Intra‐articular Drain Versus No Drain After Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Randomized, Prospective Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A significant proportion of surgeons use intra-articular drains after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The usual reason given to justify the use of a drain is to minimize patient pain and stiffness of the knee joint. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of this approach. METHODS: In this study 118 consecutive ACL reconstruction patients were randomized to no drain or a postoperative intra-articular suction drain. Inclusion criteria included a successful ACL reconstruction via either 4-strand hamstrings or bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft as a graft source. The primary outcomes were defined as pain (assessed by pain scores and analgesic counts) and range of motion (ROM) (assessed by loss of flexion and extension compared with the nonoperative leg). An independent statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: The 2 groups were comparable with respect to patient demographics, surgical findings, and procedures performed. There were no differences between the treatment groups for the primary outcomes of pain and ROM during the 8-week follow-up period. The study had adequate power to detect a clinically significant difference. Regarding the secondary outcomes, there was a difference in the grade of hemarthrosis between the groups at week 1 but not at week 4 or 8. However, the difference in subjective grade of hemarthrosis at 1 week did not have any effect on the primary outcomes of pain and ROM. During the study period, there were no complications in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of intra-articular drains after arthroscopic ACL surgery was not supported by this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, randomized controlled trial without narrow confidence intervals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".