Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Large language models (LLM) have unknown implications for medical research. This study assessed whether LLM-generated abstracts are distinguishable from human-written abstracts and to compare their perceived quality. METHODS:The LLM ChatGPT was used to generate 20 arthroplasty abstracts (AI-generated) based on full-text manuscripts, which were compared to originally published abstracts (human-written). Six blinded orthopaedic surgeons rated abstracts on overall quality, communication, and confidence in the authorship source. Authorship-confidence scores were compared to a test value representing complete inability to discern authorship. RESULTS:Modestly increased confidence in human authorship was observed for human-written abstracts compared with AI-generated abstracts (p = 0.028), though AI-generated abstract authorship-confidence scores were statistically consistent with inability to discern authorship (p = 0.999). Overall abstract quality was higher for human-written abstracts (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS:AI-generated abstracts' absolute authorship-confidence ratings demonstrated difficulty in discerning authorship but did not achieve the perceived quality of human-written abstracts. Caution is warranted in implementing LLMs into scientific writing.

BACKGROUND:Liver cirrhosis is associated with increased perioperative morbidity. Our study used the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score to assess the impact of cirrhosis severity on postoperative outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS:A retrospective review identified 59 patients with liver cirrhosis who underwent primary TKA at a large, urban, academic center from January 2013 to August 2022. Cirrhosis was categorized as mild (MELD<10; n=47) or moderate-severe (MELD≥10; n=12). Modified Clavien-Dindo classification was used to grade complications, where grade 2+ denoted significant intervention. Hospital length of stay (LOS), non-home discharge, and mortality were collected. 1:1 propensity matching was used to control for demographics and selected comorbidities. RESULTS:Moderate-severe cirrhosis was associated with significantly higher rates of intrahospital overall (58.33% vs 16.67%, p=0.036) complications, 30-day overall complications (75% vs 33.33%, p=0.042), and 90-day overall complications (75% vs 33.33%, p=0.042) when compared to matched mild cirrhosis patients. Compared to matched non-cirrhotic controls, mild cirrhosis patients had no significant increase in complication rate or other outcomes (p>0.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients with moderate-severe liver cirrhosis are at risk of short-term complications following primary TKA. Patients with mild cirrhosis have comparable outcomes to matched non-cirrhotic patients. Surgeons can use MELD score prior to scheduling TKA to determine which patients require optimization or higher levels of perioperative care.

OBJECTIVE:To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS:We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS:The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION:This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

OBJECTIVE:To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS:We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS:The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION:This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

Non-English-speaking patients face increased communication barriers when undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Surgeons may learn or have proficiency in languages spoken among their patients to improve communication. This study investigated the effect of surgeon-patient language concordance on outcomes after TJA. We conducted a single-institution, retrospective review of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) whose preferred language was not English. Patients were stratified based on whether their surgeon spoke their preferred language (language concordant [LC]) or not (language discordant [LD]). Baseline characteristics, length of stay, discharge disposition, revision rate, readmission rate, and patient-reported outcomes (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement [KOOS, JR], Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement [HOOS, JR], and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]) were compared. A total of 3390 patients met inclusion criteria, with 855 receiving THA and 2535 receiving TKA. Among patients receiving THA, 440 (51.5%) saw a LC provider and 415 (48.5%) saw a LD provider. Those in the LC group had higher HOOS, JR scores at 1 year postoperatively (67.4 vs 49.3, P=.003) and were more likely to be discharged home (77.5% vs 69.9%, P=.013). Among patients receiving TKA, 1051 (41.5%) received LC care, whereas 1484 (58.5%) received LD care. There were no differences in outcome between the LC and LD TKA groups. Patients receiving THA with surgeons who spoke their language had improved patient-reported outcomes and were more commonly discharged home after surgery. Language concordance did not change outcomes in TKA. Optimizing language concordance for patients receiving TJA may improve postoperative outcomes. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(6):334-339.].

OBJECTIVE:To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS:We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS:The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

BACKGROUND:Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is a costly procedure, and its prevalence has been steadily increasing over time. This study aimed to examine trends in hospital cost, revenue, and contribution margin (CM) in patients undergoing rTHA. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent rTHA from June 2011 to May 2021 at our institution. Patients were stratified into groups based on insurance coverage: Medicare, government-managed Medicaid, or commercial insurance. Patient demographics, revenue (any payment the hospital received), direct cost (any cost associated with the surgery and hospitalization), total cost (the sum of direct and indirect costs), and CM (the difference between revenue and direct cost) were collected. Changes over time as a percentage of 2011 numbers were analyzed. Linear regression analyses were used to determine the overall trend's significance. Of the 1,613 patients identified, 661 were covered by Medicare, 449 by government-managed Medicaid, and 503 by commercial insurance plans. RESULTS:Medicare patients exhibited a significant upward trend in revenue (P < .001), total cost (P = .004), direct cost (P < .001), and an overall downward trend in CM (P = .037), with CM for these patients falling to 72.1% of 2011 values by 2021. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In the Medicare population, reimbursement for rTHA has not matched increases in cost, leading to considerable reductions in CM. These trends affect the ability of hospitals to cover indirect costs, threatening access to care for patients who require this necessary procedure. Reimbursement models for rTHA should be reconsidered to ensure the financial feasibility of these procedures for all patient populations.

BACKGROUND:Few studies have assessed how socioeconomic status (SES) influences patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study evaluated the impact of patient median ZIP code income levels on PROMs after TKA. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed patients at our institution undergoing primary, unilateral TKA from 2017 to 2020. Patients who did not have one-year postoperative PROMs were excluded. Patients were stratified based on the quartile of their home ZIP code median income from United States Census Bureau data. There were 1,267 patients included: 98 in quartile 1 (median income ≤ $46,308) (7.7%); 126 in quartile 2 (median income $46,309-$57,848) (10.0%); 194 in quartile 3 (median income $57,849-$74,011) (15.7%); and 849 in quartile 4 (median income ≥ $74,012) (66.4%). We collected baseline demographic data, 2-year outcomes, and PROMs preoperatively, as well as at 12 weeks and one year, postoperatively. RESULTS:The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement was significantly higher in quartile 4 preoperatively (P < .001), 12 weeks postoperatively (P < .001), and one year postoperatively (P < .001). There were no significant differences in delta improvements of Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement from preoperative to 12 weeks or one year postoperatively. There were no significant differences in lengths of stay, discharge dispositions, readmissions, or revisions. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients from lower income areas have slightly worse knee function preoperatively and worse outcomes following TKA. However, improvements in PROMs throughout the first year postoperatively are similar across income quartiles, suggesting that patients from lower income quartiles achieve comparable therapeutic benefits from TKA. LEVEL III EVIDENCE/METHODS:Retrospective Cohort Study.