As patient data continues to grow, the importance of efficient and precise analysis cannot be overstated. The employment of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI), specifically Chat GPT-4, in the realm of medical data interpretation has been on the rise. However, its effectiveness in comparison to manual data analysis has been insufficiently investigated.

This quality improvement project aimed to evaluate the accuracy and time-efficiency of Generative AI (GPT-4) against manual data interpretation within extensive datasets pertaining to patients with orthopaedic injuries.

A dataset, containing details of 6,562 orthopaedic trauma patients admitted to a district general hospital over a span of two years, was reviewed. Two researchers operated independently: one utilised GPT-4 for insights via prompts, while the other manually examined the identical dataset employing Microsoft Excel and IBM® SPSS® software. Both were blinded on each other's procedures and outcomes. Each researcher answered 20 questions based on the dataset including injury details, age groups, injury specifics, activity trends and the duration taken to assess the data.

Upon comparison, both GPT-4 and the manual researcher achieved consistent results for 19 out of the 20 questions (95% accuracy). After a subsequent review and refined prompts (prompt engineering) to GPT-4, the answer to the final question aligned with the manual researcher's findings. GPT-4 required just 30 minutes, a stark contrast to the manual researcher's 9-hour analytical duration.

This quality improvement project emphasises the transformative potential of Generative AI in the domain of medical data analysis. GPT-4 not only paralleled the accuracy of manual analysis but also achieved this in significantly less time. For optimal accurate results, data analysis by AI can be enhanced through human oversight. Adopting AI-driven approaches, particularly in orthopaedic data interpretation, can enhance efficiency and ultimately improve patient care. We recommend future investigations on large and more varied datasets to reaffirm these outcomes.

The Posterior and Lateral approaches are most commonly used for Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) in the United Kingdom (UK). Fewer than 5% of UK surgeons routinely use the Direct Anterior Approach (DAA). DAA THA is increasing, particularly among surgeons who have learned the technique during overseas fellowships. Whether DAA offers long-term clinical benefit is unclear.

We undertook a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected 10-year, multi-surgeon, multi-centre implant surveillance study data for matched cohorts of patients whose operations were undertaken by either the DAA or posterior approach. All operations were undertaken using uncemented femoral and acetabular components. The implants were different for the two surgical approaches. We report the pre-operative, and post operative six-month, two-year, five-year and 10-year Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and 10-year revision rates.

125 patients underwent DAA THA; these patients were matched against those undergoing the posterior approach through propensity score matching for age, gender and body mass index. The 10-year revision rate for DAA THA was 3.2% (4/125) and 2.4% (3/125) for posterior THA. The difference in revision rate was not statistically significant. Both DAA and Posterior THA pre-operative OHS were comparable at 19.85 and 19.12 respectively. At the six-month time point, there was an OHS improvement of 20.89 points for DAA and 18.82 points for Posterior THA and this was statistically significant (P-Value <0.001). At the two, five and 10-year time-points the OHS and OHS improvement from the pre-operative review were comparable. At the 10-year time point post-op the OHS for DAA THA was 42.63, 42.10 for posterior THA and the mean improvement from pre-op to 10-years post op was 22.78 and 22.98 respectively. There was no statistical difference when comparing the OHS or the OHS mean improvements at the two, five and 10-year point.

Whilst there was greater improvement and statistical significance during the initial six month time period, as time went on there was no statistically significant difference between the outcome measures or revision rates for the two approaches.

Simulation use in training is rapidly becoming a mainstay educational tool seen to offer perceived benefits of a safe environment for repeated practice and learning from errors without jeopardising patient safety. However, there is currently little evidence addressing the trainees’ perspectives and attitudes of simulation training, particularly in comparison with trainers and the educational community.

This study investigates orthopaedic trainees’ and trainers’ conceptions of learning from simulation-based training, exploring whether the orthopaedic community are ‘on the same page’, with respect to each other and the educational community. Qualitative research in the form of semi-structured interviews is used to identify commonalities and differences between trainee and trainer conceptions, based on respective experiences and expectations, and suggests ways of enhancing collaboration between stakeholders to achieve better alignment of conceptions.

The research revealed that orthopaedic trainees and trainers conceive key themes in a similar manner: supporting the role of simulation in developing the ‘pre-trained novice’ as opposed to skill refinement or maintenance; attributing greater importance to non-technical rather than technical skills development using simulation; questioning the transferability to practice of learnt skills; and emphasising similar barriers to increased curriculum integration, including financing and scheduling. These conceptions are largely in contrast to those of the educational community, possibly due to differing conceptions of learning between the two communities, along with a lack of a common language in the discourse of simulation.

There was some evidence of changing attitudes and positively emerging conceptions among the orthopaedic community, and capitalising on this by engaging trainers and trainees may help reconcile the differing conceptions and facilitate increasing simulation utilisation and curriculum integration. Developing a common language to make the educational more tangible to surgeons, bringing the educational closer to the surgical, may help maximise the educational benefit and shape the future of simulation use in surgical training.

Disease specific or generic Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) can be completed by patients using paper and postal services (pPROMS) or via computer, tablet or smartphone (ePROMs) or by hybrid data collection, which uses both paper and electronic questionnaires. We have investigated whether there are differences in scores depending on the method of PROMs acquisition for the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the EQ-5D scores, at one and two years post operatively.

Patients for this study were identified retrospectively from a prospectively compiled arthroplasty database held at the study centre. Patient demographics, mode of preferred data collection and pre- and post-operative PROMs for Total Hip Replacements (THRs) performed at this centre between 1^st January 2018 and 31^st December 2018 were collected.

