ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2024
Personalized tourniquet pressure versus uniform tourniquet pressure in orthopedic trauma surgery of extremities: A prospective randomized controlled study protocol.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2024. 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.
- Non-tourniquet strategy with high-position low-perfusion in distal humeral fracture surgery: reduces swelling without increasing blood loss.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Trial
- Comparative assessment of healthy tissue oxygenation using near-infrared imaging, transcutaneous oxygen measurement, and plethysmography.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the field of orthopedic surgery, tourniquets are often used to achieve a clear operative field, expedite operations, and minimize hemorrhagic events. However, determining the optimal tourniquet inflation pressure is a topic of debate. The current approach involves using a constant tourniquet pressure, although this is associated with the potential to augment the risk of tourniquet-associated complications. The Association of Surgical Technologists recommends a tourniquet pressure of systolic blood pressure plus 50 mm Hg for the upper limb and 100 mm Hg for the lower limb. Nevertheless, this method lacks robust support from high-quality medical literature. Therefore, the study aimed to compare the hemostatic efficacy and disparities in tourniquet pressure settings based on systolic blood pressure versus those using the constant-pressure method. The findings might outline the theoretical framework necessary for advocating for tourniquet pressure setups guided by systolic blood pressure. Methods/design: This randomized controlled study classified the tourniquet pressure regimen into two groups: one based on the patient's systolic blood pressure (the study group) and the other using a constant pressure (the control group). The study included patients aged between 16 and 70 who presented with fresh fractures (less than 3 weeks) of the lower and upper limbs. All the included patients required surgical treatment involving the intraoperative use of a tourniquet and had no contraindications to this surgery. Our primary outcome was to assess the surgeon's satisfaction with the hemostasis achieved in the operative field. We also examined the changes in the circumference of the limb where the tourniquet was applied and tracked any postoperative complications and their incidence. The study ultimately encompassed 144 patients. Discussion: Despite the prevalent use of tourniquets in surgical operations related to limb fractures, conflicting viewpoints persist concerning the adjustments in pressure and other elements. The study aimed to compare the hemostatic efficacy and disparities in tourniquet pressure settings based on systolic blood pressure versus those using the constant-pressure method. Study registration: The study was duly recorded in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on May 13, 2022 (Registration number: ChiCTR2200059867). Registration website: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=162504.
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.