Background: Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) alongside bariatric surgery (BS) is frequently operated on in obese arthritis patients. The controversy persists regarding BS before TJA, and the extent of its impact on the prognosis of TJA patients remains uncertain. To explore this, we conducted a meta-analysis. Methods: As of 1 October 2023, the latest search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted to compare outcomes between patients who underwent preoperative BS and those who did not. The analysis focused on parameters such as length of stay (LOS), infection risk, venous thromboembolism, revision, transfusions, dislocations, periprosthetic fractures, knee stiffness, medical complications, and all-cause mortality in the eligible studies. Results: This meta-analysis included 18 trials with a total of 292 196 patients. Pooled findings indicated that preoperative BS significantly shortened the LOS (MD, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.25 to 0.07; I ² =58%; P =0.0004) and increased the risk of dislocation within 90 days (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.20– ² .42; I ² =21%; P =0.003) and all-cause mortality within 30 days (OR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.81–7.49; I ² = 0%; P =0.0003) for TJA, in comparison with patients without BS. In the total hip arthroplasty (THA) subgroup, BS was more favorable, exhibiting significantly reduced risk of short-term revision (OR, 0.77; 95% C I , 0.61–0.99; I ² =0%; P =0.04) and long-term infection (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61–0.85; I ² =0%; P ≤0.0001). For total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients, no significant benefit was identified. In addition, there was no statistically significant correlation between preoperative or postoperative BS and the occurrence of complications in TJA patients. Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with the control group without BS, preoperative BS can shorten the LOS, increase the risk of dislocation within 90 days and all-cause mortality within 30 days in TJA, and reduce the risk of specific surgical complications in the THA subgroup but shows no significant difference in the TKA subgroup. There are no differences in clinical outcomes whether BS is performed before or after TJA. More high-quality trials are needed to further clarify the impact of BS on obese patients undergoing TJA.

Background: There is a debate over the use of aspirin after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of aspirin after TKA, the authors performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared aspirin with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were last searched on 31 January 2023 for studies comparing the effect of VTE prophylaxis between aspirin and LMWH. The results of eligible studies were analyzed in terms of VTE, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and bleeding complications rates. Results: Six randomized controlled trials including 6772 patients met the inclusion criteria. LMWH showed a statistically significant reduction in the overall VTE rate (RR 1.46, 95% CI: 1.16–1.84). No significant differences in deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and bleeding complications rates were found between aspirin and LMWH. Conclusion: Compared with LMWH, aspirin presents a higher risk of VTE after TKA. In terms of safety, aspirin and LMWH show comparable outcomes. The results do not support the role of aspirin role as an anticoagulant for preventing VTE after TKA.

Background: There was controversy surrounding the optimal thromboprophylaxis strategy for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. This included debates on the dosage of anticoagulants for thromboembolism prophylaxis, the requirement for additional antiplatelet therapy, and the necessity of prophylaxis for outpatients and postdischarge. To explore this, the authors performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science were last searched on 26 July 2023 for studies comparing the effect of different dose of anticoagulation, additional antiplatelet, and postdischarge prophylaxis for COVID-19 patients. The results of eligible studies were analyzed in terms of thromboembolism events, major bleeding and all-cause mortality during follow-up. Results: Our study included a total of 25 randomized controlled trials, involving 17 911 patients. Our results revealed that, compared to prophylactic dose, therapeutic dose showed lower thrombotic risk (RR, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45–0.96) but had similar major bleeding risk for critically ill patients with COVID-19. On the other hand, intermediate dose and prophylactic dose demonstrated similar thromboembolism risk and major bleeding risk. For noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic dose of anticoagulants was associated with lower thrombotic risk (RR, 0.50; 95% CI: 0.34–0.72) but, at the same time, increased the risk of major bleeding (RR, 2.01; 95% CI: 1.22–3.33). However, intermediate dose showed lower thromboembolism risk (RR, 0.38; 95% CI: 0.21–0.69) while maintaining a similar major bleeding risk. In critically ill patients, additional antiplatelet therapy showed similar thromboembolism, major bleeding risk, and mortality when compared to no treatment. For outpatients, additional prophylactic anticoagulation showed similar thromboembolism, major bleeding risk, and mortality when compared to no treatment. For postdischarge patients, postdischarge prophylaxis reduced thromboembolism risk (RR, 0.49; 95% CI: 0.31–0.76) but increased major bleeding risk (RR, 2.63; 95% CI: 1.13–6.14). Conclusion: For noncritically ill patients, therapeutic dose prophylactic anticoagulation significantly reduced venous thromboembolism but increases major bleeding risk. Intermediate dose effectively lowered venous thromboembolism without raising major bleeding risk. The optimal dose and need for additional antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients, as well as the necessity of prophylactic anticoagulation in outpatient and postdischarge patients, required further investigation and confirmation through rigorous evidence studies.

