首页 > 最新文献

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®最新文献

英文 中文
Does Early Conversion to Below-elbow Casting for Pediatric Diaphyseal Both-bone Forearm Fractures Adversely Affect Patient-reported Outcomes and ROM? 小儿骨骺双骨前臂骨折早期转为肘下石膏固定是否会对患者报告的结果和活动度产生不利影响?
IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-07 DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003100
Linde Musters, Kasper C Roth, Leon W Diederix, Pim P Edomskis, Joyce L Benner, Max Reijman, Denise Eygendaal, Joost W Colaris
<p><strong>Background: </strong>For distal forearm fractures in children, it has been shown that a below-elbow cast is an adequate treatment that overcomes the discomfort of an above-elbow cast and unnecessary immobilization of the elbow. For reduced diaphyseal both-bone forearm fractures, our previous randomized controlled trial (RCT)-which compared an above-elbow cast with early conversion to a below-elbow cast-revealed no differences in the risk of redisplacement or functional outcomes at short-term follow-up. Although studies with a longer follow-up after diaphyseal both-bone forearm fractures in children are scarce, they are essential, as growth might affect the outcome.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>In this secondary analysis of an earlier RCT, we asked: (1) Does early conversion from an above-elbow to a below-elbow cast in children with reduced, stable diaphyseal forearm fractures result in worse clinical and radiological outcome? (2) Does a malunion result in inferior clinical outcomes at 7.5 years of follow-up?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this study, we evaluated children at a minimum of 5 years of follow-up who were included in a previous RCT. The median (range) duration of follow-up was 7.5 years (5.2 to 9.9). The patients for this RCT were included from the emergency departments of four different urban hospitals. Between January 2006 and August 2010, we treated 128 patients for reduced diaphyseal both-bone forearm fractures. All 128 patients were eligible; 24% (31) were excluded because they were lost before the minimum study follow-up or had incomplete datasets, leaving 76% (97) for secondary analysis. The loss in the follow-up group was comparable to the included population. Eligible patients were invited for secondary functional and radiographic assessment. The primary outcome was the difference in forearm rotation compared with the uninjured contralateral arm. Secondary outcomes were the ABILHAND-kids and QuickDASH questionnaire, loss of flexion and extension of the elbow and wrist compared with the contralateral forearm, JAMAR grip strength ratio, and radiological assessment of residual deformity. The study was not blinded regarding the children, parents, and clinicians.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 7.5-year follow-up, there were no differences in ABILHAND-kids questionnaire score (above-elbow cast: 41 ± 2.4 versus above/below-elbow cast: 41.7 ± 0.7, mean difference -0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.4 to 0.04]; p = 0.06), QuickDASH (above-elbow cast: 5.8 ± 9.6 versus 2.9 ± 6.0 for above-/below-elbow cast, mean difference 2.9 [95% CI -0.5 to 6.2]; p = 0.92), and grip strength (0.9 ± 0.2 for above-elbow cast versus 1 ± 0.2 for above/below-elbow cast, mean difference -0.04 [95% CI -1 to 0.03]; p = 0.24). Functional outcomes showed no difference (loss of forearm rotation: above-elbow cast 7.9 ± 17.7 versus 4.1 ± 6.9 for above-/below-elbow cast, mean difference 3.8 [95% CI -1.7 to 9.4]; p = 0.47; arc of m
背景:对于儿童前臂远端骨折而言,肘部以下石膏是一种适当的治疗方法,可以克服肘部以上石膏带来的不适和不必要的肘部固定。我们之前进行的随机对照试验(RCT)比较了肘上石膏和早期转用肘下石膏两种治疗方法,结果表明,在短期随访中,两种治疗方法在再移位风险或功能预后方面没有差异。尽管对儿童双骨前臂骨折后进行较长时间随访的研究很少,但这些研究非常重要,因为生长发育可能会影响结果:在对早前的一项研究进行的二次分析中,我们提出了以下问题:(1)对于前臂骨骺骨折程度较轻且稳定的儿童,过早将肘部以上石膏转为肘部以下石膏是否会导致临床和放射学结果更差?(2)7.5年的随访中,骨不连是否会导致较差的临床结果?在本研究中,我们评估了至少随访5年的儿童,这些儿童曾被纳入先前的一项RCT研究。随访时间的中位数(范围)为 7.5 年(5.2 到 9.9 年)。这项研究的患者来自四家不同城市医院的急诊科。2006年1月至2010年8月期间,我们共治疗了128例双骨前臂骨骺缩小骨折患者。所有 128 名患者均符合条件,其中 24% 的患者(31 人)因在最短随访时间前死亡或数据不完整而被排除,剩下 76% 的患者(97 人)进行了二次分析。随访组的流失率与纳入人群相当。符合条件的患者被邀请进行二次功能和放射学评估。主要结果是与未受伤的对侧手臂相比,前臂旋转的差异。次要结果是 ABILHAND-kids 和 QuickDASH 问卷、与对侧前臂相比肘部和腕部屈伸的损失、JAMAR 握力比以及残余畸形的放射学评估。研究对患儿、家长和临床医生均不设盲区:结果:在 7.5 年的随访中,ABILHAND-kids 问卷调查得分没有差异(肘部以上石膏:41 ± 2.4 与肘部以上/肘部以下石膏:41 ± 2.4 与肘部以上/肘部以下石膏:41 ± 2.441±2.4)与(41.7±0.7);(41.7±0.7)与(41.7±0.7):41.7±0.7,平均差异 -0.7 [95% 置信区间 (CI) -1.4 至 0.04];p = 0.06)、QuickDASH(肘部以上石膏:5.8±9.6 与肘部以下石膏:5.8±9.6 与肘部以上/肘部以下石膏:5.8±9.65.8 ± 9.6,而肘上/肘下石膏为 2.9 ± 6.0,平均差异为 2.9 [95% CI -0.5 至 6.2];p = 0.92)和握力(肘上石膏为 0.9 ± 0.2,而肘上/肘下石膏为 1 ± 0.2,平均差异为 -0.04 [95% CI -1 至 0.03];p = 0.24)。功能结果显示无差异(前臂旋转损失:肘上石膏组为 7.9 ± 17.7,而肘上/肘下石膏组为 4.1 ± 6.9,平均差异为 3.8 [95% CI -1.7 至 9.4];P = 0.47;运动弧度:肘上石膏组为 152° ± 21°,而肘上/肘下石膏组为 155° ± 11°,平均差异为 -2.5 [95% CI -9.3 to -4.4];p = 0.17;腕关节屈伸损失:肘上石膏组为 1.0° ± 5.0°,而肘上/肘下石膏组为 0.6° ± 4.2°,平均差异为 0.4° [95% CI -1.5° to 2.2°];p = 0.69)。二次随访结果显示,与 7 个月时的旋转情况相比,两组患者的前臂旋转情况均有所改善。在放射学分析中,唯一的差异在于 AP 尺骨(肘上石膏:6° ± 3° 与肘下石膏:6° ± 3° 与肘上石膏:6° ± 3°):6°±3°与肘上/肘下石膏组相比:5° ± 2°,平均相差 1.8° [0.7° 至 3°];p = 0.003),尽管这可能与临床无关。其他参数没有差异。13名在7个月随访时出现持续性骨不连的患儿在7.5年随访时的功能结果与未出现骨不连的患儿相比没有临床相关性差异。前臂旋转损失:骨结合不良组为5.5ׄ° ± 9.1°,无骨结合不良组为6.0° ± 13.9°,平均差异为0.4(95% CI为-7.5至8.4;P = 0.92):鉴于上述结果,我们建议外科医生在治疗儿童前臂骨骺双骨减少性骨折时,应及早转用肘下石膏。这项研究表明,即使是有继发性骨折移位的患者,也会发生重塑。即使是持续性骨不连,这些患者的最终效果也大多良好至优秀。未来的研究,如荟萃分析或大型前瞻性观察研究,将有助于确定骨骼年龄、性别、桡骨和尺骨的错位成角严重程度和方向对临床结果的影响。此外,类似的系统性综述还有助于明确小儿下肢骨折的可接受角度:证据级别:I级,治疗性研究。
