Graph-Enhanced Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Postoperative Patient Question Answering: A Comparative Evaluation of Knowledge Graph, Retrieval-Augmented Generation, and Hybrid GraphRAG Approaches

Background: Reliable access to postoperative guidance between clinic visits remains inconsistent, and the usefulness of large language models depends on how clinical knowledge is structured and retrieved. Knowledge graph-only (KG-only), vector retrieval-augmented generation (RAG-only), and hybrid graph-retrieval (GraphRAG) architectures have not been directly compared under controlled conditions for postoperative care. Objective: It was to compare these three pipelines on a curated postoperative question-answering benchmark using automated grounding metrics and blinded clinician review. Methods: A benchmark of 250 expert-authored questions (200 in-scope, 20 emergency-intent, 30 out-of-scope) was evaluated on an identical knowledge corpus using Gemini 2.5 Flash for generation and Gemini Embedding-001 for retrieval. Three blinded clinicians rated all 750 outputs; the primary outcome was majority-consensus accuracy across all 250 questions. GraphRAG is a multi-component pipeline that also includes query expansion, a second retrieval stage, evidence fusion, and a monotonic RAG fallback, and is therefore evaluated as a complete hybrid system rather than as graph retrieval in isolation. Results: Overall accuracy was 96.8% (95% CI: 93.8–98.4) for GraphRAG, 94.8% (95% CI: 91.3–96.9) for RAG-only, and 56.0% (95% CI: 49.8–62.0) for KG-only. Both retrieval-augmented systems outperformed KG-only (adjusted p < 0.001). The GraphRAG versus RAG-only difference was 2.0 percentage points, arose from five discordant question pairs and did not reach the Bonferroni-adjusted threshold (exact McNemar p = 0.062; adjusted p = 0.188). The monotonic RAG fallback determined 44.8% of GraphRAG outputs (112 of 250 queries). GraphRAG showed higher context recall (0.851 versus 0.796; adjusted p < 0.001), whereas RAG-only showed higher context precision. Estimated hallucination risk, derived from an LLM-as-a-judge procedure using Gemini 2.5 Flash rather than independent clinical adjudication, was 0.108, 0.132, and 0.436, respectively; the GraphRAG versus RAG-only difference was not significant (adjusted p = 0.771). Inter-rater agreement was high (Fleiss’ kappa = 0.854). Conclusions: Retrieval augmentation, rather than the choice of retrieval architecture, accounted for most of the difference observed. The incremental advantage of GraphRAG over a well-implemented RAG-only system was small, was not statistically significant after correction and reflects the complete hybrid system rather than graph augmentation alone. Emergency-intent accuracy was 75.0% for both retrieval-augmented systems; the architecture is therefore suited to supervised clinical workflows with clinician review, not autonomous patient-facing triage. Prospective validation on authentic patient messages and formal component ablations are required.