Effectiveness of AI-powered Chatbots in responding to orthopaedic postgraduate exam questions-an observational study.

PURPOSE: This study analyses the performance and proficiency of the three Artificial Intelligence (AI) generative chatbots (ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4.0, Bard Google AI®) and in answering the Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) of postgraduate (PG) level orthopaedic qualifying examinations. METHODS: A series of 120 mock Single Best Answer' (SBA) MCQs with four possible options named A, B, C and D as answers on various musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions covering Trauma and Orthopaedic curricula were compiled. A standardised text prompt was used to generate and feed ChatGPT (both 3.5 and 4.0 versions) and Google Bard programs, which were then statistically analysed. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between responses from Chat GPT 3.5 with Chat GPT 4.0 (Chi square = 27.2, P < 0.001) and on comparing both Chat GPT 3.5 (Chi square = 63.852, P < 0.001) with Chat GPT 4.0 (Chi square = 44.246, P < 0.001) with. Bard Google AI® had 100% efficiency and was significantly more efficient than both Chat GPT 3.5 with Chat GPT 4.0 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate the variable potential of the different AI generative chatbots (Chat GPT 3.5, Chat GPT 4.0 and Bard Google) in their ability to answer the MCQ of PG-level orthopaedic qualifying examinations. Bard Google AI® has shown superior performance than both ChatGPT versions, underlining the potential of such large language processing models in processing and applying orthopaedic subspecialty knowledge at a PG level.

Long head of the biceps tendon versatility in reconstructive shoulder surgery: a narrative review of arthroscopic techniques and their biomechanical principles with video presentation.

The management of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) during shoulder arthroscopy has been a subject of controversy for many years, with evolving discussions and trends. Despite long-standing debate, the nature of the surgical indication regarding how to treat concomitent LHBT injuries has undergone changes in recent years. It now extends beyond the timing of tenotomy to encompass considerations of alternative methods for preserving the LHBT, along with an ongoing exploration of how it can be effectively utilized in reconstructive shoulder surgery. Recent techniques describe approaches to using LHBT in a wide range of procedures, from shoulder instability to rotator cuff tears. Additionally, LHBT-based reconstructive techniques have surfaced for addressing what were formerly denoted as irreparable rotator cuff tears. While current literature provides detailed anatomical descriptions of the LHBT and many reports of novel, advanced techniques, there is still much debate regarding the decision-making process in each case. Because of the growing number of emerging techniques and the escalating debate in the subsequent paper, a decision has been made to present the current literature review concerning the potential utilization of LHBT in shoulder arthroscopy. In a dedicated video, we demonstrate the main arthroscopic techniques employed by the authors in their daily practice.

Orthobiologics: a review.

PURPOSE: The use of biologic materials in orthopaedics (orthobiologics) has gained significant attention over the past years. To enhance the body of the related literature, this review article is aimed at summarizing these novel biologic therapies in orthopaedics and at discussing their multiple clinical implementations and outcomes. METHODS: This review of the literature presents the methods, clinical applications, impact, cost-effectiveness, and outcomes, as well as the current indications and future perspectives of orthobiologics, namely, platelet-rich plasma, mesenchymal stem cells, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, growth factors, and tissue engineering. RESULTS: Currently available studies have used variable methods of research including biologic materials as well as patient populations and outcome measurements, therefore making comparison of studies difficult. Key features for the study and use of orthobiologics include minimal invasiveness, great healing potential, and reasonable cost as a nonoperative treatment option. Their clinical applications have been described for common orthopaedic pathologies such as osteoarthritis, articular cartilage defects, bone defects and fracture nonunions, ligament injuries, and tendinopathies. CONCLUSIONS: Orthobiologics-based therapies have shown noticeable clinical results at the short- and mid-term. It is crucial that these therapies remain effective and stable in the long term. The optimal design for a successful scaffold remains to be further determined.