ArticleBJS open2026
Incidental findings on preoperative computed tomography for the planning of robotic arthroplasty: retrospective cohort study.
Article in BJS open, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of robotically assisted arthroplasty has increased substantially in recent years. Some robotic platforms require preoperative computed tomography for surgical planning. These scans frequently include anatomical regions beyond the primary operative field, creating potential for incidental findings. Planning computed tomography is not formally reported routinely, raising the possibility that clinically relevant incidental findings may be overlooked.
methodsThe reports of all computed tomography performed for preoperative planning of robotically assisted arthroplasty at the authors' institution between October 2019 and February 2024 were reviewed retrospectively. Incidental findings were noted, and their clinical significance assessed. The notes of patients with significant findings were reviewed to ascertain the final diagnosis and management.
resultsA total of 1602 patients (mean age 66.8 years, median 68 (range 16-98) years; 847 women) were identified within the study period. Some 447 patients (27.9%) demonstrated incidental findings, 136 (8.5%) of which were significant, requiring further investigation or management. Eighty-six significant findings (5.4%) were suspicious for malignancy and, of these, five (0.3%) resulted in a new cancer diagnosis.
conclusionIn this study, the rate of significant incidental findings was 8.5% and the risk of discovery of previously undiagnosed malignancy was 0.3%. A new significant finding was demonstrated in 1 in every 12 patients, and a new cancer diagnosis in 1 in every 320 patients. Planning imaging for robotic arthroplasty should be reported by a radiologist to prevent significant findings and malignancy being missed.
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.