ArticleCureus2021
Assessment of an Intra-Articular Drain in Arthroscopy-Assisted Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Arthroscopic Anterior Cuciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Neither a Tourniquet nor Drainage: A Perioperative Case Series Report.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Non-use of intra-articular drain after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not affect postoperative knee pain and muscle strength on early period.Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The use of a drain after various types of arthroscopic surgeries has long been debated. Whether a drain offers an advantage in terms of pain, swelling, and functional outcome after arthroscopy-assisted reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) needs to be investigated. This study was designed to assess the validity of the use of an intra-articular drain after routine arthroscopic ACL reconstruction and to assess the various complications associated with its use. Material and methods Forty-four patients (group I included patients for whom an intra-articular drain was used and group II included patients for whom an intra-articular drain was not used) diagnosed with ACL injury were included in the study. The patients in group I had a drain placed inside the joint, while those in group II had a drain placed outside the joint cavity but the drain placement was such that there remained no patient or observer bias. Results Outcome assessment was performed on days one, two, and three followed by weeks one, four, and eight, and six months after surgery by determining a visual analog pain (VAS) score. The assessment was also done for the range of motion (ROM) in terms of loss of flexion and extension with a hand-held goniometer, knee hemarthrosis, and thigh circumference. Although there was a difference in both the groups in terms of the above-mentioned parameters in the early post-operative period, the difference becomes insignificant at the final follow-up at six months. Conclusion From this study, we conclude that putting an intra-articular drain after ACL reconstruction offers no advantage in terms of functional outcome in the long term.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.