Spondylodiscitis is a serious spinal infection that can cause spinal instability, neurologic deficits, and paralysis. Although endoscopic procedures are becoming increasingly common, their role in spondylodiscitis management remains undefined. In this systematic review, PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE were searched for studies published from January 1950 to March 2024 on percutaneous endoscopic debridement and drainage (PEDD) surgery for spondylodiscitis. The inclusion criteria included clinical trials or case series of spondylodiscitis patients treated with endoscopy. Primary outcomes included culture yield, complications, reoperations, treatment success rates, and pain scores. Our review included 40 studies that assessed 667 patients. Most studies presented low-level evidence, consisting of case reports (40.0%) and case series (60.0%). Endoscopic techniques demonstrated a positive culture yield of 67.3%, with an overall complication rate of 7.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.35%–10.47%) and a reoperation rate of 13.1% (95% CI, 10.08%–16.31%). There were no complications related to cerebrospinal fluid leaks or meningitis. The medical treatment success rate was higher in patients who underwent concurrent instrumentation than in those who received endoscopic debridement alone (96.4% vs. 85.9%, p=0.003). Thirteen studies presented patient-reported pain outcomes, and all cohorts showed improvements. This review suggests that PEDD shows promise as a safe and effective adjunctive treatment for spondylodiscitis, offering low complication rates and successful treatment. PEDD may play a role within a multidisciplinary treatment approach. Future clinical trials are needed to determine whether early PEDD can improve the overall success of medical therapy and reduce the need for more extensive debridement and fusion surgery.

Objective: Large language models, such as chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT), have great potential for streamlining medical processes and assisting physicians in clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the potential of ChatGPT’s 2 models (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0) to support clinical decision-making by comparing its responses for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery to accepted clinical guidelines. Methods: ChatGPT models were prompted with questions from the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery (2013). Its responses were then compared and assessed for accuracy. Results: Of the 16 NASS guideline questions concerning antibiotic prophylaxis, 10 responses (62.5%) were accurate in ChatGPT’s GPT-3.5 model and 13 (81%) were accurate in GPT-4.0. Twenty-five percent of GPT-3.5 answers were deemed as overly confident while 62.5% of GPT-4.0 answers directly used the NASS guideline as evidence for its response. Conclusion ChatGPT demonstrated an impressive ability to accurately answer clinical questions. GPT-3.5 model’s performance was limited by its tendency to give overly confident responses and its inability to identify the most significant elements in its responses. GPT-4.0 model’s responses had higher accuracy and cited the NASS guideline as direct evidence many times. While GPT-4.0 is still far from perfect, it has shown an exceptional ability to extract the most relevant research available compared to GPT-3.5. Thus, while ChatGPT has shown far-reaching potential, scrutiny should still be exercised regarding its clinical use at this time.

Objective: Large language models like chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT) have found success in various sectors, but their application in the medical field remains limited. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using ChatGPT to provide accurate medical information to patients, specifically evaluating how well ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 aligned with the 2012 North American Spine Society (NASS) guidelines for lumbar disk herniation with radiculopathy. Methods: ChatGPT's responses to questions based on the NASS guidelines were analyzed for accuracy. Three new categories—overconclusiveness, supplementary information, and incompleteness—were introduced to deepen the analysis. Overconclusiveness referred to recommendations not mentioned in the NASS guidelines, supplementary information denoted additional relevant details, and incompleteness indicated omitted crucial information from the NASS guidelines. Results: Out of 29 clinical guidelines evaluated, ChatGPT-3.5 demonstrated accuracy in 15 responses (52%), while ChatGPT-4 achieved accuracy in 17 responses (59%). ChatGPT-3.5 was overconclusive in 14 responses (48%), while ChatGPT-4 exhibited overconclusiveness in 13 responses (45%). Additionally, ChatGPT-3.5 provided supplementary information in 24 responses (83%), and ChatGPT-4 provided supplemental information in 27 responses (93%). In terms of incompleteness, ChatGPT-3.5 displayed this in 11 responses (38%), while ChatGPT-4 showed incompleteness in 8 responses (23%). Conclusion ChatGPT shows promise for clinical decision-making, but both patients and healthcare providers should exercise caution to ensure safety and quality of care. While these results are encouraging, further research is necessary to validate the use of large language models in clinical settings.

