Patient and Surgeon Expectations Prior to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Assessment of Quality and Readability of Information Provided by ChatGPT in Relation to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury

The aim of our study was to evaluate the potential role of Artificial Intelligence tools like ChatGPT in patient education. To do this, we assessed both the quality and readability of information provided by ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 in relation to Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) injury and treatment. ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 were used to answer common patient queries relating to ACL injuries and treatment. The quality of the information was assessed using the DISCERN criteria. Readability was assessed with the use of seven readability formulae: the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, the Flesch Reading Ease Score, the Raygor Estimate, the SMOG, the Fry, the FORCAST, and the Gunning Fog. The mean reading grade level (RGL) was compared with the recommended 8th-grade reading level, the mean RGL among adults in America. The perceived quality and mean RGL of answers given by both ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 was also compared. Both ChatGPT 3.5 and 4 yielded DISCERN scores suggesting "good" quality of information, with ChatGPT 4 slightly outperforming 3.5. However, readability levels for both versions significantly exceeded the average 8th-grade reading level for American patients. ChatGPT 3.5 had a mean RGL of 18.08, while the mean RGL of ChatGPT 4 was 17.9, exceeding the average American reading grade level by 10.08 grade levels and 9.09 grade levels, respectively. While ChatGPT can provide both reliable and good quality information on ACL injuries and treatment options, the readability of the content may limit its utility. Additionally, the consistent lack of source citation represents a significant area of concern for patients and clinicians alike. If AI is to play a role in patient education, it must reliably produce information which is accurate, easily comprehensible, and clearly sourced.

High variability and lack of standardization in the evaluation of return to sport after ACL reconstruction: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Return to sport (RTS) after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) has been recognized as an important outcome, which is associated with success of the surgery. This study aimed to assess the methods used to determine return to sport after ACLR in the published literature, report on variability of methods and evaluate their strength in establishing accurate RTS data.

METHODS

Electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase) were searched via a defined search strategy with no limits, to identify relevant studies from January 2008 to December 2020 for inclusion in the review. Defined eligibility criteria included studies specifically measuring and reporting on return to sport after ACLR with a clear methodology. Each included study was assessed for the definition of successful RTS, successful return to pre-injury level of sport and for methods used to determine RTS.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventy-one studies were included. Of the included studies, six studies (4%) were level of evidence 1 and seventy-two studies (42%) were level of evidence 4. Forty-one studies (24%) reported on return to a specific sport and 130 studies (76%) reported on return to multiple sports or general sport. Sixteen studies (9%) reported on RTS in the pediatric population, 36 (21%) in the adult population and 119 (70%) reported on a mixed-aged population. The most commonly used definition of successful RTS was return to the same sport (44 of 125 studies, 35%). The most common method used to determine RTS was a non-validated study-specific questionnaire (73 studies, 43%), which was administered in various ways to the patients. Time of RTS assessment was variable and ranged between 6 months and 27 years post-surgery.

CONCLUSION

This review demonstrates high variability in defining, evaluating and reporting RTS following ACLR. The findings of this study reveal low reliability and unproven validity of methods used to evaluate RTS and highlight the challenges in interpreting and using RTS data reported in literature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Association Between Baseline PROMIS Scores, Patient-Provider Communication Factors, and Musculoskeletal Health Literacy on Patient and Surgeon Expectations in Foot and Ankle Surgery

BACKGROUND

Various factors may affect differences between patient and surgeon expectations. This study aimed to assess associations between patient-reported physical and mental status, patient-surgeon communication, and musculoskeletal health literacy with differences in patient and surgeon expectations of foot and ankle surgery.

METHODS

Two hundred two patients scheduled to undergo foot or ankle surgery at an academic hospital were enrolled. Preoperatively, patients and surgeons completed the Hospital for Special Surgery Foot & Ankle Surgery Expectations Survey. Patients also completed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores in Physical Function, Pain Interference, Pain Intensity, Depression, and Global Health. Patient-surgeon communication and musculoskeletal health literacy were assessed via the modified Patients' Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS) and Literacy in Musculoskeletal Problems (LiMP) questionnaire, respectively.

RESULTS

Greater differences in patient and surgeon overall expectations scores were associated with worse scores in Physical Function (P = .003), Pain Interference (P = .001), Pain Intensity (P = .009), Global Physical Health (P < .001), and Depression (P = .009). A greater difference in the number of expectations between patients and surgeons was associated with all of the above (P ≤ .003) and with worse Global Mental Health (P = .003). Patient perceptions of higher surgeons' partnership building were associated with a greater number of patient than surgeon expectations (P = .017). There were no associations found between musculoskeletal health literacy and differences in expectations.

CONCLUSION

Worse baseline patient physical and mental status and higher patient perceptions of provider partnership building were associated with higher patient than surgeon expectations. It may be beneficial for surgeons to set more realistic expectations with patients who have greater disability and in those whom they have stronger partnerships with. Further studies are warranted to understand how modifications in patient and surgeon interactions and patient health literacy affect agreement in expectations of foot and ankle surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective comparative series.

Comparison of Patients' and Surgeons' Expectations in Foot and Ankle Surgery

BACKGROUND

Aligning patient and surgeon expectations may improve patient satisfaction and outcomes. This study aimed to assess differences in expectations of foot and ankle surgery between patients and their surgeons.

