Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: To study the comparison of conventional pneumatic and disposable silicone ring tourniquet in Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Material And Methods: This is a prospective randomized control trial. We used conventional pneumatic tourniquet on one side of leg and disposable silicone ring tourniquet on the other side in consecutive 50 simultaneous bilateral TKR patients. Patients having peripheral vascular disease of the lower limb were excluded from the study. The patient demographics & characteristics are identical being the same patient with two different legs. We started the study with null hypothesis. An independent observer assessed the local tourniquet site pain (VAS score 1-10) and local tourniquet site skin reaction at 24 h and 48 h after the TKA. P value < 0.05 was considered significant.
Results: There were no local skin complication with disposable tourniquet (0%). 8 out of 50 patients in whom the conventional tourniquet was applied showed local bruising, and two patients had blister formation making the local skin site complication rate 20% (statistically significant, p value0.0196, chi-squared test). The VAS score at 24 h was 4.3 ± 1.5 for disposable tourniquet group as against 5.6 ± 2.1 for conventional tourniquet group (statistically significant, p value = 0.0152, t statistic test for comparison of means). The VAS score at 48 h was 2.1 ± 1.5 and 3.3 ± 1.2 for disposable tourniquet group and conventional tourniquet group respectively (statistically significant p value = 0.003, student's t-test).
Conclusion: Use of disposable tourniquet has better outcome than the conventional tourniquet with minimal or no local complications. The advantages of the disposable tourniquet are: 1 less local pain, 2. no local skin problems, 3. accurate tourniquet pressure at the application site, 4.0% local contamination. Hence, we recommend use of the disposable tourniquet during the Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7919981 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2020.09.005 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!