Intermediate and Long-Term Quality of Life After Total Knee Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total knee replacement is a highly successful and frequently performed operation. Technical outcomes of surgery are excellent, with favorable early postoperative health-related quality of life. This study reviews intermediate and long-term quality of life after surgery. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies published from January 2000 onward was performed to evaluate health-related quality of life after primary total knee replacement for osteoarthritis in patients with at least three years of follow-up. Key outcomes were postoperative quality of life, function, and satisfaction compared with the preoperative status. Strict inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Quality appraisal and data tabulation were performed with use of predefined criteria. Data were synthesized by narrative review and random-effects meta-analysis utilizing standardized mean differences. Heterogeneity was assessed with the tau(2) and I(2) statistics. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included in the review. Intermediate and long-term postoperative quality of life was superior to the preoperative level in qualitative and quantitative analyses. The pooled effect in combined WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) and KSS (Knee Society Score) outcomes was a marked improvement from baseline with respect to the total score (2.17; 95% CI [confidence interval], 1.13 to 3.22; p < 0.0001) and the pain (1.72; 95% CI, 0.97 to 2.46; p < 0.00001) and function (1.26; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.64; p < 0.00001) domains. Most patients were satisfied with the surgery and derived substantial benefits for daily functional activities. Tau(2) (0.20 to 1.10) and I(2) (90% to 98%) values implied significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: Total knee replacement confers significant intermediate and long-term benefits with respect to both disease-specific and generic health-related quality of life, especially pain and function, leading to positive patient satisfaction. Recommendations for necessary future studies are provided. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".