{"title":"Does Early Conversion to Below-elbow Casting for Pediatric Diaphyseal Both-bone Forearm Fractures Adversely Affect Patient-reported Outcomes and ROM?","authors":"Linde Musters, Kasper C Roth, Leon W Diederix, Pim P Edomskis, Joyce L Benner, Max Reijman, Denise Eygendaal, Joost W Colaris","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003100","DOIUrl":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003100","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;For distal forearm fractures in children, it has been shown that a below-elbow cast is an adequate treatment that overcomes the discomfort of an above-elbow cast and unnecessary immobilization of the elbow. For reduced diaphyseal both-bone forearm fractures, our previous randomized controlled trial (RCT)-which compared an above-elbow cast with early conversion to a below-elbow cast-revealed no differences in the risk of redisplacement or functional outcomes at short-term follow-up. Although studies with a longer follow-up after diaphyseal both-bone forearm fractures in children are scarce, they are essential, as growth might affect the outcome.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Questions/purposes: &lt;/strong&gt;In this secondary analysis of an earlier RCT, we asked: (1) Does early conversion from an above-elbow to a below-elbow cast in children with reduced, stable diaphyseal forearm fractures result in worse clinical and radiological outcome? (2) Does a malunion result in inferior clinical outcomes at 7.5 years of follow-up?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;In this study, we evaluated children at a minimum of 5 years of follow-up who were included in a previous RCT. The median (range) duration of follow-up was 7.5 years (5.2 to 9.9). The patients for this RCT were included from the emergency departments of four different urban hospitals. Between January 2006 and August 2010, we treated 128 patients for reduced diaphyseal both-bone forearm fractures. All 128 patients were eligible; 24% (31) were excluded because they were lost before the minimum study follow-up or had incomplete datasets, leaving 76% (97) for secondary analysis. The loss in the follow-up group was comparable to the included population. Eligible patients were invited for secondary functional and radiographic assessment. The primary outcome was the difference in forearm rotation compared with the uninjured contralateral arm. Secondary outcomes were the ABILHAND-kids and QuickDASH questionnaire, loss of flexion and extension of the elbow and wrist compared with the contralateral forearm, JAMAR grip strength ratio, and radiological assessment of residual deformity. The study was not blinded regarding the children, parents, and clinicians.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;At 7.5-year follow-up, there were no differences in ABILHAND-kids questionnaire score (above-elbow cast: 41 ± 2.4 versus above/below-elbow cast: 41.7 ± 0.7, mean difference -0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) -1.4 to 0.04]; p = 0.06), QuickDASH (above-elbow cast: 5.8 ± 9.6 versus 2.9 ± 6.0 for above-/below-elbow cast, mean difference 2.9 [95% CI -0.5 to 6.2]; p = 0.92), and grip strength (0.9 ± 0.2 for above-elbow cast versus 1 ± 0.2 for above/below-elbow cast, mean difference -0.04 [95% CI -1 to 0.03]; p = 0.24). Functional outcomes showed no difference (loss of forearm rotation: above-elbow cast 7.9 ± 17.7 versus 4.1 ± 6.9 for above-/below-elbow cast, mean difference 3.8 [95% CI -1.7 to 9.4]; p = 0.47; arc of m","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11419443/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141174274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Can Patient-centered Education and Pain Management Delivered by Coaches Improve Pain Outcomes After Orthopaedic Trauma? A Randomized Trial. 由教练提供以患者为中心的教育和疼痛管理能否改善骨科创伤后的疼痛疗效?随机试验。
IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-15 DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003121
Nicholas A Giordano, Jesse Seilern Und Aspang, J'Lynn Baker, Carter Holder, Nicholas Cantu, Grace Checo, Cammie Wolf Rice, Bailey Barrell, Michelle Wallace, Alaina R Steck, Mara L Schenker
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pain after orthopaedic trauma is complex, and many patients who have experienced orthopaedic trauma are at increased risk for prolonged opioid utilization after the injury. Patient-centered interventions capable of delivering enhanced education and opioid-sparing pain management approaches must be implemented and evaluated in trauma care settings to improve pain outcomes and minimize opioid-related risks.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>Does personalized pain education and management delivered by coaches (1) improve pain-related outcomes, (2) reduce opioid consumption, and (3) improve patient-reported outcome measures (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] scores) compared to written discharge instructions on pain management and opioid safety?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This clinical trial aimed to examine the effect of a personalized pain education and management intervention, delivered by paraprofessional coaches, on pain-related outcomes and opioid consumption compared with usual care (written discharge instructions on pain management and opioid safety). Between February 2021 and September 2022, 212 patients were randomized to the intervention (49% [104]) or control group (51% [108]). A total of 31% (32 of 104) and 47% (51 of 108) in those groups, respectively, were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 12 weeks or had incomplete datasets, leaving 69% (72 of 104) and 53% (57 of 108) for analysis in the intervention and control group, respectively. Patients randomized to the intervention worked with the paraprofessional coaches throughout hospitalization after their orthopaedic injury and at their 2-, 6-, and 12-week visits with the surgical team after discharge to implement mindfulness-based practices and nonpharmacological interventions. Most participants in the final sample of 129 identified as Black (73% [94 of 129]) and women (56% [72 of 129]), the mean Injury Severity score was 8 ± 4, and one-third of participants were at medium to high risk for an opioid-use disorder based on the Opioid Risk Tool. Participants completed surveys during hospitalization and at the 2-, 6-, and 12-week follow-up visits. Surveys included average pain intensity scores over the past 24 hours measured on the pain numeric rating scale from 0 to 10 and PROMIS measures (physical functioning, pain interference, sleep disturbance). Opioid utilization, measured as daily morphine milligram equivalents, was collected from the electronic health record, and demographic and clinical characteristics were collected from self-report surveys. Groups were compared in terms of mean pain scores at the 12-week follow-up, daily morphine milligram equivalents both during inpatient and at discharge, and mean PROMIS scores at 12 weeks of follow-up. Additionally, differences in the proportion of participants in each group achieving minimum clinically important differences (MCID) on pain and PROMIS scores we
