↓ Skip to main content

No clear benefit or drawback to the use of closed drainage after primary total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
No clear benefit or drawback to the use of closed drainage after primary total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-1039-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hai-bo Si, Ti-min Yang, Yi Zeng, Bin Shen

Abstract

Closed drainage after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been used routinely for many decades, but controversies have arisen in recent years. The purposes of this study were to compare the clinical outcomes of closed drainage with nondrainage after primary TKA; and to assess the benefit and drawback of closed drainage. Electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, CENTRAL, Embase and Web of Science) were systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy and risks of closed drainage after primary TKA. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for eligibility, assessed the risk of bias and extracted the data. A meta-analysis was then performed using Review Manager Software. Twelve RCTs totalling 889 TKAs were identified. No significant differences in infection rate or blood loss were found between the closed drainage and nondrainage TKAs, and there was also no significant difference in haematoma formation, deep venous thrombosis, postoperative VAS score or range of motion between the two groups. There appears to be no clear benefit or drawback to the use of closed drainage after primary TKA. Improving the use of closed drainage might provide better outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 10 24%
Other 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 51%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2017.
All research outputs
#7,009,265
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,384
of 4,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,899
of 299,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#36
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,078 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.