To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Continuous low pressure suction does not reduce blood loss following TKA

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
August 2013

Continuous low pressure suction does not reduce blood loss following TKA

Vol: 2| Issue: 7| Number:579| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Low- vs. high-pressure suction drainage after total knee arthroplasty: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

J Adv Nurs. 2012 Apr;68(4):758-66. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05760.x. Epub 2011 Nov 14

Contributing Authors:
R Calvo MJ Martinez-Zapata G Urrutia I Gich M Jordán A Del Arco FJ Aguilera F Celaya J Sarasquete J Majo X Bonfill

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

169 patients scheduled for total knee arthroplasty were randomized to receive a low- or high-pressure closed drainage system after surgery to determine if a lower suction power would reduce the total postoperative blood loss following the procedure. Blood loss following surgery was assessed until bleeding had ceased. The results indicated that there was no difference between groups in the amount o...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue