↓ Skip to main content

Tourniquet use in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Tourniquet use in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1722-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liang-Tseng Kuo, Pei-An Yu, Chi-Lung Chen, Wei-Hsiu Hsu, Ching-Chi Chi

Abstract

To assess the effects of tourniquet use in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical outcomes following tourniquet use against non-tourniquet use during ACL reconstruction surgery. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for relevant RCTs. We used the Cochrane Collaboration's tool to assess the risk of bias of included RCTs, and performed a random-effects meta-analysis in calculating the pooled risk estimates. The primary outcomes was postoperative pain measured by visual analogue scale, verbal rating scale, or required morphine dose. The secondary outcomes were blood loss in drainage, operative time, muscle strength, and calf and thigh girth. We included 5 RCTs with 226 participants (116 in the tourniquet group and 110 in the non-tourniquet group). Postoperative pain and morphine doses were not significantly different between the two groups. Compared to the non-tourniquet group, the tourniquet group had a significantly increased blood loss in the drain (mean difference: 94.40 ml; 95% CI 3.65-185.14; P = 0.04). No significant differences in the operative time and muscle strength were found between the two groups. Tourniquet use was associated with a greater decrease in thigh girth but not in calf girth. The current evidence shows that compared to tourniquet use, ACL reconstruction surgery without tourniquet does not appear to have any major disadvantages and does not prolong operation time. There might be less drain blood loss associated with tourniquet use, though drains are no longer routinely used in ACL reconstruction surgery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Unspecified 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 9 26%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 26%
Unspecified 2 6%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Unknown 11 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,295,413
of 12,154,160 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,394
of 2,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,925
of 265,341 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#32
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,154,160 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,415 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,341 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.