Knee Immobilization for Pain Control after a Hamstring Tendon Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study will attempt to evaluate the efficacy of knee immobilization on patient pain levels after an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. HYPOTHESIS: There is no difference in visual analog scale pain scores 2 days after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction between patients who wear a knee immobilizer and those who do not wear a knee immobilizer. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Patients aged 18 to 40 years who met study inclusion criteria were eligible. Patients meeting intraoperative inclusion criteria were randomized (immobilizer or no immobilizer) after wound closure. The immobilizer used was a soft, unhinged brace with Velcro straps. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative protocols were standardized. The primary outcome was patient self-assessed pain using a 0-to-100-mm visual analog scale at day 2 after surgery. Secondary outcomes included pain and analgesic use in the first 14 days after surgery, complications, and range of motion (approximately 3 weeks postoperatively). A sample size estimate was calculated and resulted in the need for 44 patients per group. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were enrolled; 88 patients were randomized, and 14 were excluded intraoperatively. There was no difference in mean visual analog scale pain scores at 2 days after surgery between immobilized and nonimmobilized patients (32.6 and 35.2, respectively; P = .59; difference, -2.6; 95% confidence interval, -12.2 to 6.9). There were no differences between groups in medication consumed, range of motion, or complications. Pain and analgesic use were the same for both groups at 7 and 14 days postoperatively. CONCLUSION: No differences in pain or any of the secondary outcomes were detected between immobilized and nonimmobilized patients at any point during the first 14 days after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".