The optimized tourniquet versus no tourniquet in total knee arthroplasty. Analysis of muscle injury, functional recovery, and knee strength
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Tourniquet is widely used in total knee replacement surgery because it reduces intraoperative hemorrhage and provides a comfortable surgical area for the surgeon. It's possible that its use could lead to impaired postoperative functional and motor recovery, as well as local and systemic complications. Our goal was to compare the outcomes of total knee replacement without ischemia using an optimized protocol, consisting of tourniquet inflation before skin incision and deflation after cementing, with a pressure of one hundred millimeters above systolic blood pressure and without postoperative articular suction drains.). We believed that tourniquet effectively would result in no additional muscle damage and no functional or knee strength impairment compared to no tourniquet. Methods: In a prospective and randomized study, 60 patients with osteoarthritis were evaluated for total knee replacement, divided in two groups: 'without tourniquet' and 'optimized tourniquet'. Outcomes were mean creatine phosphokinase levels, Knee Society Score and knee isokinetic strength. Data were considered significant when p < 0.05. Results: Creatine phosphokinase levels and functional score were similar between groups. There were no differences between groups regarding knee extension strength on the operated limbs, although the knee flexors' peak torque in the operated limb in the optimized tourniquet group was significantly higher at 6 months relative to preoperative and 3 months assessments. Conclusions: The optimized tourniquet protocol use in total knee replacement combines the benefits of tourniquet use without compromising functional recovery and without additional muscle damage and strength deficits compared to surgery without its use.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".