Effect of Sodium Hyaluronate on Recovery after Arthroscopic Knee Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of a single immediate postoperative instillation of 10 mL of sodium hyaluronate (Viscoseal) into the knee following arthroscopy. A single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled study was undertaken. Consenting knee arthroscopy patients were randomized into two groups following surgery: the study group received 10 mL of sodium hyaluronate intra-articularly, while the control group received an intra-articular instillation of 10 mL of Bupivacaine. Pre- and postoperative visual analogue scale scores for pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) scores for knee function were obtained. Overall, 48 patients under the care of a single surgeon were randomized into two groups of 24. There were no statistically significant demographic differences at baseline. Three patients were lost to follow-up. There was a statistically significant difference in pain scores favoring the study group compared with the control group at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively (p < 0.05), and a statistically significant difference in WOMAC scores favoring the study group compared with the control group at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively (p = 0.01). Synovial fluid replacement with sodium hyaluronate following arthroscopic knee surgery conferred statistically significant improvements in pain and function scores compared with Bupivacaine in the short term (3-6 weeks).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".