Use of closed suction drain after primary total knee arthroplasty – an overrated practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The age-old practice of closed suction drain following orthopedic procedures has been challenged since past few decades. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of closed suction drain after total knee arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty patients (135 knees) with primary Total Knee Arthroplasty were divided into a study group (no drain) and a control group (drain used). Inclusion criteria were grade 3 and grade 4 osteoarthritis of the knee. Revision cases and rheumatoid arthritis were excluded. Parameters assessed were pain, pre and post-op Hb, dressing change, early infection, ecchymosis and duration of stay. Results were calculated using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Oxford Knee scoring systems at two weeks, six months and one year. RESULTS: Mean age was 72.03 ± 6.68 in study group and 71.38 ± 7.02 in control group. Pre and post op Hb was 12.1678 ± 1.3220 (study group), 12.1803 ± 1.2717 (control group) and 9.8373 ± 1.5703 (study group), 9.7918 ± 1.4163 (control group). There was one case of early infection in both groups which was controlled by oral antibiotics. Change of dressing and ecchymosis were more in the study group. Duration of hospital stay was more in the control group p < 0.0006 (statistically significant). CONCLUSION: There is no added advantage of closed suction drain over no drain usage and this practice can safely be brought to a halt.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".