In‐patient rehabilitation in haemophilic subjects with total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a major orthopaedic surgery intervention, indicated for severe haemophilic arthropathy. The aim of our study was to analyse rehabilitation outcome in haemophilic patients after TKA. A consecutive series of 21 patients (23 knees) was retrospectively evaluated. The mean age was 37 ± 8 years (range 22-55). Physiotherapy treatment was performed twice a day for 5 days week⁻¹, for 3 h day⁻¹. Assessment included knee range of motion (ROM), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain evaluation, Western Ontario and McMaster University (WOMAC) Score for functional outcome, Medical Research Council Scale (MRC) for quadriceps muscle strength evaluation, incidence of adverse events and a self-reported questionnaire. The patients'data were recorded before surgery (t0), at Rehabilitation Unit admission (t1), before discharge (t2) and at follow-up (t3), 11-48 months after rehabilitation. Western Ontario and McMaster University Score (ref. score: 0-96) was 56.7 ± 12 at t0 and 6.2 ± 6 at t3 (t3 vs. t0: P < 0.001). Visual Analogue Scale (ref. score: 0-10) decreased from 5.0 ± 2 at t1 to 2.1 ± 2 at t2 (t2 vs. t1: P < 0.05) and to 0.1 ± 0 at t3 (t3 vs. t2: P < 0.05). Flexion degrees increased from 43.4 ± 21° at t1 to 80.2 ± 15° at t2 (t2 vs. t1: P < 0.001) and to 95.0 ± 15° at t3 (t3 vs t2: P < 0.05). According to MRC (ref. score: 0-5), quadriceps muscle strength increased from 2.3 ± 0.6 at t1 to 3.6 ± 0.5 at t2 (t2 vs. t1: P < 0.05). Adverse events were found in four patients. Patients' satisfaction on their outcome at follow-up was referred as good by 72% of patients or excellent by 28% of patients. Postsurgical intensive rehabilitation in haemophilic patients resulted effective, safe and feasible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".