9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Tourniquet versus no tourniquet use in routine knee arthroscopy: a prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial.

      Arthroscopy
      Adult, Arthroscopy, methods, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Knee Joint, physiology, surgery, Male, Pain, Postoperative, epidemiology, etiology, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Tourniquets, adverse effects, Treatment Outcome

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of tourniquet use for routine knee arthroscopy based on both subjective and objective functional outcome measures. The study was a prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial. There were 120 patients randomized to tourniquet inflation (300 mm Hg) or no tourniquet inflation during routine knee arthroscopy. Patients recorded their average pain on a visual analog scale and their narcotic use for the previous 24 hours, for the first 5 postoperative days. Patients also completed a preoperative and postoperative (2 week, 6 week, 3 month) Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), 6-minute walk, 30-second stair climb, 1-leg standing vertical leap, range of motion, and isokinetic strength testing. Time to return to work and sport was documented. No statistically significant difference was found between tourniquet-up and tourniquet-down groups for the WOMAC quality of life measure, functional tests, isokinetic muscle strengthening, or time to return to work or sport (t test/repeated measures analysis of variance). However, there was a trend for less early postoperative pain and slightly better isokinetic strength testing at 2 weeks in the tourniquet-down group. Visualization was rated by surgeons to be 3 times better in the tourniquet-up group, although mean operative time did not differ between the groups. The use of a pneumatic tourniquet at 300 mm Hg does not significantly effect overall patient quality of life or functional outcome following routine knee arthroscopy.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article