Background: The approach of total hip arthroplasty (THA) has long been controversial, and many studies have compared different approaches. However, there is still a lack of consistent conclusions and comprehensive, systematic comparisons and evaluations. Methods: This study retrieved 7 databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database. The search time ranged from the establishment of each database to November 1, 2023. Data analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4, and outcome was presented as the weighed mean difference for continuous data and risk/odds ratio for dichotomous data. We used the Mantel–Haneszel method and random effects model to obtain the overall effects of the differences in the impact of 2 surgical methods on clinical outcomes in all included studies. Results: A total of 33 articles were included in this study, including 14478 participants, 4911 participants in DAA group and 9567 participants in PA group. The visual analogue scale scores of the DAA group at 1 day and 2 days after THA were significantly lower than those of the PA group (mean difference [MD] = −0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.83 to −0.30, P < .01) at 1 day and (MD = −0.67, 95% CI: −1.16 to −0.17, P = .01) at 2 days. The risk of intraoperative fracture (odds ratio = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.11–4.29, P = .05) and lateral femoral nerve injury (risk ratio = 7.84, 95% CI: 1.69–36.42, P < .01) in the DAA group was significantly higher than that of the PA group. The number of prostheses in the Lewinnek safe zone of the DAA group was significantly higher than that of the PA group (risk ratio = 1.13, 95% CI: 1.00–1.27, P = .05). The results showed no significant difference between the DAA group and the PA group in the time to stop using walking aids, dislocation rate, groin pain, incision complications, heterotopic ossification, intraoperative blood loss, and acetabular anterior (P > .05). Conclusion: Compared with the PA group, patients in the DAA group showed more ideal anatomical and imaging results, shorter hospital stay, and showing advantages in postoperative pain, but with a higher incidence of intraoperative complications.

Currently, there are limited studies assessing ChatGPT ability to provide appropriate responses to medical questions. Our study aims to evaluate ChatGPT adequacy in responding to questions regarding osteoporotic fracture prevention and medical science. We created a list of 25 questions based on the guidelines and our clinical experience. Additionally, we included 11 medical science questions from the journal Science. Three patients, 3 non-medical professionals, 3 specialist doctor and 3 scientists were involved to evaluate the accuracy and appropriateness of responses by ChatGPT3.5 on October 2, 2023. To simulate a consultation, an inquirer (either a patient or non-medical professional) would send their questions to a consultant (specialist doctor or scientist) via a website. The consultant would forward the questions to ChatGPT for answers, which would then be evaluated for accuracy and appropriateness by the consultant before being sent back to the inquirer via the website for further review. The primary outcome is the appropriate, inappropriate, and unreliable rate of ChatGPT responses as evaluated separately by the inquirer and consultant groups. Compared to orthopedic clinicians, the patients’ rating on the appropriateness of ChatGPT responses to the questions about osteoporotic fracture prevention was slightly higher, although the difference was not statistically significant (88% vs 80%, P = .70). For medical science questions, non-medical professionals and medical scientists rated similarly. In addition, the experts’ ratings on the appropriateness of ChatGPT responses to osteoporotic fracture prevention and to medical science questions were comparable. On the other hand, the patients perceived that the appropriateness of ChatGPT responses to osteoporotic fracture prevention questions was slightly higher than that to medical science questions (88% vs 72·7%, P = .34). ChatGPT is capable of providing comparable and appropriate responses to medical science questions, as well as to fracture prevention related issues. Both the inquirers seeking advice and the consultants providing advice recognize ChatGPT expertise in these areas.

Background: Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury is a relatively common musculoskeletal condition. However, there is currently a lack of consensus on decision-making, treatment and postoperative management for such injuries. Objectives: To use the modified Delphi method to reach expert consensus on the management of PCL injury. Methods: A literature search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science for articles up to 17 October 2024, to support the development of recommendation statements. An Expert Panel of 90 experienced clinicians from orthopedics and sports medicine participated in a two-round Delphi process. Each statement was evaluated in two parts: the first part assessed content appropriateness (score of 7–9 indicating appropriateness and 4–6 indicating possible appropriateness), while the second part assessed agreement (score of 5–9 indicating agreement). Results: The panel members developed 11 statements using the Delphi process, addressing the following topics: (1) clinical decision-making, (2) treatment, and (3) postoperative management about PCL injuries. The final consensus was reached on 11 statements and we eventually translated these statements into a corresponding table of expert recommendations. Conclusion: Consensus was reached on 11 statements regarding three aspects of PCL injury management. These findings provide a foundation for developing evidence-based guidelines that can enhance clinical decision-making, improve treatment strategies, and optimize postoperative care for patients with PCL injuries.