Skip to content
Review Open access

Expert evaluation of ChatGPT-generated responses to patient questions in conventional and fast-track total knee arthroplasty

Oct 2026 · Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery · Vol 146 · 0 citations · 14 references
Medicine

TL;DR

Experts gave high ratings to the evaluated responses, including those on fast-track concepts, but the observed data do not establish equivalence between question sets: the fast-track ratings require source-data verification, the sets were selected differently, and scores were concentrated at the maximum.

Abstract

Fast-track total knee arthroplasty (TKA) asks patients to understand early mobilization, early discharge, opioid-sparing analgesia, and selective use of drains and catheters. We evaluated expert-rated quality of ChatGPT responses to patient questions about these pathway-specific concepts alongside conventional TKA questions. In this cross-sectional evaluation, three arthroplasty surgeons independently scored responses to 50 conventional TKA and 20 investigator-developed fast-track questions in four domains on 5-point scales. The conventional questions were selected by a multidisciplinary panel; the fast-track questions did not undergo the same selection process. Response-level means were compared descriptively and with exploratory Mann-Whitney U tests. Seventy responses received 210 expert assessments. Recalculated mean ± SD scores across individual ratings were 4.99 ± 0.15 for accuracy, 4.98 ± 0.14 for completeness, 4.98 ± 0.17 for safety, and 5.00 ± 0.07 for readability. Each of the 20 fast-track responses received a score of 5 from each of the three raters in all four domains (Supplementary Table S1). Nevertheless, question-set construction differed and scores clustered at the ceiling, so the exploratory comparison does not establish equivalence. Experts gave high ratings to the evaluated responses, including those on fast-track concepts. The observed data do not establish equivalence between question sets: the fast-track ratings require source-data verification, the sets were selected differently, and scores were concentrated at the maximum. Clinician review remains appropriate for protocol-dependent and safety-related advice. Not applicable.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Oct 2026

Quality and clinical implications of AI chatbot responses to common patient questions about total knee arthroplasty: a multidimensional comparative study.

INTRODUCTION Patients considering total knee arthroplasty (TKA) frequently seek online guidance on indications, risks, recovery, rehabilitation, and precautions. While authoritative sources exist, generative AI chatbots are increasingly used for rapid answers, yet their quality, usability, and transparency may vary....

Mehmet Ekici, Eyyüp Serdar Yalvaç, Kürşat Tuğrul Okur et al. · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Does ChatGPT provide safe and reliable patient information related to hip and knee arthroplasty?

ChatGPT appears to be a safe tool for patients to access general arthroplasty information online, and outperformed all human responders on both accuracy and completeness of answers.

Joëlle Deschênes-Bilodeau, Peter F. Staunton, Charles Desgagné et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Sep 2026

Patient-Perceived and Record-Based Concordance of AI-Generated Perioperative Information After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Cross-Sectional Study with Multidisciplinary Review

Background and Objectives: Large language models, a form of artificial intelligence (AI), can answer common patient questions about total hip arthroplasty (THA), but most evaluations emphasize clinician-rated accuracy or patient preference rather than whether generalized recovery statements correspond to patients’ docu...

Mehmet Yağız Yenigün, Ozancan Biçer, Cemre Aydın et al. · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

Evaluating large language models in patient education: a comparative analysis addressing frequently asked questions in peri-acetabular osteotomy.

There may be significant differences in how effectively LLMs support patients with surgical queries, particularly in areas needing detailed explanation, and usually required minimal clarification in areas needing detailed explanation.

T. Davis, B. Guevel, K. Logishetty et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.