7 research outputs found
Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: Is the Feasible Option of Minimally Invasive Surgery using Posterior Approach?
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of previous studies on minimally invasive scoliosis surgery (MISS) in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Some data on MISS in AIS compared with conventional open scoliosis surgery (COSS) are conflicting. A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library, including studies reporting outcomes for MISS in AIS. The meta-analysis compared the operative, radiological, and clinical outcomes and complications between MISS and COSS in patients with AIS. Of the 208 records identified, 15 nonrandomized studies with 1,369 patients (reviews and case reports are excluded) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The mean scale was 6.1, and eight of the 15 included studies showed satisfactory quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. For operative outcomes, MISS had significant benefits in terms of estimated blood loss (standard mean difference [SMD], -1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.94 to -0.91) and hospitalization days (SMD, -2.99; 95% CI, -4.45 to -1.53) compared with COSS. However, COSS showed significantly favorable outcomes for operative times (SMD, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.92–2.51). No significant differences were observed in radiological outcomes, including Cobb’s angle of the main curve and thoracic kyphosis. For clinical outcomes, MISS showed significant benefits on the visual analog scale score (SMD, -0.91; 95% CI, -1.36 to -0.47). The overall complication rates of MISS were similar to those of COSS (SMD, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61–1.52). MISS using the posterior approach provides equivalent radiological and clinical outcomes and complication rates compared with COSS. Considering the lower estimated blood loss, shorter hospitalization days, and longer operative times in MISS, COSS is still the mainstay of surgical treatment in AIS; however, MISS using the posterior approach is also one of the surgical options of choice in the case of moderate AIS
Assessing the Reproducibility of the Structured Abstracts Generated by ChatGPT and Bard Compared to Human-Written Abstracts in the Field of Spine Surgery: Comparative Analysis
Background: Due to recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), language model applications can generate logical text output that is difficult to distinguish from human writing. ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Bard (subsequently rebranded as “Gemini”; Google AI) were developed using distinct approaches, but little has been studied about the difference in their capability to generate the abstract. The use of AI to write scientific abstracts in the field of spine surgery is the center of much debate and controversy. Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the reproducibility of the structured abstracts generated by ChatGPT and Bard compared to human-written abstracts in the field of spine surgery. Methods: In total, 60 abstracts dealing with spine sections were randomly selected from 7 reputable journals and used as ChatGPT and Bard input statements to generate abstracts based on supplied paper titles. A total of 174 abstracts, divided into human-written abstracts, ChatGPT-generated abstracts, and Bard-generated abstracts, were evaluated for compliance with the structured format of journal guidelines and consistency of content. The likelihood of plagiarism and AI output was assessed using the iThenticate and ZeroGPT programs, respectively. A total of 8 reviewers in the spinal field evaluated 30 randomly extracted abstracts to determine whether they were produced by AI or human authors. Results: The proportion of abstracts that met journal formatting guidelines was greater among ChatGPT abstracts (34/60, 56.6%) compared with those generated by Bard (6/54, 11.1%; P<.001). However, a higher proportion of Bard abstracts (49/54, 90.7%) had word counts that met journal guidelines compared with ChatGPT abstracts (30/60, 50%; P<.001). The similarity index was significantly lower among ChatGPT-generated abstracts (20.7%) compared with Bard-generated abstracts (32.1%; P<.001). The AI-detection program predicted that 21.7% (13/60) of the human group, 63.3% (38/60) of the ChatGPT group, and 87% (47/54) of the Bard group were possibly generated by AI, with an area under the curve value of 0.863 (P<.001). The mean detection rate by human reviewers was 53.8% (SD 11.2%), achieving a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 48.4%. A total of 56.3% (63/112) of the actual human-written abstracts and 55.9% (62/128) of AI-generated abstracts were recognized as human-written and AI-generated by human reviewers, respectively. Conclusions: Both ChatGPT and Bard can be used to help write abstracts, but most AI-generated abstracts are currently considered unethical due to high plagiarism and AI-detection rates. ChatGPT-generated abstracts appear to be superior to Bard-generated abstracts in meeting journal formatting guidelines. Because humans are unable to accurately distinguish abstracts written by humans from those produced by AI programs, it is crucial to exercise special caution and examine the ethical boundaries of using AI programs, including ChatGPT and Bard
Early-term outcome of apical fusion with vertebral body tethering for thoracolumbar curves in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: a preliminary study
