The impacts of pre‐surgery wait for total knee replacement on pain, function and health‐related quality of life six months after surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the current study was to assess, in patients scheduled for primary total knee replacement (TKR), the effects of pre-surgery waiting time on pain and functional limitations related to the knee joint undergoing surgery, on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and on contralateral knee pain 6 months after surgery. METHOD: A total of 141 patients scheduled for TKR were recruited from three hospitals in Quebec City, Canada, and followed up until 6 months after surgery. Pre-surgery wait, defined as the time between enrolment on the pre-surgery waiting list and surgery, was considered in four categories (≤3, >3-6, >6-9, >9 months). Pain and functional limitations were measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). HRQoL was measured with the SF-36. RESULTS: Mean pre-surgery waiting time was 184 (SD: 120.8) days. Six months after TKR, a significant difference was seen between the four groups of pre-surgery wait in terms of HRQoL SF-36 role physical [F(3, 136) = 2.74, P = 0.046] and contralateral knee WOMAC pain [F(3, 136) = 5.78, P = 0.0009] scores. Participants with the longest pre-surgery wait (>9 months) showed the worst scores 6 months after TKR. CONCLUSIONS: Longer pre-surgery waiting time had a negative clinically important impact on HRQoL and contralateral knee pain 6 months after surgery.
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 | 0.117 | 0.335 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".