The study, conducted by Amine Ben Safta and colleagues across surgical departments in Tunisia, enrolled 160 consecutive patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy between November 12, 2024 and December 31, 2025. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups in a double-blind design, meaning that neither the patients nor those assessing their outcomes knew which insufflation pressure had been used. One group underwent surgery with the abdominal cavity maintained at 8 millimeters of mercury, the low-pressure arm, while the comparison group received the conventional 14 millimeters of mercury. The trial was registered prospectively at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT06685250 on November 11, 2024, the day before enrollment began, a detail that matters because prospective registration helps guard against outcome switching and selective reporting, two of the quiet pathologies that have undermined smaller surgical trials in the past.

The researchers chose their primary endpoint with clinical precision: postoperative pain measured on the Visual Analogue Scale, the familiar 0-to-10 ruler on which patients mark the intensity of their discomfort, assessed at six hours after surgery. This early time point was selected because the peritoneal irritation caused by carbon dioxide insufflation is thought to be most pronounced in the immediate recovery period, when the residual gas has not yet been fully absorbed. If lowering the pressure genuinely protects the peritoneum, the argument went, the effect should show up most clearly in those first hours. The analysis followed an intention-to-treat approach, meaning every randomized patient was analyzed in the group to which they were assigned regardless of what actually happened during their operation, the methodologically conservative choice that preserves the randomization’s protection against bias.

The results were unambiguous on the primary outcome. At six hours, the median Visual Analogue Scale score was 3 in the low-pressure group compared with 4 in the standard-pressure group, a difference that failed to reach statistical significance with a p-value of 0.221. At twelve hours the medians were 2 versus 3, with a p-value of 0.074, tantalizingly close to the conventional threshold but still short of it. By twenty-four hours the scores had fallen to 1 versus 2, with a p-value of 0.128. A pattern of small, consistent numerical advantages for the low-pressure group runs through all three time points, and that pattern is worth noting, but in a trial designed to detect a difference in pain scores, none of these comparisons crossed the line separating signal from statistical noise.

Yet the trial was not a complete null result, and the nuance is where the clinical interest lies. During the first twenty-four hours after surgery, patients in the low-pressure group consumed significantly less paracetamol than their standard-pressure counterparts, with mean consumption of 1.04 grams plus or minus 0.906 compared with 1.35 grams plus or minus 0.873, a difference that was statistically significant at p equals 0.014. Paracetamol consumption in this setting functions as an objective, if indirect, proxy for pain: patients and nurses escalate analgesia when discomfort demands it. A measurable reduction in analgesic use alongside non-significant differences in self-reported scores suggests that the low-pressure technique may deliver a modest analgesic benefit that the Visual Analogue Scale, with its coarse granularity and subjectivity, was underpowered to capture cleanly at the chosen sample size.

Equally important for surgical practice is what the trial says about feasibility. A persistent worry with low-pressure pneumoperitoneum has been that a floppier abdomen gives the surgeon less room to work, potentially prolonging operations, compromising exposure of Calot’s triangle, and increasing the risk of bile duct injury. The Tunisian data directly address the first of those concerns: mean operative time was 59.9 minutes plus or minus 27.5 in the low-pressure group versus 58.2 minutes plus or minus 22.4 in the standard-pressure group, a difference so small it rounds to irrelevance with a p-value of 0.880. Experienced teams, in other words, could work at 8 millimeters of mercury without paying a time penalty, at least for elective cholecystectomy in appropriately selected patients.

Safety signals were also reassuring within the limits of the study’s size. No patient required conversion to open laparotomy, and no major morbidities were recorded in either arm. This is a meaningful floor of safety, but the authors are careful about what it cannot establish. Complications such as bile duct injury, vascular injury, and trocar-related trauma are rare events, and a trial of 160 patients has essentially no power to detect differences in their frequency between two insufflation pressures. The researchers explicitly state that larger studies are required to confirm safety equivalence regarding rare surgical complications, a caveat that should temper any rush to change practice based on pain scores and analgesic consumption alone.

