Patterns of recovery following knee and hip replacement in an Australian cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most literature reporting the impressive results from knee and hip replacement derives from international data. Few Australian studies have comprehensively compared outcomes after joint replacement up to 1 year. This paper compares the patterns of recovery across physical and patient-centred outcomes following knee or hip replacement in an Australian cohort. One hundred and twenty-two consecutive patients undergoing knee or hip replacement were prospectively followed. Serial assessments were conducted (preoperatively, and 2, 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks post-surgery). Joint pain, patient's global improvement, timed mobility, and complications were monitored. English-proficient patients completed WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) and SF-36v2 (Medical Outcomes Short-Form 36 version 2) questionnaires. At 1 year, 81% (55 knee, 44 hip) were available for follow-up. Significant, large improvements (up to 254%) were evident for most outcomes. Global improvement was reported by 97%. Recovery for both surgical groups was greatest within the first 26 weeks, but hip patients improved more quickly in most outcomes. Wound disturbances were the most common complication (23 in total, 23%) and 13 patients (13%) were readmitted for complications. Recovery patterns were similar to that observed elsewhere. The physical and patient-centred outcomes provide a useful Australian reference for clinicians of the temporal aspects of recovery as well the differences between hip and knee surgeries. Complication and readmission rates appeared high, possibly partly explained by the rigorous capture method.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".