↓ 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 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 13%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 5 6%
Professor 4 5%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 30 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 18%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Neuroscience 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 34 40%
Attention Score in Context

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
#14,952,935
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,329
of 4,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,046
of 317,366 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#48
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,091 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 317,366 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.