Background and Objectives: Artificial intelligence-driven large language models such as ChatGPT increasingly influence patient education in surgical fields. This study evaluates the quality and accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5-generated responses to patient questions regarding femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and hip arthroscopy (HAS). Materials and Methods: In this descriptive observational study, ChatGPT-3.5 generated and answered 20 representative patient questions about FAIS and HAS (n = 20 question–answer pairs). No patient-derived questions or data were used. Each response was independently evaluated by two fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons across four domains: relevance, accuracy, clarity, and completeness, using a five-point Likert scale. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and descriptive inter-rater agreement percentages were reported. Additional qualitative impressions from the reviewers were recorded to contextualize areas in which responses were rated slightly lower, particularly regarding explanatory depth and postoperative variability. Results: Mean ratings across all domains ranged from 4.85 ± 0.24 (95% CI: 4.74–4.96) to 5.00 ± 0.00. Relevance achieved a perfect mean score of 5.00, while accuracy and clarity each obtained 4.98 ± 0.11 (95% CI: 4.91–5.00). Completeness demonstrated the lowest scores (4.85 ± 0.24). Due to pronounced ceiling effects, ICC values were non-informative; however, descriptive agreement between raters was high, with 100% concordance for relevance and 90% agreement for accuracy and clarity. No factually incorrect or unsafe information was identified. Overall, responses were concise, structured, and clinically appropriate, though occasionally lacking in granularity concerning individual recovery trajectories and procedure-specific nuances. Conclusions: ChatGPT-3.5 demonstrates significant potential as a supplementary patient education tool in hip preservation surgery. While its responses were consistently accurate and easy to understand, their occasional lack of detail, particularly concerning postoperative expectations and variability in outcomes, indicates that the findings apply primarily to synthetic, standardized questions in a controlled setting. Further validation is required before generalizing these results to real-world patient interactions. Future studies should incorporate authentic patient questions, diverse evaluator groups, and longitudinal assessment across different LLM versions to better define clinical applicability and safety.

Purpose: Quadriceps tendon (QT), hamstring tendon (HT) and patellar tendon (PT) autografts are the most common grafts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, the specific impact of graft selection on postoperative knee extension and flexion strength remains controversial. This systematic review analysed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing isokinetic muscle strength outcomes following primary ACLR using QT, HT or PT autografts. Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching Medline (PubMed), Epistemonikos and ScienceDirect (January 2014–10 May 2025) to identify RCTs that included patients aged ≥16 years undergoing primary, unilateral ACLR using an ipsilateral QT, HT or PT autograft. Studies had to report isokinetic strength outcomes at predefined postoperative intervals (approximately 3, 6, 12 and/or ≥ 24 months) and at one or more angular velocities. The PRISMA guidelines were followed for literature analysis. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted and appraised data using the JBI Checklist for RCTs. A narrative synthesis was performed due to significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity among the included studies. Results: Of 1509 records screened, 13 RCTs met the criteria, encompassing 5 studies using QT, 13 HT and 4 PT. The synthesis revealed distinct recovery patterns: HT autografts showed more favourable recovery of knee extension strength, particularly between 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Conversely, QT autografts consistently resulted in superior recovery of knee flexor strength across all follow‐up periods. The results for PT autografts were heterogeneous, showing some short‐term advantages but no consistent superiority. Patient‐reported outcomes (PROMs) generally improved in all groups, though patterns varied by instrument and time point. Conclusion: Current evidence indicates graft‐specific profiles of strength recovery after ACLR, with HT autografts favouring knee extension and QT autografts favouring knee flexion recovery. However, heterogeneity in testing protocols, angular velocities and the reporting of limb symmetry indices limits the strength of these conclusions. Level of Evidence: Level I.

Purpose: To systematically evaluate the morphology, temporal evolution and musculoskeletal adaptations associated with semitendinosus tendon (ST) and muscle (SM) regeneration after isolated ST autograft harvest for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were searched from inception to 20 December 2025. Eligible studies included primary ACLR with isolated ST autografts and objective post‐operative assessment of ST or SM regeneration using imaging (ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography) or histology. Methodological quality was evaluated using the JBI checklist for randomized controlled trials and the Methodological Index for Non‐Randomized Studies instrument for non‐randomized studies. Due to heterogeneity in surgical techniques, imaging protocols, follow‐up intervals and regeneration definitions, results were synthesized narratively according to synthesis without meta‐analysis principles, with regeneration frequencies reported by modality and predefined time windows. Results: Sixteen studies comprising 376 patients (mean age 25.5 years) were included. Across studies, tendon‐like continuity was frequently detected between 6 and 12 months post‐operatively, although reported regeneration rates varied depending on imaging modality and definitional criteria. The regenerated neotendon (NT) typically demonstrated non‐anatomical distal attachment or fusion patterns, accompanied by proximal migration of the musculotendinous junction, permanent shortening and atrophy of the SM. Conclusion: The ST and SM exhibit robust biological potential for regeneration after isolated harvest, typically forming a viable NT within the first post‐operative year. However, regeneration does not restore native anatomy; significant muscle shortening, atrophy and proximal insertion shifts are consistent findings. Despite these morphological deficits, the high rate of tissue continuity supports the isolated ST graft as a low‐morbidity option that preserves overall hamstring complex integrity. Level of Evidence: Level IV.

Background and Objectives: Accelerated rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is widely implemented, yet its definition and distinguishing characteristics remain inconsistently described in the literature. This scoping review examined how accelerated rehabilitation after ACLR is defined, described common protocol features, and identified elements distinguishing it from conventional rehabilitation. Materials and Methods: A scoping review was conducted using systematic searches of Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Web of Science from 1 April 1967 to 26 October 2025. Studies including patients aged 16 years or older who underwent primary ACLR that reported any form of accelerated rehabilitation or early progression relative to conventional protocols were eligible for inclusion. Results: Of 6002 screened records, 64 studies met the inclusion criteria. Accelerated rehabilitation was consistently characterized by early restoration of knee range of motion, early full weight-bearing, rapid gait normalization, early initiation of closed and open kinetic chain exercises, and avoidance of prolonged immobilization. However, definitions varied substantially across studies. Substantial heterogeneity was observed in progression timelines, bracing and crutch use, and return-to-sport criteria. Conclusions: Accelerated rehabilitation after ACLR appears to represent a brace-free, criterion-based, function-oriented approach emphasizing early restoration of knee extension, progressive loading, and individualized progression rather than simply shortened timelines. Establishing consensus definitions and standardized reporting is necessary to improve comparability across studies and facilitate translation into clinical practice.