Methods: Retrospective study of 120 patients (223 fusion levels) who underwent ACDF between 2016 and 2021. Spacer types included structural allografts, PEEK, titanium, and ceramic cages. Radiographic measurements of subsidence were obtained from immediate (≤8 weeks) and long-term (≥6 months) postoperative lateral cervical radiographs. Multivariable linear regression was used to assess the association between spacer type and subsidence, adjusting for patient demographics, surgical levels, smoking history, and osteopenia. Results: The mean age of patients was 53.6±10.9 years and 41.7% were male; 47.5% had a smoking history and 20.8% had osteopenia. There were 38 one-level (31.7%), 61 two-level (50.8%), and 21 three-level fusions (17.5%). Spacer distribution included 62 structural allografts (51.7%), 27 PEEK (22.5%), 20 titanium (16.7%), and 11 ceramic (9.2%) cages. On multivariable analysis, PEEK cages were associated with significantly less anterior subsidence (β=−0.972, p <0.001) and posterior subsidence (β=−0.666, p=0.001) compared to allografts, and greater preservation of segmental lordosis (β=1.393, p=0.024). No significant differences in subsidence were found between titanium, ceramic, and allograft spacers. Conclusions PEEK cages showed reduced subsidence and better preservation of cervical lordosis compared to structural allografts, while titanium and ceramic cages did not differ significantly from structural allografts. These results suggest that PEEK cages may help minimize subsidence-related complications and improve outcomes.

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: To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. Methods: A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed. Results: Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001). Conclusion Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.

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: To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. Methods: A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed. Results: Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001). Conclusion Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.

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: To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. Methods: A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed. Results: Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001). Conclusion Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.

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: To evaluate the global practice pattern of wound dressing use after lumbar fusion for degenerative conditions. Methods: A survey issued by AO Spine Knowledge Forums Deformity and Degenerative was sent out to AO Spine members. The type of postoperative dressing employed, timing of initial dressing removal, and type of subsequent dressing applied were investigated. Differences in the type of surgery and regional distribution of surgeons’ preferences were analyzed. Results: Right following surgery, 60.6% utilized a dry dressing, 23.2% a plastic occlusive dressing, 5.7% glue, 6% a combination of glue and polyester mesh, 2.6% a wound vacuum, and 1.2% other dressings. The initial dressing was removed on postoperative day 1 (11.6%), 2 (39.2%), 3 (20.3%), 4 (1.7%), 5 (4.3%), 6 (0.4%), 7 or later (12.5%), or depending on drain removal (9.9%). Following initial dressing removal, 75.9% applied a dry dressing, 17.7% a plastic occlusive dressing, and 1.3% glue, while 12.1% used no dressing. The use of no additional coverage after initial dressing removal was significantly associated with a later dressing change (p < 0.001). Significant differences emerged after comparing dressing management among different AO Spine regions (p < 0.001). Conclusion Most spine surgeons utilized a dry or plastic occlusive dressing initially applied after surgery. The first dressing was more frequently changed during the first 3 postoperative days and replaced with the same type of dressing. While dressing policies tended not to vary according to the type of surgery, regional differences suggest that actual practice may be based on personal experience rather than available evidence.

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.