Early Rehabilitation After Total Knee Replacement Surgery: A Multicenter, Noninferiority, Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing a Home Exercise Program With Usual Outpatient Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine, at 6 weeks postsurgery, if a monitored home exercise program (HEP) is not inferior to usual care rehabilitation for patients undergoing primary unilateral total knee replacement (TKR) surgery for osteoarthritis. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Patients ages 45-75 years were allocated at the time of hospital discharge to usual care rehabilitation (n = 196) or the HEP (n = 194). Outcomes assessed 6 weeks after surgery included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain and physical function subscales, knee range of motion, and the 50-foot walk time. The upper bound of the 95% confidence interval (95% CI) mean difference favoring usual care was used to determine noninferiority. RESULTS: At 6 weeks after surgery there were no significant differences between usual care and HEP, respectively, for pain (7.4 and 7.2; 95% CI mean difference [MD] -0.7, 0.9), physical function (22.5 and 22.4; 95% CI MD -2.5, 2.6), knee flexion (96° and 97°; 95% CI MD -4°, 2°), knee extension (-7° and -6°; 95% CI MD -2°, 1°), or the 50-foot walk time (12.9 and 12.9 seconds; 95% CI MD -0.8, 0.7 seconds). At 6 weeks, 18 patients (9%) allocated to usual care and 11 (6%) to the HEP did not achieve 80° knee flexion. There was no difference between the treatment allocations in the number of hospital readmissions. CONCLUSION: The HEP was not inferior to usual care as an early rehabilitation protocol after primary TKR.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".