Evaluation of reduced (‘Lite’) compression versus brief bandaging to manage post-operative pain after total knee arthroplasty surgery; a single-centre randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Investigate efficacy of reduced compression bandage for the control of pain after total knee arthroplasty. PATIENTS & METHODS: Prospective, single-centre, randomised controlled trial involving data for 56 out of 94 consented patients; 29 standard care versus 27 Andoflex TLC Calamine Lite. Comparison of standard care (non-compression bandage applied for up to one day) versus Andoflex TLC Calamine Lite (25-30 mmHg) two-layer compression bandage worn for five days. Outcomes measured with validated pain (McGill, 10-cm visual scale) and functionality (KOOS) tools. RESULTS: At day 5 post-surgery, the median pain level was 3.0 cm vs 4.0 cm (p-value 0.47, Mann-Whitney U test) respectively. Generic pain levels, pain types, and knee functionality did not differ between the interventions at days 3/5/12 and week 6 post-surgery. An exception was the degree of 'tender' pain at day 12, which was significantly lower in the Andoflex TLC Calamine Lite arm (p-value 0.041, Mann-Whitney U test). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that application of Andoflex TLC Calamine Lite, administration of oxycodone, and male sex were all significantly associated with less 'tender' pain. CONCLUSION: Reduced compression bandaging does not affect overall pain levels post knee arthroplasty surgery, but may alleviate pain experienced as 'tender', highlighting the different types of pain that may be experienced. Patients' need for, and the use of, opioid medication (oxycodone) is a significant confounding variable when assessing adjuvant therapy to control pain. The applicability of reduced compression bandaging may therefore be limited and is less efficient than medical pain control.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".