对这种干预方法感兴趣的其他研究者可以考虑将教练计划作为其机构的一个框架,以增加术后疼痛不良风险增加的患者获得循证非药物干预的机会。规模更小、重点更突出的项目将患者与教练联系起来,让他们学习非药物疼痛管理干预措施,可能会对患者的康复和治疗效果产生更大的影响:证据等级:一级,治疗性研究。
{"title":"Can Patient-centered Education and Pain Management Delivered by Coaches Improve Pain Outcomes After Orthopaedic Trauma? A Randomized Trial.","authors":"Nicholas A Giordano, Jesse Seilern Und Aspang, J'Lynn Baker, Carter Holder, Nicholas Cantu, Grace Checo, Cammie Wolf Rice, Bailey Barrell, Michelle Wallace, Alaina R Steck, Mara L Schenker","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003121","DOIUrl":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003121","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Pain after orthopaedic trauma is complex, and many patients who have experienced orthopaedic trauma are at increased risk for prolonged opioid utilization after the injury. Patient-centered interventions capable of delivering enhanced education and opioid-sparing pain management approaches must be implemented and evaluated in trauma care settings to improve pain outcomes and minimize opioid-related risks.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Questions/purposes: &lt;/strong&gt;Does personalized pain education and management delivered by coaches (1) improve pain-related outcomes, (2) reduce opioid consumption, and (3) improve patient-reported outcome measures (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] scores) compared to written discharge instructions on pain management and opioid safety?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;This clinical trial aimed to examine the effect of a personalized pain education and management intervention, delivered by paraprofessional coaches, on pain-related outcomes and opioid consumption compared with usual care (written discharge instructions on pain management and opioid safety). Between February 2021 and September 2022, 212 patients were randomized to the intervention (49% [104]) or control group (51% [108]). A total of 31% (32 of 104) and 47% (51 of 108) in those groups, respectively, were lost before the minimum study follow-up of 12 weeks or had incomplete datasets, leaving 69% (72 of 104) and 53% (57 of 108) for analysis in the intervention and control group, respectively. Patients randomized to the intervention worked with the paraprofessional coaches throughout hospitalization after their orthopaedic injury and at their 2-, 6-, and 12-week visits with the surgical team after discharge to implement mindfulness-based practices and nonpharmacological interventions. Most participants in the final sample of 129 identified as Black (73% [94 of 129]) and women (56% [72 of 129]), the mean Injury Severity score was 8 ± 4, and one-third of participants were at medium to high risk for an opioid-use disorder based on the Opioid Risk Tool. Participants completed surveys during hospitalization and at the 2-, 6-, and 12-week follow-up visits. Surveys included average pain intensity scores over the past 24 hours measured on the pain numeric rating scale from 0 to 10 and PROMIS measures (physical functioning, pain interference, sleep disturbance). Opioid utilization, measured as daily morphine milligram equivalents, was collected from the electronic health record, and demographic and clinical characteristics were collected from self-report surveys. Groups were compared in terms of mean pain scores at the 12-week follow-up, daily morphine milligram equivalents both during inpatient and at discharge, and mean PROMIS scores at 12 weeks of follow-up. Additionally, differences in the proportion of participants in each group achieving minimum clinically important differences (MCID) on pain and PROMIS scores we","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11419535/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141283108","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
CORR Insights®: Chondrocyte Invasion May Be a Mechanism for Persistent Staphylococcus Aureus Infection In Vitro. CORR Insights®:软骨细胞侵袭可能是金黄色葡萄球菌体外持续感染的机制。
IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-07 DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003117
Kent A Reinker
{"title":"CORR Insights®: Chondrocyte Invasion May Be a Mechanism for Persistent Staphylococcus Aureus Infection In Vitro.","authors":"Kent A Reinker","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003117","DOIUrl":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003117","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11419478/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140876036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
What is the Long-term Wear of a 5-Mrad Highly Crosslinked Polyethylene Liner? A 14-year RSA Study. 5 射线高度交联聚乙烯衬垫的长期磨损情况如何?一项为期 14 年的 RSA 研究。
IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-28 DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003047
Stuart A Callary, Deepti K Sharma, Taisha M D'Apollonio, Owain Critchley, Graham Mercer, Christopher Wilson, David G Campbell

Background: Lower doses of irradiation (≤ 5 Mrad) during the manufacture of highly crosslinked polyethylene acetabular liners may result in less crosslinking and an increased wear rate. Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) studies have found that wear of more highly irradiated highly crosslinked polyethylene liners (7 to 10 Mrad) decreases at longer-term follow-up compared with earlier reports of the same cohorts. Although wear of 5-Mrad irradiated liners appears to increase at midterm follow-up, it is unclear whether that remains true at longer follow-up.