Introduction: Vertebral body tethering (VBT) has become an alternative option for select patients with idiopathic scoliosis. However, studies have shown a high number of tether breakages, specifically after thoracolumbar (TL) VBT, that can have a negative impact on the outcome, when the breakage occurs within the first year after surgery. In order to overcome this problem, we have started to apply an apical fusion (AF) in combination with TL VBT for select patients. This study aims to analyze the outcome after AF plus VBT. Methods: This is a retrospective single surgeon’s data analysis. All patients were included who have had TL VBT after January 2022 and a follow-up of 12 months. Patients were grouped based on whether they only had VBT or VBT + AF. Results: Twenty-five patients were analyzed (15 VBT, 10 VBT + AF). Both groups showed a significant curve correction for thoracic and TL curves. Minor loss of correction was observed in both groups. A significant difference was seen regarding early tether breakages, which were found in 60% of VBT patients and 10% of VBT + AF patients. Conclusion: The preliminary data shows a significant reduction of early tether breakages when TL VBT is applied in combination with AF
Rotational Changes Following Use of Direct Vertebral Rotation in Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Long-Term Radiographic and Computed Tomography Evaluation
Study Design. A retrospective cohort study. Objective. To evaluate long-term rotational changes in the vertebrae of patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) who underwent direct vertebral rotation (DVR). Summary of Background Data. DVR using thoracic pedicle screws, a rotational corrective maneuver used in the surgical treatment of AIS, was introduced in 2004. Although DVR is considered to be the main axial corrective maneuver, the long-term rotational changes of vertebrae following this treatment are not well understood. Materials and Methods. A total of 135 vertebrae that underwent DVR using thoracic pedicle screws with a minimum five-year follow-up were retrospectively assessed for the vertebral rotation angle. The vertebral rotation of the apical vertebra (AV) and distal end vertebra (EV) was evaluated using the Nash-Moe scale, the rotational angle to the sacrum (RAsac), and the Aaro and Dahlborn method. The Student ttest (paired means) was used for continuous variables, and the χ2 test was used for categorical variables, as appropriate. A comparison of two and three groups used a one-way repeated measures analysis of variance, and the post hoc analysis used the Bonferroni test. Results. The mean Nash-Moe scale of distal EV showed statistically significant differences between preoperative and postoperative values (P=0.034) and no statistically significant difference between postoperative and last follow-up values (P=1.000). The last follow-up RAsac of AV did not differ significantly from the preoperative RAsac of AV (P=0.515). The last follow-up RAsac of distal EV was significantly lower than the preoperative RAsac of distal EV (P=0.001). The Pearson correlation analysis showed that the last follow-up RAsac of distal EV was correlated with the Cobb angle of the main curve (r=0.459, P=0.004), loss of correction (r=0.541, P=0.001), and lowest instrumented vertebra tilt angle (r=0.504, P=0.001) Conclusions. The rotation regression phenomenon in AV and rotation maintenance in distal EV were observed after DVR over an average 10-year follow-up. These findings suggest that the DVR in the surgical treatment of AIS has a positive long-term effect on the stabilization of distal EV from the point of view of axial rotation
Motion preservation surgery for scoliosis with a vertebral body tethering system: a biomechanical study
Purpose!#!There is a paucity of studies on new vertebral body tethering (VBT) surgical constructs especially regarding their potentially motion-preserving ability. This study analyses their effects on the ROM of the spine.!##!Methods!#!Human spines (T10-L3) were tested under pure moment in four different conditions: (1) native, (2) instrumented with one tether continuously connected in all vertebrae from T10 to L3, (3) additional instrumented with a second tether continuously connected in all vertebrae from T11 to L3, and (4) instrumented with one tether and one titanium rod (hybrid) attached to T12, L1 and L2. The instrumentation was inserted in the left lateral side. The intersegmental ROM was evaluated using a magnetic tracking system, and the medians were analysed. Please check and confirm the author names and initials are correct. Also, kindly confirm the details in the metadata are correct. The mentioned information is correct RESULTS: Compared to the native spine, the instrumented spine presented a reduction of less than 13% in global ROM considering flexion-extension and axial rotation. For left lateral bending, the median global ROM of the native spine (100%) significantly reduced to 74.6%, 66.4%, and 68.1% after testing one tether, two tethers and the hybrid construction, respectively. In these cases, the L1-L2 ROM was reduced to 68.3%, 58.5%, and 38.3%, respectively. In right lateral bending, the normalized global ROM of the spine with one tether, two tethers and the hybrid construction was 58.9%, 54.0%, and 56.6%, respectively. Considering the same order, the normalized L1-L2 ROM was 64.3%, 49.9%, and 35.3%, respectively.!##!Conclusion!#!The investigated VBT techniques preserved global ROM of the spine in flexion-extension and axial rotation while reduced the ROM in lateral bending
Assessing the Reproducibility of the Structured Abstracts Generated by ChatGPT and Bard Compared to Human-Written Abstracts in the Field of Spine Surgery: Comparative Analysis
BackgroundDue to recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), language model applications can generate logical text output that is difficult to distinguish from human writing. ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Bard (subsequently rebranded as “Gemini”; Google AI) were developed using distinct approaches, but little has been studied about the difference in their capability to generate the abstract. The use of AI to write scientific abstracts in the field of spine surgery is the center of much debate and controversy.
ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to assess the reproducibility of the structured abstracts generated by ChatGPT and Bard compared to human-written abstracts in the field of spine surgery.
MethodsIn total, 60 abstracts dealing with spine sections were randomly selected from 7 reputable journals and used as ChatGPT and Bard input statements to generate abstracts based on supplied paper titles. A total of 174 abstracts, divided into human-written abstracts, ChatGPT-generated abstracts, and Bard-generated abstracts, were evaluated for compliance with the structured format of journal guidelines and consistency of content. The likelihood of plagiarism and AI output was assessed using the iThenticate and ZeroGPT programs, respectively. A total of 8 reviewers in the spinal field evaluated 30 randomly extracted abstracts to determine whether they were produced by AI or human authors.
ResultsThe proportion of abstracts that met journal formatting guidelines was greater among ChatGPT abstracts (34/60, 56.6%) compared with those generated by Bard (6/54, 11.1%; P<.001). However, a higher proportion of Bard abstracts (49/54, 90.7%) had word counts that met journal guidelines compared with ChatGPT abstracts (30/60, 50%; P<.001). The similarity index was significantly lower among ChatGPT-generated abstracts (20.7%) compared with Bard-generated abstracts (32.1%; P<.001). The AI-detection program predicted that 21.7% (13/60) of the human group, 63.3% (38/60) of the ChatGPT group, and 87% (47/54) of the Bard group were possibly generated by AI, with an area under the curve value of 0.863 (P<.001). The mean detection rate by human reviewers was 53.8% (SD 11.2%), achieving a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 48.4%. A total of 56.3% (63/112) of the actual human-written abstracts and 55.9% (62/128) of AI-generated abstracts were recognized as human-written and AI-generated by human reviewers, respectively.
ConclusionsBoth ChatGPT and Bard can be used to help write abstracts, but most AI-generated abstracts are currently considered unethical due to high plagiarism and AI-detection rates. ChatGPT-generated abstracts appear to be superior to Bard-generated abstracts in meeting journal formatting guidelines. Because humans are unable to accurately distinguish abstracts written by humans from those produced by AI programs, it is crucial to exercise special caution and examine the ethical boundaries of using AI programs, including ChatGPT and Bard
Postoperative trunk shift in Lenke 1 and 2 curves: how common is it? and analysis of risk factors
The goal of surgical treatment for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) is to achieve a solid fusion in a balanced spine. While many previous studies analyzed coronal balance, there is a paucity of studies that comment on postoperative trunk shift, which has shown to have impact on clinical outcome. The purpose of this retrospective, multicenter data analysis was to analyze the incidence of postoperative trunk shift in patients with surgical treatment for AIS. We conducted a retrospective, multicenter data analysis of 1,555 patients with AIS. Patients with a Lenke type 1 or 2 curve pattern and a minimum follow-up of 24Â months after surgery were included. A >2Â cm deviation of the trunk in relation to the pelvis was considered positive trunk shift. A subanalysis was performed to identify potential risk factors for trunk shift. 273 patients meeting the inclusion criteria were analyzed. While the preoperative prevalence of trunk shift was surgically reduced from 29.3 to 13.6%, 24 patients (8.8%) with postoperative trunk shift had not had preoperative trunk shift, and the trunk shift was considered iatrogenic. Undercorrection of the lumbar curve was identified as potential risk factor, whereas thoracic correction, coronal balance, angulation and translation of the lowest instrumented vertebra did not seem to influence postoperative trunk shift. Iatrogenic postoperative trunk shift has an incidence of 8.8% in the surgical treatment of AIS