MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306167951 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.oa.22.00074

Comparison of the Effect of Intra-Articular, Periarticular, and Combined Injection of Analgesic on Pain Following Total Knee Arthroplasty

2022· article· en· W4306167951 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Seyed Mohammad Javad Mortazavi, Farzad Vosoughi, Mir Saeed Yekaninejad, Ehsan Ghadimi, Mohammad Hasan Kaseb, Mohammad Ayati Firoozabadi, Ehsan Fallah, Hesam Toofan, Seyed Khalil Pestehei

Bibliographic record

VenueJBJS Open Access · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAnesthesia and Pain Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeWOMACOsteoarthritisVisual analogue scaleAnalgesicMorphineTotal knee arthroplastyConfidence intervalRandomizationRandomized controlled trialAnesthesiaArthroplastyMinimal clinically important differenceProspective cohort studySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of 3 methods of intraoperative analgesic cocktail injection during total knee arthroplasty (TKA)-intra-articular (IA), periarticular (PA), and combined intra-articular and periarticular (IA+PA)-on controlling early postoperative pain. Methods: This was a prospective double-blinded parallel randomized clinical trial. A total of 153 patients scheduled for TKA were allocated to IA, PA, or IA+PA (51 patients each) by block randomization. The primary outcome was morphine consumption. Secondary outcomes were visual analogue scale (VAS) pain, knee flexion, straight leg raising, Knee Society Score (KSS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Results: The morphine consumption was lowest in the PA group (median = 0, interquartile range [IQR] = 5) and highest in the IA group (median = 10, IQR = 5). The PA group had significantly lower VAS pain at rest than either IA (mean difference = -0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.93 to -0.46; p < 0.001) or PA+IA (mean difference = -0.41; 95% CI = -0.65 to -0.18; p < 0.001). The PA group had also lower VAS pain during activity compared with IA (mean difference = -0.63; 95% CI = -0.85 to -0.40; p < 0.001) and IA+PA (mean difference = -0.38; 95% CI = -0.61 to -0.16; p < 0.001). The PA group had significantly greater active knee flexion compared with IA (mean difference = 9.68°; 95% CI = 5.50° to 13.86°; p < 0.001) and IA+PA (mean difference = 5.13°; 95% CI = 0.95° to 9.31°; p = 0.010). Passive knee flexion was greater for PA than IA (mean difference = 7.85°; 95% CI = 4.25° to 11.44°; p < 0.001). Other outcome variables were not significantly different among the 3 groups. The only complications were wound drainage (1 each in the IA and IA+PA groups) and deep venous thrombosis (1 in the IA group). Conclusions: PA was associated with less early postoperative pain and greater active knee flexion compared with the other 2 analgesic methods. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBJS Open AccessSame topicAnesthesia and Pain ManagementFrench-language works237,207