ArticleCureus2025
Impact of Preoperative Radiological Assessment on Surgical Outcomes in Orthopedic Procedures: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreoperative radiological assessment plays a crucial role in orthopedic surgery by providing detailed anatomical insights and guiding surgical planning.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the impact of preoperative radiological assessment on surgical outcomes in patients undergoing orthopedic procedures.
methodsThis retrospective study was conducted at Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University from June 2024 to December 2024, including 143 patients. Imaging quality was classified as adequate or inadequate based on completeness, correct projections, diagnostic clarity, and alignment with surgical objectives. Data extracted from electronic medical records included demographic characteristics, intraoperative parameters (duration of surgery, blood loss), and postoperative outcomes (infection, implant alignment, length of stay, functional recovery). Group comparisons were made using appropriate statistical tests, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for the main outcomes.
resultsOut of the 143 patients, 98 (68.5%) had adequate imaging, and 45 (31.5%) had inadequate imaging. The adequately imaged group showed shorter operative time (88.6±17.5 vs. 106.2±21.3 minutes; p<0.001; 95% CI: -25.7 to -9.5) and less blood loss (285.4±64.3 vs. 354.1±77.2 mL; p=0.004; 95% CI: -112.3 to -34.7). Postoperative wound infections occurred in 5/98 (5.1%) vs. 7/45 (15.5%) (p=0.041; 95% CI for difference: -20% to -1.2%), and implant misalignment in 3/98 (3.1%) vs. 6/45 (13.3%) (p=0.026). The adequately imaged group also had a shorter mean hospital stay (4.1±1.3 vs. 5.3±1.6 days; p=0.002) and higher functional recovery scores (84.6±7.2 vs. 77.9±9.1; p=0.009).
conclusionAdequate preoperative radiological assessment is associated with improved surgical efficiency, reduced complications, and improved postoperative outcomes in orthopedic procedures. These findings support the routine implementation of structured imaging protocols as a standard of care in orthopedic surgical planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.