The principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) are the foundation of modern medical practice. Surgeons are familiar with the commonly used statistical techniques to test hypotheses, summarize findings, and provide answers within a specified range of probability. Based on this knowledge, they are able to critically evaluate research before deciding whether or not to adopt the findings into practice. Recently, there has been an increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze information and derive findings in orthopaedic research. These techniques use a set of statistical tools that are increasingly complex and may be unfamiliar to the orthopaedic surgeon. It is unclear if this shift towards less familiar techniques is widely accepted in the orthopaedic community. This study aimed to provide an exploration of understanding and acceptance of AI use in research among orthopaedic surgeons. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out on a sample of 12 orthopaedic surgeons. Inductive thematic analysis was used to identify key themes.Aims
Methods
Restarting planned surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic is a clinical and societal priority, but it is unknown whether it can be done safely and include high-risk or complex cases. We developed a Surgical Prioritization and Allocation Guide (SPAG). Here, we validate its effectiveness and safety in COVID-free sites. A multidisciplinary surgical prioritization committee developed the SPAG, incorporating procedural urgency, shared decision-making, patient safety, and biopsychosocial factors; and applied it to 1,142 adult patients awaiting orthopaedic surgery. Patients were stratified into four priority groups and underwent surgery at three COVID-free sites, including one with access to a high dependency unit (HDU) or intensive care unit (ICU) and specialist resources. Safety was assessed by the number of patients requiring inpatient postoperative HDU/ICU admission, contracting COVID-19 within 14 days postoperatively, and mortality within 30 days postoperatively.Aims
Methods
To determine if the results of treatment of adolescents with coccydynia are similar to those found in adults. Adult patients with coccydynia may benefit from injection therapy or operative treatment. There is little data evaluating treatment results in adolescents. We have treated adolescent patients similarly to adults and compared the outcomes. Overall, 32 adolescents with coccydynia were treated at our institution during a seven-year period; 28 responded to final follow-up questionnaires after a minimum of one year, 14 had been treated with only injection therapy, and 14 had been operated with coccygectomy. We collected data with regards to pain while sitting, leaning forward, rising from a sitting position, during defecation, while walking or jogging, and while travelling in trains, planes, or automobiles. Pain at follow-up was registered on a numeric pain scale. Each adolescent was then matched to adult patients, and results compared in a case control fashion. The treatment was considered successful if respondents were either completely well or much better at final follow-up after one to seven years.Aims
Methods
