Tourniquet Versus No Tourniquet Use in Routine Knee Arthroscopy: A Prospective, Double‐Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of tourniquet use for routine knee arthroscopy based on both subjective and objective functional outcome measures. TYPE OF STUDY: The study was a prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: There were 120 patients randomized to tourniquet inflation (300 mm Hg) or no tourniquet inflation during routine knee arthroscopy. Patients recorded their average pain on a visual analog scale and their narcotic use for the previous 24 hours, for the first 5 postoperative days. Patients also completed a preoperative and postoperative (2 week, 6 week, 3 month) Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), 6-minute walk, 30-second stair climb, 1-leg standing vertical leap, range of motion, and isokinetic strength testing. Time to return to work and sport was documented. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between tourniquet-up and tourniquet-down groups for the WOMAC quality of life measure, functional tests, isokinetic muscle strengthening, or time to return to work or sport (t test/repeated measures analysis of variance). However, there was a trend for less early postoperative pain and slightly better isokinetic strength testing at 2 weeks in the tourniquet-down group. Visualization was rated by surgeons to be 3 times better in the tourniquet-up group, although mean operative time did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: The use of a pneumatic tourniquet at 300 mm Hg does not significantly effect overall patient quality of life or functional outcome following routine knee arthroscopy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".