an increase in the proportion of abstracts resulting in publication within 3 years of the presentation from 2015-2019 (R = 0.8733, P = .053). Overall, the proportion of presented abstracts that went on to publication in peer-reviewed journals also increased (R = 0.8907, P = .043). Manuscripts of abstracts presented at open meetings had a shorter time to publication (8.78 vs. 11.82 months; P = .0160) and were cited more often (40.89 vs. 30.11, P = .0099) than those presented at closed meetings. Conclusion: There has been an increase in the publication rate of abstracts presented at ASES annual meetings in the study period. Published manuscripts of abstracts presented at ASES open conferences were published faster, and were cited more often, than closed conferences. ASES conferences allow for the presentation of high-quality prepublication literature in shoulder and elbow surgery.
RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Observational Study. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the most searched types of questions and online resources implicated in the operative and nonoperative management of scoliosis. METHODS: Six terms related to operative and nonoperative scoliosis treatment were searched on Google's People Also Ask section on October 12, 2023. The Rothwell classification was used to sort questions into fact, policy, or value categories, and associated websites were classified by type. Fischer's exact tests compared question type and websites encountered between operative and nonoperative questions. Statistical significance was set at the .05 level. RESULTS: The most common questions concerning operative and nonoperative management were fact (53.4%) and value (35.5%) questions, respectively. The most common subcategory pertaining to operative and nonoperative questions were specific activities/restrictions (21.7%) and evaluation of treatment (33.3%), respectively. Questions on indications/management (13.2% vs 31.2%, P < .001) and evaluation of treatment (10.1% vs 33.3%, P < .001) were associated with nonoperative scoliosis management. Medical practice websites were the most common website to which questions concerning operative (31.9%) and nonoperative (51.4%) management were directed to. Operative questions were more likely to be directed to academic websites (21.7% vs 10.0%, P = .037) and less likely to be directed to medical practice websites (31.9% vs 51.4%, P = .007) than nonoperative questions. CONCLUSIONS: During scoliosis consultations, spine surgeons should emphasize the postoperative recovery process and efficacy of conservative treatment modalities for the operative and nonoperative management of scoliosis, respectively. Future research should assess the impact of website encounters on patients' decision-making.
RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Comparative study. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare Google and GPT-4 in terms of (1) question types, (2) response readability, (3) source quality, and (4) numerical response accuracy for the top 10 most frequently asked questions (FAQs) about anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). METHODS: "Anterior cervical discectomy and fusion" was searched on Google and GPT-4 on December 18, 2023. Top 10 FAQs were classified according to the Rothwell system. Source quality was evaluated using JAMA benchmark criteria and readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Differences in JAMA scores, Flesch-Kincaid grade level, Flesch Reading Ease, and word count between platforms were analyzed using Student's t-tests. Statistical significance was set at the .05 level. RESULTS: Frequently asked questions from Google were varied, while GPT-4 focused on technical details and indications/management. GPT-4 showed a higher Flesch-Kincaid grade level (12.96 vs 9.28, P = .003), lower Flesch Reading Ease score (37.07 vs 54.85, P = .005), and higher JAMA scores for source quality (3.333 vs 1.800, P = .016). Numerically, 6 out of 10 responses varied between platforms, with GPT-4 providing broader recovery timelines for ACDF. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates GPT-4's ability to elevate patient education by providing high-quality, diverse information tailored to those with advanced literacy levels. As AI technology evolves, refining these tools for accuracy and user-friendliness remains crucial, catering to patients' varying literacy levels and information needs in spine surgery.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Current U.S./Canadian guidelines recommend hip fracture surgery within 48 h of injury to decrease morbidity/mortality. Multiple studies have identified medical optimization as the key component of time to surgery, but have inherent bias as patients with multiple co-morbidities often take longer to optimize. This study aimed to evaluate time from medical optimization to surgery (TMOS) to determine if "real surgical delay" is associated with: 1) mortality and 2) complications for geriatric hip fracture patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of geriatric hip fractures treated from 2015-2018 at a single, level-1 trauma center was conducted. Univariate logistic regression was performed to identify association between TMOS and post-operative complication rates. For mortality, the Wilcoxon test was used to compare TMOS for patients discharged following surgery to those who were not. RESULTS: A total of 884 hip fractures were treated operatively, with median TMOS 16.2 h (5.0-22.5, 1st-3rd quartiles). Univariate logistic regression models did not identify an association between TMOS and complication rates. For patients successfully discharged, median TMOS was 16.2 h (5.0-22.3, 1st-3rd quartiles). For the cohort of patients not successfully discharged, median TMOS was 19.1 h (10.1-25.9, 1st-3rd quartiles, p = 0.16). CONCLUSION: "Real surgical delay", or TMOS is not associated with increased complications or with inpatient mortality for geriatric hip fracture patients. With few exceptions, our institution adhered to the 48-hour time window from injury to hip surgery. We maintain the belief timely surgery following optimization plays a crucial role in the geriatric hip fracture patient outcomes.