The trial’s design strengths deserve emphasis because surgical randomized trials are notoriously vulnerable to bias. The double-blind architecture is unusual and valuable in insufflation studies, since the operating team inevitably knows the pressure setting, but blinding the patients and the outcome assessors removes two major sources of expectancy bias from pain reporting and assessment. The consecutive enrollment of 160 patients reduces selection bias, the prospective registration pins the primary outcome in place before the first data point exists, and the intention-to-treat analysis respects the randomization. The choice of a single, clinically meaningful primary endpoint at a prespecified time point, rather than a battery of exploratory outcomes, gives the negative finding on the Visual Analogue Scale real evidentiary weight.

What, then, should clinicians and patients take away? The study does not support the claim that low-pressure pneumoperitoneum significantly reduces early postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy, at least as measured by the Visual Analogue Scale at six hours. But it does suggest that the technique is feasible, does not slow down surgery, and is associated with lower paracetamol use in the first day of recovery, a secondary outcome with genuine patient relevance in an era of opioid-sparing analgesia. For a procedure as common as gallbladder removal, performed hundreds of thousands of times annually worldwide, even modest reductions in analgesic requirements could translate into meaningful cumulative benefits, provided the safety profile holds up under larger scrutiny.

The broader lesson may be about how surgical innovation is evaluated. Low-pressure laparoscopy has accumulated a scattered literature of small trials with mixed results for years, and this study illustrates both the promise and the limits of single-center randomized evidence in resolving that uncertainty. The consistent numerical trend favoring low pressure across all pain time points, combined with the significant analgesic-sparing effect, hints at a real biological phenomenon, peritoneal stretch and chemical irritation from carbon dioxide, that a larger trial with more sensitive pain instruments might confirm. Until such studies arrive, the 8-millimeter approach remains an option rather than a standard, and the trial’s own conclusion stands as the fairest summary: low-pressure pneumoperitoneum is feasible without increasing operative duration, but it did not achieve a statistically significant reduction in pain scores, and only larger studies can settle the safety question that matters most.

Subject of Research: Effect of low-pressure versus standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum on postoperative pain after laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Article Title: Low pressure (8 mmHg) pneumoperitoneum does not significantly reduce postoperative visual analog scale score after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Randomized trial

Article References: Safta, A. B., Nasri, S., Samaali, I., Dougaz, W., Bousassi, R., Taher, H., Khalfallah, M., Dziri, C., & Nouira, R. (2026). Low pressure (8 mmHg) pneumoperitoneum does not significantly reduce postoperative visual analog scale score after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Randomized trial. PLOS One, 21(10), e0360476. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0360476

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360476

Keywords: laparoscopic cholecystectomy, pneumoperitoneum, postoperative pain, randomized controlled trial, visual analogue scale, low-pressure laparoscopy, paracetamol consumption, surgical outcomes, gallbladder surgery, anesthesia, clinical trial, PLOS One

The research, led by Yehong Li and colleagues at Shandong Second Medical University, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, and the First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University, took on three of the most consequential perioperative outcomes: postoperative complications, a prolonged stay in the hospital after surgery, and moderate-to-severe postoperative pain. Rather than treating these outcomes as a single fuzzy notion of surgical risk, the team built a dedicated prediction model for each, trained on data from 726 patients who underwent surgery for pathologically confirmed thymic epithelial tumors across two Chinese hospitals.

The design of the study reflects a growing awareness in the medical machine learning community that a model’s real test is not how well it performs on the data it learned from, but how it fares on patients it has never seen. The researchers split their cohort geographically and institutionally: the majority of patients, drawn from Qilu Hospital, served as the development and internal validation set, while 169 patients from the First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University formed a completely independent external validation cohort. This dual-center structure is considered a gold standard of sorts in prediction modeling, because it exposes whether a model has genuinely learned generalizable biology and physiology, or merely the quirks of one hospital’s record-keeping.

Before any algorithm was trained, the team confronted a problem familiar to every medical data scientist: too many candidate variables, many of them redundant or noisy. Their solution was least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression, universally abbreviated as LASSO, a statistical technique that compresses the influence of uninformative features toward zero and effectively performs variable selection and regularization in a single step. Out of the preoperative variables available in the records, LASSO distilled 26 predictors for postoperative complications, 14 for prolonged length of stay, and 13 for moderate-to-severe pain. The shrinking variable counts hint at an important hierarchy: complications are the most complex phenomenon, influenced by the widest web of factors, while pain, though clinically significant, appears to be governed by a narrower and harder-to-predict set of circumstances.

