Oeding, Jacob F

AbstractPurposeThe present study reviews the available scientific literature on artificial intelligence (AI)‐assisted ultrasound‐guided regional anaesthesia (UGRA) and evaluates the reported intraprocedural parameters and postprocedural outcomes.MethodsA literature search was performed on 19 September 2023, using the Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar databases by experts in electronic searching. All study designs were considered with no restrictions regarding patient characteristics or cohort size. Outcomes assessed included the accuracy of AI‐model tracking, success at the first attempt, differences in outcomes between AI‐assisted and unassisted UGRA, operator feedback and case‐report data.ResultsA joint adaptive median binary pattern (JAMBP) has been applied to improve the tracking procedure, while a particle filter (PF) is involved in feature extraction. JAMBP combined with PF was most accurate on all images for landmark identification, with accuracy scores of 0.83, 0.93 and 0.93 on original, preprocessed and filtered images, respectively. Evaluation of first‐attempt success of spinal needle insertion revealed first‐attempt success in most patients. When comparing AI application versus UGRA alone, a significant statistical difference (p < 0.05) was found for correct block view, correct structure identification and decrease in mean injection time, needle track adjustments and bone encounters in favour of having AI assistance. Assessment of operator feedback revealed that expert and nonexpert operator feedback was overall positive.ConclusionAI appears promising to enhance UGRA as well as to positively influence operator training. AI application of UGRA may improve the identification of anatomical structures and provide guidance for needle placement, reducing the risk of complications and improving patient outcomes.Level of EvidenceLevel IV.

Background: The use of telerehabilitation after sports medicine procedures such as an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has rapidly increased in recent years; however, the functional outcomes and patient satisfaction with telerehabilitation compared to in-person rehabilitation remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare the functional outcomes and patient satisfaction with telerehabilitation to in-person rehabilitation in a randomized controlled trial after two common sports procedures, ARCR and ACLR. Methods: Two randomized controlled trials were conducted involving patients scheduled to undergo ARCR or ACLR by one of six fellowship-trained sports medicine surgeons between October 2020 and November 2021. Each trial had an enrollment goal of 60 patients. Subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive telerehabilitation or in-person rehabilitation postoperatively. Functional outcome and satisfaction metrics were collected at baseline and at post-operative visits and compared between groups. Results: In total, 16 ACLR patients were enrolled, of whom 10 (62.5%) were assigned to in-person rehabilitation and 6 (37.5%) to telerehabilitation. Additionally, 32 ARCR patients were enrolled, of whom 20 (62.5%) were assigned in-person rehabilitation and 12 (37.5%) were assigned telerehabilitation. In total, of the 30 patients assigned to in-person rehabilitation, none reported a crossover to telerehabilitation. Of the 18 patients initially assigned to telerehabilitation, 12 (67%) completed the final follow-up survey, of which 11 (92%) reported a crossover; 9 patients completed in-person rehabilitation and 2 patients completed hybrid in-person and telerehabilitation. Conclusions: Patients preferred in-person rehabilitation compared to telerehabilitation after ACLR and ARCR, as evidenced by the nearly ubiquitous crossover from telerehabilitation to in-person rehabilitation in both studies. Our findings suggest that telerehabilitation protocols still need to be perfected, and that there may be a role for a hybrid in-person and tele-rehab model.

Abstract Explorative data analysis (EDA) is a critical step in scientific projects, aiming to uncover valuable insights and patterns within data. Traditionally, EDA involves manual inspection, visualization, and various statistical methods. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) has the potential to improve EDA, offering more sophisticated approaches that enhance its efficacy. This review explores how AI and ML algorithms can improve feature engineering and selection during EDA, leading to more robust predictive models and data‐driven decisions. Tree‐based models, regularized regression, and clustering algorithms were identified as key techniques. These methods automate feature importance ranking, handle complex interactions, perform feature selection, reveal hidden groupings, and detect anomalies. Real‐world applications include risk prediction in total hip arthroplasty and subgroup identification in scoliosis patients. Recent advances in explainable AI and EDA automation show potential for further improvement. The integration of AI and ML into EDA accelerates tasks and uncovers sophisticated insights. However, effective utilization requires a deep understanding of the algorithms, their assumptions, and limitations, along with domain knowledge for proper interpretation. As data continues to grow, AI will play an increasingly pivotal role in EDA when combined with human expertise, driving more informed, data‐driven decision‐making across various scientific domains. Level of Evidence: Level V ‐ Expert opinion.