Questions/purposes: We asked: (1) In patients who underwent THA with a 5-Mrad highly crosslinked polyethylene liner, what is the wear rate evaluated with RSA during the first 14 years? (2) Does the wear rate decrease after 6 years in situ?

Methods: This is a brief follow-up of prior RSA studies performed at 2 and 6 years. We prospectively reviewed the longer-term wear rate in 13 patients who underwent primary THAs with the same design of a 5-MRad irradiated crosslinked acetabular liner and a 28-mm cobalt-chromium articulation. Of the initial 30 patients who were enrolled, 13 (43%) were available at the 14-year timepoint; nine patients had died, 1 patient had withdrawn, 1 had an intraoperative fracture, 3 patients were too infirm to have radiographs, 2 had no baseline RSA radiographs, and 1 had poor-quality RSA images. Tantalum markers were inserted during surgery, and all patients had RSA radiographic examinations at 1 week, 6 months, and 1, 2, 6, and 14 years postoperatively.

Results: The mean ± standard deviation proximal, 2D, and 3D wear rates calculated between 1 year and 14 years were 0.019 ± 0.013 mm, 0.022 ± 0.015 mm, and 0.025 ± 0.019 mm per year, respectively. No patient had proximal 2D or 3D wear rates exceeding 0.06 mm per year. An increasing wear rate over time was measured for proximal and 2D wear rates between 6 and 14 years (0.024 and 0.030 mm per year) compared with that between 1 and 6 years (0.008 and 0.010 mm per year; p = 0.03).

Conclusion: The proximal, 2D, and 3D wear of a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner produced using 5-Mrad radiation remains low in the longer-term. With the small numbers available in a long-term RSA study such as this, we confirmed that the wear rate did not decrease at longer-term follow-up, unlike previous RSA studies of more highly irradiated highly crosslinked polyethylene liners. Nevertheless, the wear rate remains very low and below the threshold typically associated with the development of osteolysis (0.1 mm/year of wear). This should provide assurance to orthopaedic surgeons monitoring patients with this 5-Mrad irradiated liner in situ, while providing useful information to manufacturers of future highly crosslinked polyethylene liners.

Level of evidence: Level IV therapeutic study.

背景:在制造高交联聚乙烯髋臼衬垫时,较低剂量的辐照(≤ 5 Mrad)可能会导致交联程度降低和磨损率增加。放射性立体计量分析(RSA)研究发现,与早期相同队列的报告相比,经过较高辐照的高交联聚乙烯内衬(7 到 10 Mrad)在长期随访中的磨损率有所下降。虽然 5-Mrad 辐照内衬的磨损在中期随访时似乎有所增加,但在长期随访时是否仍然如此尚不清楚:我们的问题是:(1) 在使用 5-Mrad 高交联聚乙烯衬垫接受 THA 手术的患者中,在最初的 14 年中使用 RSA 评估的磨损率是多少?(2) 在原位使用 6 年后,磨损率是否会降低?这是对之前进行的 2 年和 6 年 RSA 研究的简要跟踪。我们前瞻性地回顾了13例接受初级THA的患者的长期磨损率,这些患者采用了相同的设计,即5-MRad辐照交联髋臼衬垫和28毫米钴铬关节。在最初入组的 30 名患者中,有 13 名(43%)患者在 14 年的时间节点上进行了手术;其中 9 名患者死亡,1 名患者退出手术,1 名患者术中骨折,3 名患者体弱多病,无法拍摄射线照片,2 名患者没有基线 RSA 影像,1 名患者的 RSA 图像质量较差。术中插入钽标记,所有患者在术后1周、6个月以及1年、2年、6年和14年进行了RSA影像学检查:1 年至 14 年间计算出的近端、二维和三维磨损率的平均值(± 标准差)分别为每年 0.019 ± 0.013 毫米、0.022 ± 0.015 毫米和 0.025 ± 0.019 毫米。没有患者的近端 2D 或 3D 磨损率超过每年 0.06 毫米。与1至6年的磨损率(每年0.008和0.010毫米;P = 0.03)相比,6至14年的近端和2D磨损率(每年0.024和0.030毫米)随着时间的推移而增加:结论:使用5-Mrad辐射生产的高交联聚乙烯衬垫的近端、二维和三维磨损在较长时间内仍然较低。由于像这样的长期 RSA 研究可用的人数较少,我们证实在长期随访中磨损率并没有降低,这与之前对辐照度更高的高交联聚乙烯衬垫进行的 RSA 研究不同。不过,磨损率仍然很低,低于通常与骨溶解发展相关的阈值(0.1 毫米/年磨损)。这应该能为使用这种5-Mrad辐照衬垫对患者进行原位监测的骨科医生提供保证,同时也能为未来高交联聚乙烯衬垫的制造商提供有用的信息:IV级治疗研究。
{"title":"What is the Long-term Wear of a 5-Mrad Highly Crosslinked Polyethylene Liner? A 14-year RSA Study.","authors":"Stuart A Callary, Deepti K Sharma, Taisha M D'Apollonio, Owain Critchley, Graham Mercer, Christopher Wilson, David G Campbell","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003047","DOIUrl":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003047","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lower doses of irradiation (≤ 5 Mrad) during the manufacture of highly crosslinked polyethylene acetabular liners may result in less crosslinking and an increased wear rate. Radiostereometric analysis (RSA) studies have found that wear of more highly irradiated highly crosslinked polyethylene liners (7 to 10 Mrad) decreases at longer-term follow-up compared with earlier reports of the same cohorts. Although wear of 5-Mrad irradiated liners appears to increase at midterm follow-up, it is unclear whether that remains true at longer follow-up.