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 cooling device vs standard icing for management after ACL reconstruction

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
January 2016

Continuous cooling device vs standard icing for management after ACL reconstruction

Vol: 5| Issue: 1| Number:69| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:2

Temperature-controlled continuous cold flow device versus traditional icing regimen following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized comparative trial

Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015 Oct;135(10):1405-10

Contributing Authors:
A Ruffilli R Buda F Castagnini D Di Nicolantonio G Evangelisti S Giannini C Faldini

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

Synopsis

47 patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction were randomized to receive either standard cryotherapy or cryotherapy through the use of a continuous cold flow device. The purpose of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to determine if the continuous cold flow device was associated with better analgesia, lower blood loss, reduced knee swelling, and increased knee range...

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