The Effect of Tourniquet Duration on Pain, Bleeding, and Functional Outcomes in Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of tourniquet use on perioperative blood loss, pain, and functional and clinical outcomes. Patients and methods This is a prospective study that included 80 knees who underwent total knee arthroplasty. The patients were separated into two groups: those with a tourniquet used throughout the entire surgical procedure and those where the tourniquet was only used during the cementation procedure. In the postoperative period, the pain levels of the patients were evaluated using a visual analog scale (VAS), and the functional results were evaluated with knee range of motion measurement, the Western Ontario and Mcmaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Kujala Patellofemoral Scoring System, and the Oxford Knee Scoring system. The patients were examined in the early postoperative period and again in the 12th week, including possible complications that may develop postoperatively. Results In the early postoperative period, a greater hemoglobin decrease and calculated blood loss values, better functional clinical results, and better knee range of motion were determined in the group with a tourniquet applied only during the cementation, and the swelling in the knee was less (p<0.05). However, the difference between the two groups had disappeared by the postoperative 12th week. There was no significant difference in respect of complications. Conclusion Limiting the duration of tourniquet use during total knee arthroplasty has the significant advantage of providing better functional results with less pain in the early postoperative period.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".