With predictors selected, the researchers compared candidate algorithm families and let performance decide. For postoperative complications and prolonged hospital stay, neural-network models emerged as the best performers, their layered architecture well suited to capturing nonlinear interactions among demographic, clinical, laboratory, and imaging variables. For postoperative pain, a decision-tree model won out, a simpler structure that partitions patients into risk branches through a sequence of yes-or-no questions. The contrast is instructive: more complex models are not always better, and for some outcomes, interpretable tree-based approaches can match or exceed their fancier cousins while remaining easier for clinicians to reason about.

The headline numbers come from the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, or AUC, a measure of how well a model distinguishes patients who experience an outcome from those who do not, with 0.5 representing coin-flip performance and 1.0 representing perfect discrimination. In training cross-validation, internal validation, and external validation respectively, the complication model achieved AUCs of 0.824, 0.814, and 0.775; the prolonged length-of-stay model posted 0.824, 0.809, and 0.776; and the pain model reached 0.695, 0.734, and 0.660. The external validation confidence intervals, spanning 0.658 to 0.892 for complications, 0.697 to 0.855 for prolonged stay, and 0.570 to 0.749 for pain, tell a candid story of both promise and limits.

That story deserves unpacking. A drop from roughly 0.82 in internal testing to about 0.78 in external validation is modest by the standards of clinical prediction models, where performance often collapses far more dramatically when a model crosses hospital boundaries. It suggests the models captured genuine, transportable patterns in how thymic tumor patients recover. The pain model, however, sits closer to the boundary of clinical usefulness, with an external AUC of 0.660 and a confidence interval whose lower edge nearly touches the uninformative 0.570 mark. Pain, the authors’ results imply, is shaped by factors that preoperative data alone cannot fully capture, from intraoperative surgical decisions to individual pain perception and psychology. The team was transparent about this, noting that further multicenter prospective validation is required before any clinical implementation, a caveat that responsible readers should take seriously.

One of the study’s most forward-looking contributions lies in how the models explain themselves. Black-box predictions have been a persistent barrier to clinical adoption, and the researchers addressed it with Shapley-based attribution analysis, a technique borrowed from cooperative game theory that assigns each input variable a quantified share of responsibility for any individual prediction. By computing Shapley values across the cohort, the team could identify which preoperative factors pushed individual patients toward higher or lower risk, transforming an opaque neural network into something a surgeon can interrogate. This kind of interpretability layer is increasingly viewed as essential for medical artificial intelligence, both for building clinician trust and for meeting regulatory expectations that high-stakes algorithms justify their outputs.

The practical delivery vehicle for all of this is a web-based calculator that visualizes the models’ predictions, allowing a clinician to enter a specific patient’s preoperative characteristics and receive individualized risk estimates for complications, prolonged stay, and pain. Such tools sit at the intersection of statistics and bedside decision-making: they could inform the timing and intensity of postoperative monitoring, guide conversations with patients about what to expect, shape decisions about analgesic planning, and help allocate intensive care resources to those most likely to need them. For a rare tumor like thymic epithelial neoplasm, where no single center sees large volumes and clinical intuition is built on limited experience, a validated quantitative aid carries particular value.

The study also arrives amid a broader shift in how surgical oncology thinks about risk. Traditional risk scoring systems, often built with logistic regression on single-center data, have struggled to capture the heterogeneous recovery trajectories of mediastinal tumor patients. Machine learning approaches, with their capacity for nonlinear interactions and their emphasis on external validation and interpretability, represent a methodological upgrade, but the Shandong team’s work illustrates both the potential and the discipline required. The models are strong but not infallible, the pain prediction remains the weakest link, and the retrospective design means the algorithms learned from records collected for care rather than for modeling. The authors’ own framing, that prospective multicenter validation must come first, is the right one. If those validations succeed, the day may not be far off when a patient with a thymic epithelial tumor can be told, before surgery, a data-driven estimate of what their recovery will look like, and when the surgical team can prepare accordingly. That would turn one of thoracic surgery’s lingering uncertainties into a calculable risk, and calculable risks are the kind medicine knows how to manage.

