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.

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.

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.