A randomized pilot study of a comprehensive postoperative exercise program compared with usual care following primary total hip arthroplasty in subjects less than 65 years of age: feasibility, selection of outcome measures and timing of assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) is being used more commonly in younger higher demand patients. The purpose of this randomized pilot study was to explore a) feasibility of comprehensive postoperative rehabilitation compared to usual care following primary THA in subjects <65 years, b) appropriate outcome measures including performance-based measures and c) timing of assessments. METHODS: 21 subjects who underwent primary THA were randomized to receive a three-month out-patient rehabilitation program (Intervention) or usual postoperative care (Control). Subjects were assessed preoperatively, six-weeks postoperatively (Pre-intervention) and four and 12 months postoperatively (Post-intervention). Self-report measures were the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Rand 36-Item Health Survey (RAND-36). Performance-based measures included lower extremity strength, walking speed and endurance, and gait laboratory assessment. RESULTS: Ten Control and 11 Intervention subjects with an average age of 53.4 (SD9.3) years were randomized. All Intervention subjects completed the program without adverse effects. Although no statistically significantly results were reported, four months postoperatively, Intervention subjects had clinically important differences (CID) in strength compared with Control subjects. Walking endurance, WOMAC and RAND scores improved significantly with no CID noted between groups. Ten (48%) subjects reported a ceiling effect on the WOMAC (9 (43%) subjects on Pain; 1 (5%) subject on Function). No group CID were noted in gait measures. CONCLUSIONS: Our recommendations would be that performance-based strength measures should be considered for the primary outcome in this younger cohort. Because of the ceiling effects with WOMAC Pain, a different pain measure is indicated. Other more challenging functional performance-based tests should be considered such as a more prolonged endurance test. There is merit in one-year follow-up as strength improved after four months in both groups.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".