METHODS

Two hundred two patients scheduled to undergo foot or ankle surgery by one of 7 fellowship-trained foot and ankle surgeons were enrolled. Preoperatively, patients and surgeons completed the Hospital for Special Surgery Foot & Ankle Surgery Expectations Survey independently. Differences between patient and surgeon overall expectations scores, number of expectations, and number of expectations with complete improvement expected were assessed. A difference of ≥10 points was considered a clinically important difference in expectations score. Associations between patient demographic and clinical characteristics, major/minor surgery, and individual surgeon with differences in expectations were also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 66.3% of patients had higher expectations, 21.3% had concordant expectations, and 12.4% had lower expectations compared with their surgeons. On average, patients had higher expectations scores than their surgeons (70 ± 20 vs 52 ± 20 points, P < .001). Patients expected complete improvement in a greater number of expectations than surgeons (mean 11 ± 7 vs 1 ± 3, P < .001). Patients had higher expectations than surgeons for 18 of 23 items (78%). Items that had the greatest number of patients with higher expectations than surgeons were "improve confidence in foot/ankle," "prevent foot/ankle from getting worse," and "improve pain at rest." Higher body mass index (BMI) (P = .027) and individual surgeon (P < .001) were associated with greater differences between patient-surgeon expectations. Major/minor surgery was not associated with differences in expectations (P ≥ .142).

CONCLUSION

More than two-thirds of patients had significantly higher expectations than their surgeons. Higher BMI was associated with higher patient than surgeon expectations. These results emphasize the importance for foot and ankle surgeons to adequately educate patients preoperatively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective comparative study.

Development and Validation of the Hospital for Special Surgery Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Preoperative Expectations Survey

INTRODUCTION

Understanding and meeting the patients' preoperative expectations for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) is critical for achieving successful patient-centered outcomes. There is currently no standardized method to assess preoperative expectations of ACLR based on the patient-derived methods. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a patient-derived patient expectations survey specific to primary ACLR. We hypothesized that a valid and reliable patient-derived survey could be developed to measure these expectations and that patients would have diverse expectations before surgery.

METHODS

The Hospital for Special Surgery ACL-expectation score was developed through a four-phase iterative process that included item generation and pilot survey development, item reduction, survey readability, and survey validation. Seventy-two patients were involved in the development phase, and 80 patients were included in the validation phase. Discriminant validity testing was performed regarding age and sex. Cronbach alpha was calculated to assess the internal consistency of responses in the survey.

RESULTS

The final survey instrument consisted of 10 questions scored on a visual analog scale from 1 to 10, for a maximum score of 50 points. No statistically significant differences were observed in the score between men and women (P = 0.517) nor between age quartiles (P = 0.807). No statistically significant difference was observed in the scores when each sex was stratified by age quartile (P = 0.275 for men, P = 0.878 for women). Cronbach alpha for all items was 0.745, indicating excellent internal consistency. The intraclass correlation coefficient for test-retest reliability was 0.774, indicating a strong correlation.

CONCLUSION

The Hospital for Special Surgery ACL-expectations score is a patient-derived, tested and reliable preoperative expectations measure with excellent psychometrics for active adults undergoing ACLR. We suggest future clinical studies in ACLR to incorporate this tool as a preoperative measure of patient expectations.

Are Patient and Surgeon Expectations after ACL Reconstruction Realistic?

BACKGROUND

Patient expectations may affect their satisfaction and functional outcomes after treatment of musculoskeletal injuries. Although there is evidence that patient expectations of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) are inflated, there is limited knowledge about the relationship between physician and patient expectations and patient outcomes after they completely recover from ACLR. Furthermore, it is unclear if specific patient factors influence these expectations.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Are patient and surgeon expectations of knee function 18 months after ACLR similar? (2) Are patients' and surgeons' expectations of outcomes similar to patients' actual 2-year outcomes? (3) Is there a relationship between preoperative or intraoperative parameters and expectations? (4) Is there a relationship between preoperative or intraoperative parameters and 2-year ACLR outcomes?

METHODS

One-hundred twenty-nine patients undergoing primary ACLR were prospectively enrolled in this study, with 98 (76%) completing 2-year follow-up. Patients completed the IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Patients also completed the same questionnaires preoperatively to evaluate expected knee function 18 months after surgery. Immediately postoperatively, surgeons completed the same questionnaires regarding the expected postoperative outcome at 18 months postoperative. Preoperative and intraoperative data were collected to determine an association between expectations and outcomes. Nonparametric analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test, the paired Wilcoxon signed ranks tests and Spearman's correlations, as applicable.

RESULTS

There was no difference between patient and surgeon expectations (patient, 94.8 [range 47.4-100] versus surgeon, 94.3 [range 46-100]; p = 0.283), and there was no correlation between higher patient expectations and higher surgeon expectations (r = 0.168, p = 0.078). Patient and surgeon expectations were greater than the actual postoperative outcomes (2-year postoperative: 89.7 [range 32.2 to 100]; p < 0.0001); however, the differences are unlikely to be perceived. There was no correlation between higher 2-year postoperative outcomes and higher patient expectations (r = 0.14, p = 0.186) or higher surgeon expectations (r = 0.019, p = 0.86). Arthroscopic evidence of cartilage damage was independently associated with the worst patient and surgeon expectations. The surgeons themselves were also independently associated with surgeon expectation (p < 0.001). No parameters were associated with postoperative outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no clinically significant differences between surgeon expectations, patient expectations, and 2-year actual outcomes. However, there is also no correlation between the patient expectations, surgeon expectations, and actual outcomes. Although expectations are similar to actual outcomes for most patients, surgeons are unable to accurately predict outcomes for specific patients; thus, preventing adequate patient counseling. Surgeons should be cautious when evaluating and counseling patients preoperatively and avoid assuming high expectations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.