Subject of Research: Machine learning prediction of perioperative outcomes in thymic epithelial tumor surgery

Article Title: Development and validation of machine learning models for preoperative prediction of perioperative outcomes in patients with thymic epithelial tumors

Article References: Li, Y., Qiu, J., Zhao, Y., Jin, K., Li, Y., & Tian, H. (2026). Development and validation of machine learning models for preoperative prediction of perioperative outcomes in patients with thymic epithelial tumors. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-74722-x

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1038/s41598-026-74722-x

Keywords: thymic epithelial tumors, machine learning, postoperative complications, length of stay, postoperative pain, LASSO regression, neural networks, decision tree, SHAP, risk prediction, thoracic surgery, external validation

The study, published in the Archives of Dermatological Research, enrolled 140 patients with clean, granulating wounds who were candidates for split-thickness skin grafting between July 2024 and November 2025. Participants were divided into two groups of 70 according to the harvesting technique used by the operating surgeon. Group A underwent the tumescent technique, in which a super-wet infiltration of dilute anesthetic solution was injected into the donor site before the dermatome was run. Group B underwent the traditional non-tumescent technique, in which the graft is harvested without prior infiltration. Grafts were taken at a standardized thickness in both arms, and the researchers tracked three primary endpoints: the percentage of graft acceptance at day 5, day 10 and week 3; donor-site healing at day 10 and week 3; and postoperative pain measured with the Visual Analogue Scale.

The results favored the tumescent approach at every measured time point. Graft acceptance in the tumescent group reached 97.5 percent at day 5 compared with 94.0 percent in the non-tumescent group, 94.9 percent versus 88.9 percent at day 10, and 88.0 percent versus 83.1 percent at week 3, with all differences statistically significant at p less than 0.001. In practical terms, that gap means fewer patients returning to the operating room for revision grafting, fewer days of open wound care and a shorter, less costly hospital course. Graft take — the process by which a transplanted sheet of skin reattaches to its new bed through revascularization — is notoriously sensitive to conditions at the recipient site, and any intervention that nudges acceptance upward by several percentage points is clinically meaningful.

Even more striking were the differences at the donor site itself. By day 10, 87.1 percent of tumescent patients had achieved complete healing of the harvest wound, compared with 70.0 percent of those in the conventional group, a difference the authors report as significant at p equal to 0.013. The divergence widened further: the entire tumescent arm achieved complete donor-site healing within one to two weeks, whereas only 31.4 percent of the non-tumescent arm had done so by the same interval, a difference with a p value below 0.001. Epithelialization — the migration of new skin cells across the raw surface left by the dermatome — is the rate-limiting step in donor-site recovery, and accelerating it by even a few days can translate into less dressing changes, less nursing time and a faster return to normal activity.

Pain, the symptom patients most dread after graft harvesting, also fell decisively in the tumescent group. Postoperative analgesia requirements were significantly reduced compared with the conventional arm, with a p value below 0.001 on the Visual Analogue Scale comparisons. The mechanism is straightforward pharmacology: the tumescent solution contains a local anesthetic, typically lidocaine in dilute concentration, which bathes the nerve endings in the dermis and subcutaneous tissue and blocks pain signaling at the source. Because the solution is injected in large volume under low pressure — the super-wet approach — it also physically distends the tissue, firming the donor surface so the dermatome can cut a smoother, more uniform graft with less mechanical trauma.

Adrenaline, the second key ingredient in the infiltrate, does the hemostatic work. By constricting the small dermal vessels that bleed freely when the skin is shaved, it dries the donor field, reduces intraoperative blood loss and may improve the visibility and precision of the harvest. The concept is not new: the tumescent technique was originally described in 1987 for liposuction surgery, where large volumes of dilute anesthetic and adrenaline are infiltrated into subcutaneous fat, and it has since been adapted for a range of dermatosurgical procedures. Burn surgeons in particular have reported that tumescent infiltration significantly reduces blood loss during excision of burn wounds, and several smaller comparative studies have suggested benefits for skin graft harvesting specifically.