Objective: Large language models, such as chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT), have great potential for streamlining medical processes and assisting physicians in clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the potential of ChatGPT’s 2 models (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0) to support clinical decision-making by comparing its responses for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery to accepted clinical guidelines. Methods: ChatGPT models were prompted with questions from the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery (2013). Its responses were then compared and assessed for accuracy. Results: Of the 16 NASS guideline questions concerning antibiotic prophylaxis, 10 responses (62.5%) were accurate in ChatGPT’s GPT-3.5 model and 13 (81%) were accurate in GPT-4.0. Twenty-five percent of GPT-3.5 answers were deemed as overly confident while 62.5% of GPT-4.0 answers directly used the NASS guideline as evidence for its response. Conclusion ChatGPT demonstrated an impressive ability to accurately answer clinical questions. GPT-3.5 model’s performance was limited by its tendency to give overly confident responses and its inability to identify the most significant elements in its responses. GPT-4.0 model’s responses had higher accuracy and cited the NASS guideline as direct evidence many times. While GPT-4.0 is still far from perfect, it has shown an exceptional ability to extract the most relevant research available compared to GPT-3.5. Thus, while ChatGPT has shown far-reaching potential, scrutiny should still be exercised regarding its clinical use at this time.

Objective: Large language models like chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT) have found success in various sectors, but their application in the medical field remains limited. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using ChatGPT to provide accurate medical information to patients, specifically evaluating how well ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 aligned with the 2012 North American Spine Society (NASS) guidelines for lumbar disk herniation with radiculopathy. Methods: ChatGPT's responses to questions based on the NASS guidelines were analyzed for accuracy. Three new categories—overconclusiveness, supplementary information, and incompleteness—were introduced to deepen the analysis. Overconclusiveness referred to recommendations not mentioned in the NASS guidelines, supplementary information denoted additional relevant details, and incompleteness indicated omitted crucial information from the NASS guidelines. Results: Out of 29 clinical guidelines evaluated, ChatGPT-3.5 demonstrated accuracy in 15 responses (52%), while ChatGPT-4 achieved accuracy in 17 responses (59%). ChatGPT-3.5 was overconclusive in 14 responses (48%), while ChatGPT-4 exhibited overconclusiveness in 13 responses (45%). Additionally, ChatGPT-3.5 provided supplementary information in 24 responses (83%), and ChatGPT-4 provided supplemental information in 27 responses (93%). In terms of incompleteness, ChatGPT-3.5 displayed this in 11 responses (38%), while ChatGPT-4 showed incompleteness in 8 responses (23%). Conclusion ChatGPT shows promise for clinical decision-making, but both patients and healthcare providers should exercise caution to ensure safety and quality of care. While these results are encouraging, further research is necessary to validate the use of large language models in clinical settings.

Objective: Large language models, such as chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT), have great potential for streamlining medical processes and assisting physicians in clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the potential of ChatGPT’s 2 models (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0) to support clinical decision-making by comparing its responses for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery to accepted clinical guidelines. Methods: ChatGPT models were prompted with questions from the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery (2013). Its responses were then compared and assessed for accuracy. Results: Of the 16 NASS guideline questions concerning antibiotic prophylaxis, 10 responses (62.5%) were accurate in ChatGPT’s GPT-3.5 model and 13 (81%) were accurate in GPT-4.0. Twenty-five percent of GPT-3.5 answers were deemed as overly confident while 62.5% of GPT-4.0 answers directly used the NASS guideline as evidence for its response. Conclusion ChatGPT demonstrated an impressive ability to accurately answer clinical questions. GPT-3.5 model’s performance was limited by its tendency to give overly confident responses and its inability to identify the most significant elements in its responses. GPT-4.0 model’s responses had higher accuracy and cited the NASS guideline as direct evidence many times. While GPT-4.0 is still far from perfect, it has shown an exceptional ability to extract the most relevant research available compared to GPT-3.5. Thus, while ChatGPT has shown far-reaching potential, scrutiny should still be exercised regarding its clinical use at this time.

Objective: Large language models like chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT) have found success in various sectors, but their application in the medical field remains limited. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using ChatGPT to provide accurate medical information to patients, specifically evaluating how well ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 aligned with the 2012 North American Spine Society (NASS) guidelines for lumbar disk herniation with radiculopathy. Methods: ChatGPT's responses to questions based on the NASS guidelines were analyzed for accuracy. Three new categories—overconclusiveness, supplementary information, and incompleteness—were introduced to deepen the analysis. Overconclusiveness referred to recommendations not mentioned in the NASS guidelines, supplementary information denoted additional relevant details, and incompleteness indicated omitted crucial information from the NASS guidelines. Results: Out of 29 clinical guidelines evaluated, ChatGPT-3.5 demonstrated accuracy in 15 responses (52%), while ChatGPT-4 achieved accuracy in 17 responses (59%). ChatGPT-3.5 was overconclusive in 14 responses (48%), while ChatGPT-4 exhibited overconclusiveness in 13 responses (45%). Additionally, ChatGPT-3.5 provided supplementary information in 24 responses (83%), and ChatGPT-4 provided supplemental information in 27 responses (93%). In terms of incompleteness, ChatGPT-3.5 displayed this in 11 responses (38%), while ChatGPT-4 showed incompleteness in 8 responses (23%). Conclusion ChatGPT shows promise for clinical decision-making, but both patients and healthcare providers should exercise caution to ensure safety and quality of care. While these results are encouraging, further research is necessary to validate the use of large language models in clinical settings.