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>We asked: (1) In patients who underwent THA with a 5-Mrad highly crosslinked polyethylene liner, what is the wear rate evaluated with RSA during the first 14 years? (2) Does the wear rate decrease after 6 years in situ?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a brief follow-up of prior RSA studies performed at 2 and 6 years. We prospectively reviewed the longer-term wear rate in 13 patients who underwent primary THAs with the same design of a 5-MRad irradiated crosslinked acetabular liner and a 28-mm cobalt-chromium articulation. Of the initial 30 patients who were enrolled, 13 (43%) were available at the 14-year timepoint; nine patients had died, 1 patient had withdrawn, 1 had an intraoperative fracture, 3 patients were too infirm to have radiographs, 2 had no baseline RSA radiographs, and 1 had poor-quality RSA images. Tantalum markers were inserted during surgery, and all patients had RSA radiographic examinations at 1 week, 6 months, and 1, 2, 6, and 14 years postoperatively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean ± standard deviation proximal, 2D, and 3D wear rates calculated between 1 year and 14 years were 0.019 ± 0.013 mm, 0.022 ± 0.015 mm, and 0.025 ± 0.019 mm per year, respectively. No patient had proximal 2D or 3D wear rates exceeding 0.06 mm per year. An increasing wear rate over time was measured for proximal and 2D wear rates between 6 and 14 years (0.024 and 0.030 mm per year) compared with that between 1 and 6 years (0.008 and 0.010 mm per year; p = 0.03).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The proximal, 2D, and 3D wear of a highly crosslinked polyethylene liner produced using 5-Mrad radiation remains low in the longer-term. With the small numbers available in a long-term RSA study such as this, we confirmed that the wear rate did not decrease at longer-term follow-up, unlike previous RSA studies of more highly irradiated highly crosslinked polyethylene liners. Nevertheless, the wear rate remains very low and below the threshold typically associated with the development of osteolysis (0.1 mm/year of wear). This should provide assurance to orthopaedic surgeons monitoring patients with this 5-Mrad irradiated liner in situ, while providing useful information to manufacturers of future highly crosslinked polyethylene liners.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level IV therapeutic study.</p>","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11419525/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140305030","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Not the Last Word: Restrictive Covenants Can be Liberating. 并非一言九鼎:限制性盟约可以解放思想。
IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-05 DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003241
Joseph Bernstein
{"title":"Not the Last Word: Restrictive Covenants Can be Liberating.","authors":"Joseph Bernstein","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003241","DOIUrl":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003241","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11419499/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142132045","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
CORR Insights®: Does Early Conversion to Below-elbow Casting for Pediatric Diaphyseal Both-bone Forearm Fractures Adversely Affect Patient-reported Outcomes and ROM? CORR Insights®:小儿骨骺双骨前臂骨折过早转为肘下固定是否会对患者报告的结果和活动度产生不利影响?
IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-29 DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003148
Peter D Fabricant
{"title":"CORR Insights®: Does Early Conversion to Below-elbow Casting for Pediatric Diaphyseal Both-bone Forearm Fractures Adversely Affect Patient-reported Outcomes and ROM?","authors":"Peter D Fabricant","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003148","DOIUrl":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003148","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11419505/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141283110","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Does Freehand, Patient-specific Instrumentation or Surgical Navigation Perform Better for Allograft Reconstruction After Tumor Resection? A Preclinical Synthetic Bone Study. 肿瘤切除术后同种异体骨重建是徒手操作、患者特定器械还是手术导航效果更好?临床前合成骨研究。
IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-15 DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003116
Harley H L Chan, Prakash Nayak, Ibrahim Alshaygy, Kenneth R Gundle, Kim Tsoi, Michael J Daly, Jonathan C Irish, Peter C Ferguson, Jay S Wunder
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Joint-sparing resection of periarticular bone tumors can be challenging because of complex geometry. Successful reconstruction of periarticular bone defects after tumor resection is often performed with structural allografts to allow for joint preservation. However, achieving a size-matched allograft to fill the defect can be challenging because allograft sizes vary, they do not always match a patient's anatomy, and cutting the allograft to perfectly fit the defect is demanding.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>(1) Is there a difference in mental workload among the freehand, patient-specific instrumentation, and surgical navigation approaches? (2) Is there a difference in conformance (quantitative measure of deviation from the ideal bone graft), elapsed time during reconstruction, and qualitative assessment of goodness-of-fit of the allograft reconstruction among the approaches?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Seven surgeons used three modalities in the same order (freehand, patient-specific instrumentation, and surgical navigation) to fashion synthetic bone to reconstruct a standardized bone defect. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) mental task load index questionnaires and procedure time were captured. Cone-beam CT images of the shaped allografts were used to measure conformance (quantitative measure of deviation from the ideal bone graft) to a computer-generated ideal bone graft model. Six additional (senior) surgeons blinded to modality scored the quality of fit of the allografts into the standardized tumor defect using a 10-point Likert scale. We measured conformance using the root-mean-square metric in mm and used ANOVA for multipaired comparisons (p < 0.05 was significant).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no difference in mental NASA total task load scores among the freehand, patient-specific instrumentation, and surgical navigation techniques. We found no difference in conformance root-mean-square values (mean ± SD) between surgical navigation (2 ± 0 mm; mean values have been rounded to whole numbers) and patient-specific instrumentation (2 ± 1 mm), but both showed a small improvement compared with the freehand approach (3 ± 1 mm). For freehand versus surgical navigation, the mean difference was 1 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5 to 1.1; p = 0.01). For freehand versus patient-specific instrumentation, the mean difference was 1 mm (95% CI -0.1 to 0.9; p = 0.02). For patient-specific instrumentation versus surgical navigation, the mean difference was 0 mm (95% CI -0.5 to 0.2; p = 0.82). In evaluating the goodness of fit of the shaped grafts, we found no clinically important difference between surgical navigation (median [IQR] 7 [6 to 8]) and patient-specific instrumentation (median 6 [5 to 7.8]), although both techniques had higher scores than the freehand technique did (median 3 [2 to 4]). For freehand versus surgical navigation, the difference of medians was 4 (p <
背景:由于关节周围骨肿瘤具有复杂的几何形状,因此保全关节切除术具有挑战性。在肿瘤切除术后,为了成功重建关节周围骨缺损,通常采用结构性同种异体移植物来保留关节。问题/目的:(1) 徒手法、患者专用器械法和手术导航法的心理工作量是否存在差异?(2) 不同方法在一致性(与理想植骨的偏差的定量测量)、重建过程中的耗时以及对同种异体移植重建匹配度的定性评估方面是否存在差异?七名外科医生按照相同的顺序使用三种方法(徒手、患者专用器械和手术导航)制作合成骨,重建标准化骨缺损。美国国家航空航天局(NASA)心理任务负荷指数调查问卷和手术时间都被记录下来。成形异体骨的锥形束 CT 图像用于测量与计算机生成的理想植骨模型的一致性(对与理想植骨偏差的定量测量)。另外六名(资深)外科医生在对手术方式保密的情况下,使用 10 分李克特量表对异体骨移植到标准化肿瘤缺损中的吻合质量进行评分。我们使用均方根(单位:毫米)测量一致性,并使用方差分析进行多对比较(P < 0.05 为显著):结果:徒手、患者专用器械和手术导航技术的精神NASA总任务负荷得分没有差异。我们发现手术导航(2±0 毫米;平均值已四舍五入为整数)和患者专用器械(2±1 毫米)的一致性均方根值(平均值±标准差)没有差异,但与徒手方法(3±1 毫米)相比,两者都有小幅改善。徒手与手术导航相比,平均差异为 1 毫米(95% 置信区间 [CI] 0.5 至 1.1;P = 0.01)。自由操作与患者专用器械的平均差异为 1 毫米(95% 置信区间 [CI] -0.1 至 0.9;P = 0.02)。患者专用器械与手术导航的平均差异为 0 毫米(95% CI -0.5 至 0.2;p = 0.82)。在评估塑形移植物的拟合度时,我们发现手术导航(中位数[IQR] 7 [6至8])与患者特异性器械治疗(中位数 6 [5至7.8])之间没有临床上重要的差异,尽管这两种技术的得分都高于徒手技术(中位数 3 [2至4])。自由操作与手术导航的中位数相差 4(P < 0.001)。自由操作与患者专用器械相比,中位数相差 3(P < 0.001)。患者专用器械与手术导航的中位数差异为 1(p = 0.03)。徒手操作的平均手术时间为(16 ± 10)分钟,患者特异性器械操作为(14 ± 9)分钟,手术导航技术为(24 ± 8)分钟。我们发现三种塑形方式的手术时间没有差异(徒手与患者特异性器械:平均差异为 2 分钟 [95% CI 0 至 7];P = 0.92;徒手与手术导航:平均差异为 8 分钟 [95% CI 0 至 20];P = 0.23;患者特异性器械与手术导航:平均差异为 10 分钟 [95% CI 1 至 19];P = 0.12):根据手术模拟重建肿瘤切除术后的标准化关节周围骨缺损,我们发现手术导航与患者特异性器械相比,在定性拟合方面可能略有优势,但两种技术都能提供比徒手技术稍好的异型移植物拟合标准化肿瘤切除术后骨缺损的一致性。要确定这些差异是否具有临床意义,还需要进一步研究。本文介绍的手术导航系统是实验室研究开发的产物,虽然还不能广泛应用于临床实践,但目前正在研究手术室用于患者护理。这项新技术涉及学习曲线、资本成本和潜在风险。所报告的初步结果是基于临床前的合成骨肿瘤研究,与实际手术场景相比并不真实:手术导航系统是骨科和重建外科的新兴技术,了解其功能和局限性对临床实践至关重要。
