Search

This study evaluates ChatGPT's performance in diagnosing and managing spinal pathologies. Patients underwent evaluation by two spine surgeons (and the case was discussed and a consensus was reached) and ChatGPT. Patient data, including demographics, symptoms, and available imaging reports, were collected using a standardized form. This information was then processed by ChatGPT for diagnosis and management recommendations. The study assessed ChatGPT's diagnostic and management accuracy through descriptive statistics, comparing its performance to that of experienced spine specialists. A total of 97 patients with various spinal pathologies participated in the study, with a gender distribution of 40 males and 57 females. ChatGPT achieved a 70% diagnostic accuracy rate and provided suitable management recommendations for 95% of patients. However, it struggled with certain pathologies, misdiagnosing 100% of vertebral trauma and facet joint syndrome, 40% of spondylolisthesis, stenosis, and scoliosis, and 22% of disc-related pathologies. Furthermore, ChatGPT's management recommendations were poor in 53% of cases, often failing to suggest the most appropriate treatment options and occasionally providing incomplete advice. While helpful in the medical field, ChatGPT falls short in providing reliable management recommendations, with a 30% misdiagnosis rate and 53% mismanagement rate in our study. Its limitations, including reliance on outdated data and the inability to interactively gather patient information, must be acknowledged. Surgeons should use ChatGPT cautiously as a supplementary tool rather than a substitute for their clinical expertise, as the complexities of healthcare demand human judgment and interaction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The inclusion of 2 surgeons in spinal deformity surgery is considered beneficial by some. In fact, select studies indicate advantages such as reduced operation time and blood loss. Another observed decreased patient morbidity with a dual-surgeon approach, attributed to shorter operative times and reduced intraoperative blood losses. Therefore, this meta-analysis will assess the benefits of a having 2 surgeons compared to 1 surgeon during spine surgeries. PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (page 1–20) were searched till January 2024. The clinical outcomes evaluated were the incidence of adverse events, the rate of transfusion, reoperation, and surgery-related parameters such as operative room time, length of stay (LOS), and estimated blood loss. Thirteen studies were included. A greater rate of complications was seen in patients operated upon by 1 surgeon (odds ratio = 0.50; 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 0.25–0.99, P = 0.05). Furthermore, operative room time (mean differences = −82.73; 95% CI: −111.42 to −54.03, P < 0.001) and LOS (mean differences = −0.91; 95% CI: −1.12 to −0.71, P < 0.001) were reduced in the dual surgeon scenario. No statistically significant difference was shown in the remaining analyzed outcomes. The presence of 2 surgeons in the odds ratiowas shown to reduce complications, operative room time, and LOS. More cost-effectiveness studies are needed in order to substantiate the financial advantages associated with the dual-surgeon approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]