What sets the new study apart is its prospective design and its size relative to much of the earlier literature. Previous comparisons of tumescent and non-tumescent graft harvesting have often been retrospective, single-arm or small cross-sectional analyses. By enrolling 140 patients consecutively at a single tertiary care facility, standardizing graft thickness across both groups and pre-specifying objective endpoints at fixed time points, the Indian team produced one of the more rigorous datasets on the question to date. Complications told a consistent story: overall complications occurred in 7.1 percent of the tumescent group versus 20.0 percent of the non-tumescent group, a difference the authors report as statistically significant at p equal to 0.048. The reduction was driven primarily by graft loss, which fell from 10.0 percent in the conventional arm to 1.4 percent in the tumescent arm, significant at p equal to 0.011.

The biological logic behind these numbers is plausible on several fronts. A drier, better-hemostased donor bed may allow the harvested graft to be handled and applied with less contamination by blood, which can lift the graft off the recipient bed and prevent the capillary ingrowth required for take. The vasoconstriction induced by adrenaline may also create a transient ischemic stimulus at the donor site that some investigators believe accelerates re-epithelialization, although the precise mechanism remains debated. There is even laboratory evidence that tumescent infiltration fluid has antibacterial properties, which could reduce low-grade infection at both the donor and recipient sites. And because the anesthetic effect persists into the immediate postoperative period, patients start their recovery with better-controlled pain, which itself supports mobilization, sleep and wound perfusion.

The authors are careful about the limits of their evidence. As a prospective observational study rather than a randomized controlled trial, allocation to the two techniques followed the practice of the operating surgeon rather than a random process, leaving open the possibility of selection bias — for example, if surgeons preferentially used tumescence in patients they judged better candidates. The analysis relied on Student’s t-test and the chi-square test with a significance threshold of p less than 0.05, and while the differences in graft take and donor healing were large and consistent, observational designs cannot fully exclude confounding by surgeon skill, wound characteristics or adjunctive care. The authors themselves conclude that these encouraging findings warrant broader evaluation in prospective randomized controlled trials before the tumescent technique is definitively integrated into standard clinical practice.

Still, the direction of the evidence is hard to ignore. A technique that costs little more than a syringe, a dilute anesthetic solution and a few minutes of infiltration time delivered measurable gains in graft survival, donor-site healing speed, pain control and complication rates across 140 patients. For burn units, wound centers and plastic surgery services in resource-constrained settings — where revision surgery and prolonged dressing care carry the heaviest costs — a low-tech intervention with this effect profile could change routine practice. If randomized trials confirm what this observational study suggests, the humble act of inflating the donor site with fluid before cutting may become as standard a step in skin grafting as the dermatome itself.

Subject of Research: Comparison of tumescent and non-tumescent techniques for split-thickness skin graft harvesting and donor-site outcomes

Article Title: Tumescent vs. non-tumescent techniques for split-thickness skin grafting: a prospective observational study

Article References: Kambaiahgari, M. M. R., Sivamurugan, A., Pravin Dhas, A., Debarath Das, D., & Raman, L. (2026). Tumescent vs. non-tumescent techniques for split-thickness skin grafting: a prospective observational study. Archives of Dermatological Research, 318(1), Article 482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-026-04878-z

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s00403-026-04878-z

Keywords: split-thickness skin graft, tumescent technique, donor site healing, graft take, postoperative pain, adrenaline infiltration, local anesthesia, epithelialization, burn surgery, reconstructive surgery, dermatological research, surgical outcomes

The study, conducted by İsmail Aşatır and Atiye Erbaş of Duzce University’s Department of Surgical Nursing, enrolled 122 patients at the orthopedic clinic of a tertiary university hospital between November 2023 and February 2024. Participants were randomly assigned in equal numbers to an intervention group and a control group, with 61 patients in each arm. Those in the intervention group received a structured preoperative pain education program delivered by nurses, while the control group received the standard care normally provided at the clinic. The trial was prospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT06104254 on 23 October 2023, before participant enrollment began, a detail that strengthens confidence in the integrity of the randomization protocol.

The researchers tracked two primary outcomes: the intensity of pain patients reported after surgery, measured on the Numeric Rating Scale, and the patients’ pain beliefs, assessed with the Pain Beliefs Scale. The Pain Beliefs Scale distinguishes between two fundamentally different ways of thinking about pain. Psychological pain beliefs frame pain as something influenced by thoughts, emotions, and mental states, whereas organic pain beliefs attribute pain entirely to physical injury and tissue damage. This distinction matters because a growing body of pain science suggests that patients who understand pain as modifiable, rather than as a pure readout of bodily harm, tend to cope better and report less severe pain.

