Prehabilitation Improves Physical Function of Individuals with Severe Disability from Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of prehabilitation (enhancing physical capacity before total hip or knee joint arthroplasty) on pain and physical function of adults with severe hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Consecutive patients (n=650) from 2006 to 2008 with hip or knee OA awaiting total joint arthroplasty (TJA) attended a hospital outpatient clinic for a prehabilitation assessment. All participants completed self-report (Lower Extremity Functional Scale [LEFS] and visual analogue scale for pain [VAS]) and functional performance measures (self-paced walk [SPW], timed stair, and timed up-and-go [TUG] tests). A subset of 28 participants with severe disability participated in a structured outpatient prehabilitation programme. Between-group differences were assessed via independent t-tests; paired Student's t-tests and Wilcoxon signed rank tests were used to compare changes in pain and function following the prehabilitation programme. RESULTS: A total of 28 individuals (16 female) with mean age 67 (SD 10) years and BMI 33 (8) kg/m(2) awaiting TJA (10 hips, 18 knees) participated in a prehabilitation programme of 9 (6) weeks' duration. Relative to baseline, there was significant improvement in LEFS score (mean change 7.6; 95% CI, 1.7-13.5; p=0.013), SPW (mean change 0.17 m/s; 95% CI, 0.07-0.26; p=0.001), TUG (mean change 4.2 s; 95% CI, 2.0-6.4; p<0.001), and stair test performance (mean change 3.8 s [SD 14.6]; p=0.005) following prehabilitation. CONCLUSION: This study presents preliminary evidence that prehabilitation improves physical function even in the most severely compromised patients with OA awaiting TJA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".