During the study period, 1494 patients underwent THRs and had complete one and two-year PROMs data available for analysis. All pre-operative scores were obtained by pPROMS. The average OHS and EQ-5D pre-operatively scores were 19.51 and 0.36 respectively. 72.02% of the patients consented to undertake post-operative questionnaires using ePROMs. The remaining 27.98% opted for pPROMS. The one and two-year OHS for ePROMS patients increased to 41.31 and 42.14 while the OHS scores for pPROMS patients were 39.80 and 39.83. At the one and two-year post-operative time intervals, a Mann-Whitney test showed statistical significance between the modes of administration for OHS (P-Value =0.044 and 0.01 respectively). The one and two-year EQ-5D for ePROMS patients increased to 0.83 and 0.84 while the EQ-5D scores for pPROMS patients were 0.79 and 0.81. The P-Value for Mann-Whitney tests comparing the modes of administration for EQ-5D were 0.13 and 0.07 respectively.

Within Orthopaedics, PROMs have become the most widely used instrument to assess patients’ subjective outcomes. However, there is no agreed mode of PROMs data acquisition. While we have demonstrated an apparent difference in scores depending on the mode of administration, further work is required to establish the influence of potentially confounding factors such as patient age, gender and familiarity with computer technology.

Clinical decision-making is often based on evidence of outcome after a specific treatment. Surgeons and patients may, have different perceptions and expectations of what to achieve following a Total Hip Replacement (THR). Several studies have shown that unfulfilled expectations are a principal source of patient dissatisfaction and patients are typically overly optimistic with regards to expected outcomes following surgery. Published data on clinical and functional outcomes show that persistence of symptoms, such as pain, and failure to return to preoperative levels of function are normal. To measure patient's expectations we undertook prospective study reviewing patients' expectations in 1800 THRs over a 21-year period (1997–2018).

Of the whole cohort, 48.98% patients reported they wanted a THR to overcome unbearable pain. 11.75 % wanted a THR to be able to walk without a limp. 9.69% wanted to a THR to increase walk endurance. 61.97% reported it was extremely important to decrease pain following a THR. In 2001, the most important reason for a THR reported by patients was to relieve unbearable pain and this remained the same most important reason in 2018. This result was also statistically significant with a p-value of 0.001. 80.36% reported they anticipated ‘no pain’ after recovery from a THR, 16.75% reported they anticipated ‘some pain’ and 2.89% reported they anticipated ‘extreme pain’ following a THR. 74.71% reported it was extremely important to increase their ability to undertake normal activities. 22.06% reported it was very important, 2.40% reported it was moderately important, 0.55% slightly important and 0.28% reported it was not all to important to increase their ability to undertake normal activity.

In conclusion patients' want to reduce their pain, walk normally and increase their level activities. Differences in expectation fulfilment may be due to unrealistic expectations. To achieve optimal outcome managing patient expectations is vital.

Patients need to know the benefits, risks and alternatives to any proposed treatment. Surgeons discussing the risk of a revision procedure becoming necessary, after a hip replacement can draw upon the orthopaedic literature and arthroplasty registries for long-term implant survival. However, early revision is required in a minority of cases. We have investigated the probability for revision hip replacement patients in terms of time-point and indication for revision.

Of the 9,411 Primary Total Hip Replacements (THR), undertaken by 22 surgeons, over an eleven-year period, between January 2004 and March 2015, 1.70% (160) were subsequently reported to the National Joint Registry (NJR) as revised. Each revision case was reviewed under the supervision of senior hip specialist consultants. The modes of failure of were identified through clinical, laboratory and imaging (x-rays, CT, MRI and Isotope scans) studies.

The revision rate for THRs was 0.58% in the first year. This was statistically higher than all subsequent years, P-Value <0.001. There was no statistical difference between any pair of subsequent years. Thereafter, the average revision rate was 0.30% per annum. The odds ratio for revision during the first post–operative year against the subsequent year average was 1.67.

The indications for the early hip revisions in the first three years were infection, dislocation and peri-prosthetic fracture. The data from this study can help better inform patients of the revision rates after a primary THR and allow surgeons to develop implant surveillance strategies among high-risk patients.

Total Hip Replacement (THR) is widely assumed to resolve sleep disturbance commonly experienced by individuals with hip osteoarthritis (OA). We report a study of 329 THRs with mean age of 71.9 years comparing pre-operative and one and two year post-operative patient reported outcomes for sleep disturbance to determine the veracity of this expectation. Data was collected from the validated Oxford Hip Patient Reported Questionnaire. Specifically, Question 12: “During the past four weeks, have you been troubled by pain from your hip in bed at night?” Answers to the question were multiple choice: No nights (4 points), Only 1 or 2 nights (3 points), Some nights (2 points), Most nights (1 point) and Every Night (0 points)

Pre-operatively, the mean score for patients with hip OA was 1.2/4. This increased to 3.5 at one year and was also maintained at two years. The pre- to post-operative improvement was significant at both one and two years for THR with p <0.00001. Pre-operatively, only 6% of patients with arthritic hips reported that they were never woken from sleep because of their painful hip. One year after THR 72% always enjoyed pain free sleeping and at two years this had risen to 75%. When patients who only experienced disturbance one or two nights per month were included, the three figures increased from 13% to 83% and 83% respectively.

The study confirms that sleep disturbance affects over 90% of patients with arthritic hip joints. Over 80% of THR patients will enjoy sleep that is seldom or never disturbed by their artificial hip. The improvement achieved by THR occurs within a year of surgery and is preserved at two years. In this regard, hip replacement is a highly effective intervention.