Posters
Presenting Author Academic/Professional Position
Medical Student
Academic Level (Author 1)
Medical Student
Discipline/Specialty (Author 1)
Orthopedic Surgery
Academic Level (Author 2)
Medical Student
Discipline/Specialty (Author 2)
Orthopedic Surgery
Academic Level (Author 3)
Medical Student
Discipline/Specialty (Author 3)
Orthopedic Surgery
Academic Level (Author 4)
Faculty
Discipline/Specialty (Author 4)
Orthopedic Surgery
Presentation Type
Poster
Discipline Track
Patient Care
Abstract Type
Research/Clinical
Abstract
Background: High-quality intraoperative photography is vital for treatment planning, patient counseling, and surgical education. Inconsistencies in image quality are prevalent in orthopedic literature due to the absence of formalized criteria specific to orthopedic settings. In 2014, "Medical Photography: Principles for Orthopedics" introduced guidelines intending to standardize protocols for capturing clinical images. By comparing the quality of images taken both before and after these proposed guidelines, this project aims to evaluate whether this has influenced a trend toward standardization and consistency in intraoperative orthopedic photography.
Methods: To assess quality differences in orthopedic images before and after the 2014 guidelines, 60 intraoperative images gathered via PubMed using the search terms “Knee Arthroplasty,” “Humerus Fracture,” and “Carpal Tunnel Release,” were collected from 2009-2019. Images were limited to English-language journals and one per article. Once randomized, a blind medical student scored each image using 4 measures: focus, lighting, background, and composition. Scores ranged from 1-3 for poor, fair, or good. Next, we performed Mann-U-Whitney tests and Rank-Biserial correlations to test for statistical significance and assess the magnitude of difference between old and new.
Results: The U-statistic for the five groups ranged from 376-439.5, with p-values ranging from 0.173-0.873. Using a p-value of 0.05, there was no statistical significance between the variables, however, rank-biserial correlation scores of 0.098 for total scores, 0.14 for focus, 0.094 for lighting, and 0.141 for composition suggest small improvements in the quality of photos. This suggests there may have been improvements in medical photography in recent years.
Conclusion: Intraoperative photography is essential in orthopedics for enhancing technical practices, improving patient outcomes, and enriching education. The findings of this study suggest minor yet promising strides toward improved intraoperative image quality and standardization, indicating a need for similar assessments with greater volumes and evidence of its function in optimizing care.
Comparative Analysis Across Categories
Recommended Citation
Franco, Emmanuel; Abraham, Tabitha; Ayas, Zayd; and Gerold, Frank, "Intraoperative Imaging in Orthopedic Settings: An Assessment of Changes in Adherence to Imaging Guidelines" (2025). Research Symposium. 62.
https://scholarworks.utrgv.edu/somrs/2025/posters/62
Included in
Interprofessional Education Commons, Orthopedics Commons, Quality Improvement Commons, Surgery Commons, Trauma Commons
Intraoperative Imaging in Orthopedic Settings: An Assessment of Changes in Adherence to Imaging Guidelines
Background: High-quality intraoperative photography is vital for treatment planning, patient counseling, and surgical education. Inconsistencies in image quality are prevalent in orthopedic literature due to the absence of formalized criteria specific to orthopedic settings. In 2014, "Medical Photography: Principles for Orthopedics" introduced guidelines intending to standardize protocols for capturing clinical images. By comparing the quality of images taken both before and after these proposed guidelines, this project aims to evaluate whether this has influenced a trend toward standardization and consistency in intraoperative orthopedic photography.
Methods: To assess quality differences in orthopedic images before and after the 2014 guidelines, 60 intraoperative images gathered via PubMed using the search terms “Knee Arthroplasty,” “Humerus Fracture,” and “Carpal Tunnel Release,” were collected from 2009-2019. Images were limited to English-language journals and one per article. Once randomized, a blind medical student scored each image using 4 measures: focus, lighting, background, and composition. Scores ranged from 1-3 for poor, fair, or good. Next, we performed Mann-U-Whitney tests and Rank-Biserial correlations to test for statistical significance and assess the magnitude of difference between old and new.
Results: The U-statistic for the five groups ranged from 376-439.5, with p-values ranging from 0.173-0.873. Using a p-value of 0.05, there was no statistical significance between the variables, however, rank-biserial correlation scores of 0.098 for total scores, 0.14 for focus, 0.094 for lighting, and 0.141 for composition suggest small improvements in the quality of photos. This suggests there may have been improvements in medical photography in recent years.
Conclusion: Intraoperative photography is essential in orthopedics for enhancing technical practices, improving patient outcomes, and enriching education. The findings of this study suggest minor yet promising strides toward improved intraoperative image quality and standardization, indicating a need for similar assessments with greater volumes and evidence of its function in optimizing care.