Purpose To assess the ability of ChatGPT‐4, an automated Chatbot powered by artificial intelligence, to answer common patient questions concerning the Latarjet procedure for patients with anterior shoulder instability and compare this performance with Google Search Engine. Methods Using previously validated methods, a Google search was first performed using the query “Latarjet.” Subsequently, the top 10 frequently asked questions (FAQs) and associated sources were extracted. ChatGPT‐4 was then prompted to provide the top 10 FAQs and answers concerning the procedure. This process was repeated to identify additional FAQs requiring discrete‐numeric answers to allow for a comparison between ChatGPT‐4 and Google. Discrete, numeric answers were subsequently assessed for accuracy on the basis of the clinical judgment of 2 fellowship‐trained sports medicine surgeons who were blinded to search platform. Results Mean (± standard deviation) accuracy to numeric‐based answers was 2.9 ± 0.9 for ChatGPT‐4 versus 2.5 ± 1.4 for Google ( P = .65). ChatGPT‐4 derived information for answers only from academic sources, which was significantly different from Google Search Engine ( P = .003), which used only 30% academic sources and websites from individual surgeons (50%) and larger medical practices (20%). For general FAQs, 40% of FAQs were found to be identical when comparing ChatGPT‐4 and Google Search Engine. In terms of sources used to answer these questions, ChatGPT‐4 again used 100% academic resources, whereas Google Search Engine used 60% academic resources, 20% surgeon personal websites, and 20% medical practices ( P = .087). Conclusions ChatGPT‐4 demonstrated the ability to provide accurate and reliable information about the Latarjet procedure in response to patient queries, using multiple academic sources in all cases. This was in contrast to Google Search Engine, which more frequently used single‐surgeon and large medical practice websites. Despite differences in the resources accessed to perform information retrieval tasks, the clinical relevance and accuracy of information provided did not significantly differ between ChatGPT‐4 and Google Search Engine. Clinical Relevance Commercially available large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT‐4, can perform diverse information retrieval tasks on‐demand. An important medical information retrieval application for LLMs consists of the ability to provide comprehensive, relevant, and accurate information for various use cases such as investigation about a recently diagnosed medical condition or procedure. Understanding the performance and abilities of LLMs for use cases has important implications for deployment within health care settings.

Background: Nonoperative management versus early reconstruction for partial tears of the medial ulnar collateral ligament (MUCL) remains controversial, with the most common treatment options for partial tears consisting of rest, rehabilitation, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and/or surgical intervention. However, whether the improved outcomes reported for treatments such as MUCL reconstruction (UCLR) or nonoperative management with a series of PRP injections justifies their increased upfront costs remains unknown. Purpose: To compare the cost-effectiveness of an initial trial of physical therapy alone, an initial trial of physical therapy plus a series of PRP injections, and early UCLR to determine the preferred cost-effective treatment strategy for young, high-level baseball pitchers with partial tears of the MUCL and with aspirations to continue play at the next level (ie, collegiate and/or professional). Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A Markov chain Monte Carlo probabilistic model was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of 1000 young, high-level, simulated pitchers undergoing nonoperative management with and without PRP versus early UCLR for partial MUCL tears. Utility values, return to play rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined based on the typical patient undergoing each treatment strategy at the authors’ institution. Outcome measures included costs, acquired playing years (PYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: The mean total costs resulting from nonoperative management without PRP, nonoperative management with PRP, and early UCLR were $22,520, $24,800, and $43,992, respectively. On average, early UCLR produced an additional 4.0 PYs over the 10-year time horizon relative to nonoperative management, resulting in an ICER of $5395/PY, which falls well below the $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Overall, early UCLR was determined to be the preferred cost-effective strategy in 77.5% of pitchers included in the microsimulation model, with nonoperative management with PRP determined to be the preferred strategy in 15% of pitchers and nonoperative management alone in 7.5% of pitchers. Conclusion: Despite increased upfront costs, UCLR is a more cost-effective treatment option for partial tears of the MUCL than an initial trial of nonoperative management for most high-level baseball pitchers.

AbstractArtificial intelligence's (AI) accelerating progress demands rigorous evaluation standards to ensure safe, effective integration into healthcare's high‐stakes decisions. As AI increasingly enables prediction, analysis and judgement capabilities relevant to medicine, proper evaluation and interpretation are indispensable. Erroneous AI could endanger patients; thus, developing, validating and deploying medical AI demands adhering to strict, transparent standards centred on safety, ethics and responsible oversight. Core considerations include assessing performance on diverse real‐world data, collaborating with domain experts, confirming model reliability and limitations, and advancing interpretability. Thoughtful selection of evaluation metrics suited to the clinical context along with testing on diverse data sets representing different populations improves generalisability. Partnering software engineers, data scientists and medical practitioners ground assessment in real needs. Journals must uphold reporting standards matching AI's societal impacts. With rigorous, holistic evaluation frameworks, AI can progress towards expanding healthcare access and quality.Level of EvidenceLevel V.

