Establishing the diagnosis of radial tunnel syndrome: a systematic review of published clinical series.

PURPOSE: Radial tunnel syndrome (RTS) is a controversial diagnosis due to non-specific exam findings and frequent absence of positive electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction study (NCS) findings. The purpose of this study was to identify the methods used to diagnose RTS in the literature. METHODS: We queried PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases per PRISMA guidelines. Extracted data included article and patient characteristics, diagnostic assessments utilized and their respective findings, and treatments. Objective data were summarized descriptively. The relationship between reported diagnostic findings (i.e., physical exam and diagnostic tests) and treatments was assessed via a descriptive synthesis. RESULTS: Our review included 13 studies and 391 upper extremities. All studies utilized physical exam in diagnosing RTS; most commonly, patients had tenderness over the radial tunnel (381/391, 97%). Preoperative EMG/NCS was reported by 11/13 studies, with abnormal findings in 8.9% (29/327) of upper extremities. Steroid and/or lidocaine injection for presumed lateral epicondylitis was reported by 9/13 studies (46/295 upper extremities, 16%), with RTS being diagnosed after patients received little to no relief. It was also common to inject the radial tunnel to make the diagnosis (218/295, 74%). The most common reported intraoperative finding was narrowing of the PIN (38/137, 28%). The intraoperative compressive site most commonly reported was the arcade of Frohse (142/306, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial heterogeneity in modalities used to diagnose RTS and the reported definition of RTS. This, in conjunction with many patients having concomitant lateral epicondylitis, makes it difficult to compare treatment outcomes for RTS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. Systematic review of retrospective and prospective cohort studies.

Clinical Outcomes and Associated Pathologies Following Pediatric Traumatic Hip Dislocations: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

INTRODUCTION: Pediatric traumatic hip dislocations are a rare condition that can have devastating short and/or long-term outcomes and associated pathologies (APs), including associated injuries (AIs) and long-term adverse events (LTAEs), with negative long-term sequelae. Currently, there are little data that exist on the rate of APs, with the most notable being avascular necrosis (AVN), for pediatric traumatic hip dislocations. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the outcome relative frequency of dislocation direction, reduction type, and rate of APs for traumatic hip dislocations in the pediatric population. METHODS: A systematic review on the topic of traumatic hip dislocations in the pediatric population was performed using PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, CINAHL, and MEDLINE databases from database inception to March 30, 2023. Inclusion criteria was full-text English articles, addressed traumatic hip dislocations, and pediatric patients (<18 y old). RESULTS: A total of 24 articles (n=575 patients) met final inclusion criteria from a total of 219 articles retrieved from the initial search. For the average age of the included patients with reported age (n=433 patients), the frequency weighted mean was 9.50 years±1.75 years with a frequency weighted mean follow-up time of 74.05 months ±45.97 months (n=399 patients). The most common dislocation direction was posterior (86.4%), the most common treatment type was closed reduction (84.5%), AVN was the most common type of LTAEs (15.5% of APs), and labral/capsular injuries and acetabular fractures were the most common type of AIs (14.0% and 9.4% of APs, respectively). There were a combined total of 414 APs (72%) out of 575 total patients. CONCLUSION: Pediatric traumatic hip dislocations are associated with a high rate of AIs and LTAEs (72%, 414 APs out of 575 patients). AVN, labral/capsular injuries, and acetabular fractures are the most common APs after pediatric traumatic hip dislocations. Pediatric hip dislocations are usually posterior and commonly managed through closed reduction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Systematic Review.

Thromboembolic prophylaxis in spine surgery: an analysis of ChatGPT recommendations.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Venous thromboembolism is a negative outcome of elective spine surgery. However, the use of thromboembolic chemoprophylaxis in this patient population is controversial due to the possible increased risk of epidural hematoma. ChatGPT is an artificial intelligence model which may be able to generate recommendations for thromboembolic prophylaxis in spine surgery. PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of ChatGPT recommendations for thromboembolic prophylaxis in spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Comparative analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: None. OUTCOME MEASURES: Accuracy, over-conclusiveness, supplemental, and incompleteness of ChatGPT responses compared to the North American Spine Society (NASS) clinical guidelines. METHODS: ChatGPT was prompted with questions from the 2009 NASS clinical guidelines for antithrombotic therapies and evaluated for concordance with the clinical guidelines. ChatGPT-3.5 responses were obtained on March 5, 2023, and ChatGPT-4.0 responses were obtained on April 7, 2023. A ChatGPT response was classified as accurate if it did not contradict the clinical guideline. Three additional categories were created to further evaluate the ChatGPT responses in comparison to the NASS guidelines: over-conclusiveness, supplementary, and incompleteness. ChatGPT was classified as over-conclusive if it made a recommendation where the NASS guideline did not provide one. ChatGPT was classified as supplementary if it included additional relevant information not specified by the NASS guideline. ChatGPT was classified as incomplete if it failed to provide relevant information included in the NASS guideline. RESULTS: Twelve clinical guidelines were evaluated in total. Compared to the NASS clinical guidelines, ChatGPT-3.5 was accurate in 4 (33%) of its responses while ChatGPT-4.0 was accurate in 11 (92%) responses. ChatGPT-3.5 was over-conclusive in 6 (50%) of its responses while ChatGPT-4.0 was over-conclusive in 1 (8%) response. ChatGPT-3.5 provided supplemental information in 8 (67%) of its responses, and ChatGPT-4.0 provided supplemental information in 11 (92%) responses. Four (33%) responses from ChatGPT-3.5 were incomplete, and 4 (33%) responses from ChatGPT-4.0 were incomplete. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT was able to provide recommendations for thromboembolic prophylaxis with reasonable accuracy. ChatGPT-3.5 tended to cite nonexistent sources and was more likely to give specific recommendations while ChatGPT-4.0 was more conservative in its answers. As ChatGPT is continuously updated, further validation is needed before it can be used as a guideline for clinical practice.