Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial of Continuous Passive Motion After Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors report the results of a prospective randomized clinical trial using continuous passive motion after total knee arthroplasty. One hundred twenty patients were assigned randomly to one treatment group: No continuous passive motion (Group I), continuous passive motion from 0 degrees to 50 degrees and increased as tolerated (Group II), and continuous passive motion from 70 degrees to 110 degrees (Group III). The continuous passive motion was initiated in the recovery room and was maintained for a maximum of 24 hours at which point all patients began identical postoperative physiotherapy regimens. Patients were assessed preoperatively, during their hospital stay, at 6 weeks, 12 weeks, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks after their surgery. There were no statistical differences between any of the treatment groups regarding cumulative analgesic requirements, range of motion at any measured interval, length of stay (Group I, 5.1 days; Group II, 5.2 days; Group III, 5 days) or Knee Society scores. The current study does not support the use of short-term continuous passive motion after total knee replacement. A standard and a high flexion continuous passive motion protocol failed to show any advantage over physiotherapy alone in the parameters evaluated.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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".