To analyze their data, the team used linear mixed-effects models, a statistical approach well suited to repeated measurements collected over time. Rather than comparing groups only at a single moment, mixed-effects models can capture how outcomes evolve across multiple postoperative time points and can test whether the two groups followed different trajectories. The key quantity in such analyses is the group-by-time interaction, which asks whether the change over time in one group differs statistically from the change over time in the other. A significant interaction is the signature of diverging paths, not merely a difference in a snapshot.

That is precisely what the researchers found for postoperative pain intensity. The linear mixed-effects model demonstrated a significant group-by-time interaction, indicating that pain followed genuinely different trajectories in the intervention and control groups. In practical terms, patients who had received structured preoperative pain education from nurses experienced a more favorable course of postoperative pain than those who received standard care alone. For a field in which postoperative pain management still relies heavily on escalating analgesic regimens, the idea that a conversation before surgery can bend the pain curve is striking.

The effects on pain beliefs were more nuanced. The analysis revealed a significant group-by-time interaction for psychological pain beliefs, meaning the education program produced measurable shifts in how patients conceptualized the psychological dimension of pain. Patients who had been educated came to view pain as something their thoughts and coping strategies could influence, a reframing that aligns with modern biopsychosocial models of pain. However, no significant intervention effect was found for organic pain beliefs. In other words, the program successfully updated patients’ understanding of the psychological side of pain but did not alter their conviction that pain fundamentally originates in physical injury, which the researchers suggest may be a more entrenched belief to shift.

The trial also examined several secondary factors. Pain intensity tended to be higher among women and among patients who reported fear of pain before their operations, although these differences did not reach statistical significance in the analysis. The directional pattern is nonetheless consistent with a wider literature linking preoperative pain catastrophizing and anxiety to worse postoperative outcomes, and it hints that patients who arrive frightened may be precisely those who benefit most from reassurance and preparation. Larger trials would be needed to determine whether these subgroup patterns are real effects or statistical noise.

What makes the findings compelling is the simplicity of the intervention relative to its reach. Preoperative education requires no new drugs, no additional hardware, and no change to surgical technique. It asks nurses to spend time before surgery explaining what patients should expect, how pain can be managed, and what role their own beliefs and behaviors play in recovery. Orthopedic wards are staffed by nurses who already interact with patients in the preoperative window, so embedding structured pain education into that existing contact represents a marginal cost for a potentially substantial gain in patient comfort, mobility, and possibly even length of stay.

The authors conclude that preoperative nursing education was associated with reduced postoperative pain intensity and favorable changes in psychological pain beliefs, though not in organic pain beliefs, and they suggest that structured preoperative pain education be considered as part of routine perioperative nursing care to improve postoperative pain management. The research received no specific grant from any funding agency and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine at Duzce University, with the trial conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Limitations and open questions remain. The study was conducted at a single tertiary center in one country, and the generalizability of the effect to other health systems, surgical populations, and cultural contexts will need to be tested. The incomplete shift in organic beliefs suggests that education programs might be strengthened by directly addressing the intuitive but incomplete equation of pain with tissue damage. Still, the trial adds to mounting evidence that the mind’s framing of pain is not a passive bystander in recovery. As health systems search for affordable ways to improve surgical outcomes, this study suggests one of the most powerful tools available may be a well-informed nurse and a few crucial minutes before the operation begins.

Subject of Research: Effect of preoperative nurse-led pain education on postoperative pain and pain beliefs in orthopedic surgical patients

Article Title: The effect of preoperative nursing education on postoperative pain intensity and pain beliefs in orthopedic surgical patients: randomized controlled trial

Article References: The effect of preoperative nursing education on postoperative pain intensity and pain beliefs in orthopedic surgical patients: randomized controlled trial. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-026-05422-0

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12912-026-05422-0

Keywords: preoperative education, postoperative pain, orthopedic surgery, pain beliefs, nursing, randomized controlled trial, pain management, pain intensity, perioperative care, Turkey, BMC Nursing, biopsychosocial model