Purpose To (1) analyze trends in the publishing of statistical fragility index (FI)–based systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature, including the prevalence of misleading or inaccurate statements related to the statistical fragility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and patients lost to follow‐up (LTF), and (2) determine whether RCTs with relatively “low” FIs are truly as sensitive to patients LTF as previously portrayed in the literature. Methods All FI‐based studies published in the orthopaedic literature were identified using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science Core Collection, PubMed, and MEDLINE databases. All articles involving application of the FI or reverse FI to study the statistical fragility of studies in orthopaedics were eligible for inclusion in the study. Study characteristics, median FIs and sample sizes, and misleading or inaccurate statements related to the FI and patients LTF were recorded. Misleading or inaccurate statements—defined as those basing conclusions of trial fragility on the false assumption that adding patients LTF back to a trial has the same statistical effect as existing patients in a trial experiencing the opposite outcome—were determined by 2 authors. A theoretical RCT with a sample size of 100, P = .006, and FI of 4 was used to evaluate the difference in effect on statistical significance between flipping outcome events of patients already included in the trial (FI) and adding patients LTF back to the trial to show the true sensitivity of RCTs to patients LTF. Results Of the 39 FI‐based studies, 37 (95%) directly compared the FI with the number of patients LTF. Of these 37 studies, 22 (59%) included a statement regarding the FI and patients LTF that was determined to be inaccurate or misleading. In the theoretical RCT, a reversal of significance was not observed until 7 patients LTF (nearly twice the FI) were added to the trial in the distribution of maximal significance reversal. Conclusions The claim that any RCT in which the number of patients LTF exceeds the FI could potentially have its significance reversed simply by maintaining study follow‐ups is commonly inaccurate and prevalent in orthopaedic studies applying the FI. Patients LTF and the FI are not equivalent. The minimum number of patients LTF required to flip the significance of a typical RCT was shown to be greater than the FI, suggesting that RCTs with relatively low FIs may not be as sensitive to patients LTF as previously portrayed in the literature; however, only a holistic approach that considers the context in which the trial was conducted, potential biases, and study results can determine the merits of any particular RCT. Clinical Relevance Surgeons may benefit from re‐examining their interpretation of prior FI reviews that have made claims of substantial RCT fragility based on comparisons between the FI and patients LTF; it is possible the results are more robust than previously believed.

Purpose To develop a deep learning model for the detection of Segond fractures on anteroposterior (AP) knee radiographs and to compare model performance to that of trained human experts. Methods AP knee radiographs were retrieved from the Hospital for Special Surgery ACL Registry, which enrolled patients between 2009 and 2013. All images corresponded to patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by 1 of 23 surgeons included in the registry data. Images were categorized into 1 of 2 classes based on radiographic evidence of a Segond fracture and manually annotated. Seventy percent of the images were used to populate the training set, while 20% and 10% were reserved for the validation and test sets, respectively. Images from the test set were used to compare model performance to that of expert human observers, including an orthopaedic surgery sports medicine fellow and a fellowship‐trained orthopaedic sports medicine surgeon with over 10 years of experience. Results A total of 324 AP knee radiographs were retrieved, of which 34 (10.4%) images demonstrated evidence of a Segond fracture. The overall mean average precision (mAP) was 0.985, and this was maintained on the Segond fracture class (mAP = 0.978, precision = 0.844, recall = 1). The model demonstrated 100% accuracy with perfect sensitivity and specificity when applied to the independent testing set and the ability to meet or exceed human sensitivity and specificity in all cases. Compared to an orthopaedic surgery sports medicine fellow, the model required 0.3% of the total time needed to evaluate and classify images in the independent test set. Conclusions A deep learning model was developed and internally validated for Segond fracture detection on AP radiographs and demonstrated perfect accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity on a small test set of radiographs with and without Segond fractures. The model demonstrated superior performance compared with expert human observers. Clinical Relevance Deep learning can be used for automated Segond fracture identification on radiographs, leading to improved diagnosis of easily missed concomitant injuries, including lateral meniscus tears. Automated identification of Segond fractures can also enable large‐scale studies on the incidence and clinical significance of these fractures, which may lead to improved management and outcomes for patients with knee injuries.