Objective: Large language models, such as chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT), have great potential for streamlining medical processes and assisting physicians in clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the potential of ChatGPT’s 2 models (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0) to support clinical decision-making by comparing its responses for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery to accepted clinical guidelines. Methods: ChatGPT models were prompted with questions from the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery (2013). Its responses were then compared and assessed for accuracy. Results: Of the 16 NASS guideline questions concerning antibiotic prophylaxis, 10 responses (62.5%) were accurate in ChatGPT’s GPT-3.5 model and 13 (81%) were accurate in GPT-4.0. Twenty-five percent of GPT-3.5 answers were deemed as overly confident while 62.5% of GPT-4.0 answers directly used the NASS guideline as evidence for its response. Conclusion ChatGPT demonstrated an impressive ability to accurately answer clinical questions. GPT-3.5 model’s performance was limited by its tendency to give overly confident responses and its inability to identify the most significant elements in its responses. GPT-4.0 model’s responses had higher accuracy and cited the NASS guideline as direct evidence many times. While GPT-4.0 is still far from perfect, it has shown an exceptional ability to extract the most relevant research available compared to GPT-3.5. Thus, while ChatGPT has shown far-reaching potential, scrutiny should still be exercised regarding its clinical use at this time.

Objective: Large language models like chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT) have found success in various sectors, but their application in the medical field remains limited. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using ChatGPT to provide accurate medical information to patients, specifically evaluating how well ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 aligned with the 2012 North American Spine Society (NASS) guidelines for lumbar disk herniation with radiculopathy. Methods: ChatGPT's responses to questions based on the NASS guidelines were analyzed for accuracy. Three new categories—overconclusiveness, supplementary information, and incompleteness—were introduced to deepen the analysis. Overconclusiveness referred to recommendations not mentioned in the NASS guidelines, supplementary information denoted additional relevant details, and incompleteness indicated omitted crucial information from the NASS guidelines. Results: Out of 29 clinical guidelines evaluated, ChatGPT-3.5 demonstrated accuracy in 15 responses (52%), while ChatGPT-4 achieved accuracy in 17 responses (59%). ChatGPT-3.5 was overconclusive in 14 responses (48%), while ChatGPT-4 exhibited overconclusiveness in 13 responses (45%). Additionally, ChatGPT-3.5 provided supplementary information in 24 responses (83%), and ChatGPT-4 provided supplemental information in 27 responses (93%). In terms of incompleteness, ChatGPT-3.5 displayed this in 11 responses (38%), while ChatGPT-4 showed incompleteness in 8 responses (23%). Conclusion ChatGPT shows promise for clinical decision-making, but both patients and healthcare providers should exercise caution to ensure safety and quality of care. While these results are encouraging, further research is necessary to validate the use of large language models in clinical settings.

Objective: Large language models, such as chat generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT), have great potential for streamlining medical processes and assisting physicians in clinical decision-making. This study aimed to assess the potential of ChatGPT’s 2 models (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.0) to support clinical decision-making by comparing its responses for antibiotic prophylaxis in spine surgery to accepted clinical guidelines. Methods: ChatGPT models were prompted with questions from the North American Spine Society (NASS) Evidence-based Clinical Guidelines for Multidisciplinary Spine Care for Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Spine Surgery (2013). Its responses were then compared and assessed for accuracy. Results: Of the 16 NASS guideline questions concerning antibiotic prophylaxis, 10 responses (62.5%) were accurate in ChatGPT’s GPT-3.5 model and 13 (81%) were accurate in GPT-4.0. Twenty-five percent of GPT-3.5 answers were deemed as overly confident while 62.5% of GPT-4.0 answers directly used the NASS guideline as evidence for its response. Conclusion ChatGPT demonstrated an impressive ability to accurately answer clinical questions. GPT-3.5 model’s performance was limited by its tendency to give overly confident responses and its inability to identify the most significant elements in its responses. GPT-4.0 model’s responses had higher accuracy and cited the NASS guideline as direct evidence many times. While GPT-4.0 is still far from perfect, it has shown an exceptional ability to extract the most relevant research available compared to GPT-3.5. Thus, while ChatGPT has shown far-reaching potential, scrutiny should still be exercised regarding its clinical use at this time.