{"title":"Does Freehand, Patient-specific Instrumentation or Surgical Navigation Perform Better for Allograft Reconstruction After Tumor Resection? A Preclinical Synthetic Bone Study.","authors":"Harley H L Chan, Prakash Nayak, Ibrahim Alshaygy, Kenneth R Gundle, Kim Tsoi, Michael J Daly, Jonathan C Irish, Peter C Ferguson, Jay S Wunder","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003116","DOIUrl":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003116","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Background: &lt;/strong&gt;Joint-sparing resection of periarticular bone tumors can be challenging because of complex geometry. Successful reconstruction of periarticular bone defects after tumor resection is often performed with structural allografts to allow for joint preservation. However, achieving a size-matched allograft to fill the defect can be challenging because allograft sizes vary, they do not always match a patient's anatomy, and cutting the allograft to perfectly fit the defect is demanding.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Questions/purposes: &lt;/strong&gt;(1) Is there a difference in mental workload among the freehand, patient-specific instrumentation, and surgical navigation approaches? (2) Is there a difference in conformance (quantitative measure of deviation from the ideal bone graft), elapsed time during reconstruction, and qualitative assessment of goodness-of-fit of the allograft reconstruction among the approaches?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;Seven surgeons used three modalities in the same order (freehand, patient-specific instrumentation, and surgical navigation) to fashion synthetic bone to reconstruct a standardized bone defect. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) mental task load index questionnaires and procedure time were captured. Cone-beam CT images of the shaped allografts were used to measure conformance (quantitative measure of deviation from the ideal bone graft) to a computer-generated ideal bone graft model. Six additional (senior) surgeons blinded to modality scored the quality of fit of the allografts into the standardized tumor defect using a 10-point Likert scale. We measured conformance using the root-mean-square metric in mm and used ANOVA for multipaired comparisons (p &lt; 0.05 was significant).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;There was no difference in mental NASA total task load scores among the freehand, patient-specific instrumentation, and surgical navigation techniques. We found no difference in conformance root-mean-square values (mean ± SD) between surgical navigation (2 ± 0 mm; mean values have been rounded to whole numbers) and patient-specific instrumentation (2 ± 1 mm), but both showed a small improvement compared with the freehand approach (3 ± 1 mm). For freehand versus surgical navigation, the mean difference was 1 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.5 to 1.1; p = 0.01). For freehand versus patient-specific instrumentation, the mean difference was 1 mm (95% CI -0.1 to 0.9; p = 0.02). For patient-specific instrumentation versus surgical navigation, the mean difference was 0 mm (95% CI -0.5 to 0.2; p = 0.82). In evaluating the goodness of fit of the shaped grafts, we found no clinically important difference between surgical navigation (median [IQR] 7 [6 to 8]) and patient-specific instrumentation (median 6 [5 to 7.8]), although both techniques had higher scores than the freehand technique did (median 3 [2 to 4]). For freehand versus surgical navigation, the difference of medians was 4 (p &lt;","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11419413/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141174299","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
CORR Insights®: What Is the Epidemiology of Cervical and Thoracic Spine Fractures? CORR Insights®:颈椎和胸椎骨折的流行病学情况如何?
IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-09-26 DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000003249
Ronald W Lindsey
{"title":"CORR Insights®: What Is the Epidemiology of Cervical and Thoracic Spine Fractures?","authors":"Ronald W Lindsey","doi":"10.1097/corr.0000000000003249","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/corr.0000000000003249","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142329105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
CORR Insights®: Can Bisphosphonate Therapy Reduce Overall Mortality in Patients With Osteoporosis? A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. CORR Insights®:双膦酸盐疗法能否降低骨质疏松症患者的总死亡率?随机对照试验的 Meta 分析。
IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-09-26 DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003255
Matthew L Webb
{"title":"CORR Insights®: Can Bisphosphonate Therapy Reduce Overall Mortality in Patients With Osteoporosis? A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Matthew L Webb","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003255","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003255","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142342867","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Is Information About Musculoskeletal Malignancies From Large Language Models or Web Resources at a Suitable Reading Level for Patients? 大语言模型或网络资源中有关肌肉骨骼恶性肿瘤的信息是否符合患者的阅读水平?
IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2024-09-25 DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000003263
Paul G Guirguis,Mark P Youssef,Ankit Punreddy,Mina Botros,Mattie Raiford,Susan McDowell
BACKGROUNDPatients and caregivers may experience immense distress when receiving the diagnosis of a primary musculoskeletal malignancy and subsequently turn to internet resources for more information. It is not clear whether these resources, including Google and ChatGPT, offer patients information that is readable, a measure of how easy text is to understand. Since many patients turn to Google and artificial intelligence resources for healthcare information, we thought it was important to ascertain whether the information they find is readable and easy to understand. The objective of this study was to compare readability of Google search results and ChatGPT answers to frequently asked questions and assess whether these sources meet NIH recommendations for readability.QUESTIONS/PURPOSES(1) What is the readability of ChatGPT-3.5 as a source of patient information for the three most common primary bone malignancies compared with top online resources from Google search? (2) Do ChatGPT-3.5 responses and online resources meet NIH readability guidelines for patient education materials?METHODSThis was a cross-sectional analysis of the 12 most common online questions about osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and Ewing sarcoma. To be consistent with other studies of similar