ArticleWorld journal of experimental medicine2026
Convection-based
Article in World journal of experimental medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPostoperative inflammation after joint injury or surgery contributes to pain, edema, and delayed functional recovery. Cryotherapy is commonly used to alleviate pain and modulate inflammatory responses; however, the effectiveness of various cooling modalities in reducing temperatures in deeper periarticular and intra-articular tissues remains uncertain.
aimTo compare the cooling performance of a convection-based cryotherapy system with two circulating-pad cooling systems in reducing temperature at various tissue depths.
methodsA cadaveric porcine knee model was used to assess comparative thermal transfer in periarticular tissues and the joint space. Thermocouples were placed at three sites: Subdermal, intramuscular, and intra-articular. Four experimental cooling conditions were evaluated by using: SootheAway 1 (SA1), SootheAway 2 (SA2), ThermoCuff (convection-based), and ambient control. Each cooling session lasted 60 minutes using a target coolant/air temperature of 35 °F (1.6 °C). The prespecified primary endpoint was the change in temperature at 20 minutes (ΔT20 = T20 - T0).
resultsThermoCuff produced a larger observed early temperature reduction through the tested compartments. At the subdermal level, ΔT20 was -14.8 °C with ThermoCuff compared with -8.4 °C for SA2, -3.9 °C for SA1, and -1.8 °C for ambient exposure. Intramuscular cooling was modest with ThermoCuff (-1.8 °C) and SA2 (-1.3 °C), whereas SA1 showed warming (+6.5 °C). At the intra-articular level, ThermoCuff achieved the highest temperature reduction (-10.0 °C), compared with -3.9 °C for SA2 and -3.3 °C for ambient exposure; SA1 showed warming (+4.8 °C).
conclusionIn the cadaveric porcine knee model, the convection-based system achieved better early cooling than the circulating-pad systems, especially at the subdermal and intra-articular levels. These preliminary preclinical findings support the hypothesis that cooling modality might affect the depth and magnitude of thermal transfer under controlled laboratory conditions and require
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.