ArticleCureus2025
To Squeeze or Not to Squeeze: A District General Hospital Review of Knee Arthroscopy With and Without Tourniquet.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The Role of Tourniquet Use in Arthroscopic Meniscectomy: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Knee arthroscopy (KA) is a frequent technique used to treat knee joint problems across the world. Tourniquets are often utilised in KA; however, their safety is still debated. The aim of this study was to determine postoperative pain, recovery time, and postoperative surgery analgesia in patients undergoing KA with and without a tourniquet. Methods This prospective cohort study was carried out in the Orthopaedic Department of a district general hospital. A total of 28 patients undergoing KA were included and divided into two groups (14 tourniquet and 14 no-tourniquet). Pain, time for recovery, and use of opioid analgesia were recorded. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was also calculated to review the relevance of the difference in pain scores at different intervals. Results There were 23 (82.1%) males and five (17.9%) females from a total of 28. There was no significant difference (p=0.149) in mean ages of the patients in the tourniquet group (28.36±7.52 years) and the non-tourniquet group (29.57±5.61 years). The tourniquet group experienced a mean postoperative pain of 8.00±1.04 on the Visual Analog Scale, while the other group reported 8.21±0.89 (p<0.381). This reduced to 1.14±1.027 in the tourniquet and 0.29±0.469 in the non-tourniquet group (p=0.00) at six weeks' follow-up, thus indicating higher postoperative pain in the tourniquet group. This difference was also above the threshold for MCID, suggesting that it was clinically relevant and meaningful from a patient perspective, too. A greater requirement for postoperative surgery analgesia was also observed in the tourniquet group; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion Knee arthroscopy surgery without a tourniquet leads to lower pain and relatively lower analgesic demand postoperatively. Future studies should aim to include a large sample size and long-term functional outcomes for a better understanding of the topic.
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.