design that utilized national society frequently asked questions lists, questions were selected from the American Cancer Society and categorized based on content, including diagnosis, treatment, and recovery and prognosis. Google was queried using all 36 questions, and top responses were recorded. Author types, such as hospital systems, national health organizations, or independent researchers, were recorded. ChatGPT-3.5 was provided each question in independent queries without further prompting. Responses were assessed with validated reading indices to determine readability by grade level. An independent t-test was performed with significance set at p < 0.05.RESULTSGoogle (n = 36) and ChatGPT-3.5 (n = 36) answers were recorded, 12 for each of the three cancer types. Reading grade levels based on mean readability scores were 11.0 ± 2.9 and 16.1 ± 3.6, respectively. This corresponds to the eleventh grade reading level for Google and a fourth-year undergraduate student level for ChatGPT-3.5. Google answers were more readable across all individual indices, without differences in word count. No difference in readability was present across author type, question category, or cancer type. Of 72 total responses across both search modalities, none met NIH readability criteria at the sixth-grade level.CONCLUSIONGoogle material was presented at a high school reading level, whereas ChatGPT-3.5 was at an undergraduate reading level. The readability of both resources was inadequate based on NIH recommendations. Improving readability is crucial for better patient understanding during cancer treatment. Physicians should assess patients' needs, offer them tailored materials, and guide them to reliable resourc
背景当患者和护理人员被诊断出患有原发性肌肉骨骼恶性肿瘤时,他们可能会感到非常痛苦,随后便会求助于互联网资源以获取更多信息。目前尚不清楚包括谷歌和 ChatGPT 在内的这些资源是否能为患者提供可读信息,可读性是衡量文字是否易于理解的标准。由于许多患者都会通过谷歌和人工智能资源来获取医疗保健信息,因此我们认为有必要确定他们所找到的信息是否具有可读性且易于理解。本研究的目的是比较谷歌搜索结果和 ChatGPT 对常见问题的回答的可读性,并评估这些来源是否符合美国国立卫生研究院对可读性的建议。问题/提案(1)与谷歌搜索的顶级在线资源相比,ChatGPT-3.5 作为三种最常见的原发性骨恶性肿瘤的患者信息来源的可读性如何?(2)ChatGPT-3.5 的回复和在线资源是否符合美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)关于患者教育材料的可读性指南? 方法:这是一项横断面分析,分析了关于骨肉瘤、软骨肉瘤和尤文肉瘤的 12 个最常见的在线问题。为了与其他利用国家学会常见问题列表进行的类似设计研究保持一致,我们从美国癌症学会挑选了问题,并根据诊断、治疗、康复和预后等内容进行了分类。使用全部 36 个问题对谷歌进行了查询,并记录了热门回复。记录了作者类型,如医院系统、国家卫生组织或独立研究人员。ChatGPT-3.5 在独立查询中提供了每个问题,无需进一步提示。通过有效的阅读指数对回答进行评估,以确定不同年级的可读性。结果记录了谷歌(n = 36)和 ChatGPT-3.5 (n = 36)的答案,三种癌症类型各 12 个。根据平均可读性得分,阅读等级分别为 11.0 ± 2.9 和 16.1 ± 3.6。这相当于 Google 11 年级的阅读水平和 ChatGPT-3.5 的四年级本科生水平。在所有单项指数中,Google 答案的可读性更高,字数上没有差异。不同作者类型、问题类别或癌症类型的可读性没有差异。在两种搜索模式的 72 个回答中,没有一个符合美国国立卫生研究院六年级水平的可读性标准。根据美国国立卫生研究院的建议,这两种资源的可读性都不足。提高可读性对于患者在癌症治疗期间更好地理解至关重要。医生应评估患者的需求,为他们提供量身定制的材料,并指导他们使用可靠的资源,以避免依赖难以理解的在线信息。
{"title":"Is Information About Musculoskeletal Malignancies From Large Language Models or Web Resources at a Suitable Reading Level for Patients?","authors":"Paul G Guirguis,Mark P Youssef,Ankit Punreddy,Mina Botros,Mattie Raiford,Susan McDowell","doi":"10.1097/corr.0000000000003263","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/corr.0000000000003263","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDPatients and caregivers may experience immense distress when receiving the diagnosis of a primary musculoskeletal malignancy and subsequently turn to internet resources for more information. It is not clear whether these resources, including Google and ChatGPT, offer patients information that is readable, a measure of how easy text is to understand. Since many patients turn to Google and artificial intelligence resources for healthcare information, we thought it was important to ascertain whether the information they find is readable and easy to understand. The objective of this study was to compare readability of Google search results and ChatGPT answers to frequently asked questions and assess whether these sources meet NIH recommendations for readability.QUESTIONS/PURPOSES(1) What is the readability of ChatGPT-3.5 as a source of patient information for the three most common primary bone malignancies compared with top online resources from Google search? (2) Do ChatGPT-3.5 responses and online resources meet NIH readability guidelines for patient education materials?METHODSThis was a cross-sectional analysis of the 12 most common online questions about osteosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and Ewing sarcoma. To be consistent with other studies of similar design that utilized national society frequently asked questions lists, questions were selected from the American Cancer Society and categorized based on content, including diagnosis, treatment, and recovery and prognosis. Google was queried using all 36 questions, and top responses were recorded. Author types, such as hospital systems, national health organizations, or independent researchers, were recorded. ChatGPT-3.5 was provided each question in independent queries without further prompting. Responses were assessed with validated reading indices to determine readability by grade level. An independent t-test was performed with significance set at p &lt; 0.05.RESULTSGoogle (n = 36) and ChatGPT-3.5 (n = 36) answers were recorded, 12 for each of the three cancer types. Reading grade levels based on mean readability scores were 11.0 ± 2.9 and 16.1 ± 3.6, respectively. This corresponds to the eleventh grade reading level for Google and a fourth-year undergraduate student level for ChatGPT-3.5. Google answers were more readable across all individual indices, without differences in word count. No difference in readability was present across author type, question category, or cancer type. Of 72 total responses across both search modalities, none met NIH readability criteria at the sixth-grade level.CONCLUSIONGoogle material was presented at a high school reading level, whereas ChatGPT-3.5 was at an undergraduate reading level. The readability of both resources was inadequate based on NIH recommendations. Improving readability is crucial for better patient understanding during cancer treatment. Physicians should assess patients' needs, offer them tailored materials, and guide them to reliable resourc","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142328840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1