MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309109221 · doi:10.2147/orr.s381894

Effects of Surgical Approach and Tourniquet Use on Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

2022· article· en· W4309109221 on OpenAlexaffabout
Olawale A. Sogbein, Bryn O Zomar, Dianne Bryant, James L. Howard, Jacquelyn Marsh, Brent A. Lanting

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopedic Research and Reviews · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersStryker
KeywordsMedicineTotal knee arthroplastyTourniquetRandomized controlled trialArthroplastyPhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most successful procedures for the treatment of severe knee osteoarthritis. Various surgical approaches have been investigated in the hopes of improving postoperative outcomes. Two include the medial parapatellar (standard) and midvastus. As the midvastus approach does not disrupt the extensor mechanism, it may be advantageous for functional recovery, however length of stay and long-term function are similar between approaches. Tourniquet use during TKA has conflicting results in the literature. We hypothesized that a future trial comparing outpatient versus standard TKA could appropriately use either surgical approach with or without a tourniquet. Therefore, the objective of this pilot randomized trial was to compare postoperative pain, function, quality of life, and satisfaction between patients who underwent a medial parapatellar or midvastus approach for TKA ± tourniquet use. Methods: We conducted a randomized trial with a two-by-two factorial design to compare the medial parapatellar to the midvastus surgical approach for TKA ± tourniquet use. The Short Form-12 (SF-12), Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Knee Society Score (KSS) were collected at baseline, postoperatively at two, six, 12 weeks, and one year. Results: Eighty-three patients were included. Postoperative WOMAC scores were statistically but not clinically higher at six weeks and three months in favour of no tourniquet use. There were no differences in postoperative WOMAC scores between approaches. Short Form-12 and KSS scores increased in both groups with no significant differences postoperatively (p > 0.05). Conclusion: There were no clinically significant differences in postoperative pain, function, quality of life, or satisfaction between surgical approaches or whether a tourniquet was used. As such, both surgical approaches ± tourniquet use are safe and reliable. We believe a future larger randomized trial could likely incorporate either surgical approach or tourniquet preferences without significant impact on patient reported outcomes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopedic Research and ReviewsSame topicBlood transfusion and managementFrench-language works237,207