Evidence Hub

Tourniquet Use In Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction May Decrease Operative Time but Is Associated With Muscular Injury and Postoperative Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Yang Y, Zhang MQ, Zhang JM, Zhang W, Zhou XB, Wang D, Tung TH

Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association, 2025

471 participants · 5 citations

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the effects of tourniquet use on operative time, muscular injury, and postoperative pain in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Methods: This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed in EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for relevant randomized controlled trials (level of evidence: Level I), from inception to February 6, 2024. Data extraction included details such as first author, country, publication year, sample size, age, sex, tourniquet parameters (including inflation time and pressure), anesthesia, arthroscopic visualization, operative time, postoperative visual analog score, postoperative blood loss, postoperative morphine consumption within 24 hours, postoperative serum creatine phosphokinase levels, side-to-side thigh circumference difference after 3 weeks of surgery, and knee functional scores at the 6-month follow-up. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool.

Results: Seven randomized controlled trials involving 471 participants were included in this study. Compared with the nontourniquet group, the tourniquet group had a significantly decreased operative time (mean difference [MD] -10.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] -15.74 to -4.49, P = .0004, I2 = 49%). In addition, the tourniquet group had significantly increased creatine…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 471 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free