Exercise Combined With Continuous Passive Motion or Slider Board Therapy Compared With Exercise Only: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Patients Following Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine which method of mobilization - (1) standardized exercises (SE) and continuous passive motion (CPM), (2) SE and slider board (SB) therapy, using an inexpensive, nontechnical device that requires minimal knee active range of motion (ROM), or (3) SE alone-achieved the maximum degree of knee ROM in the fIrst 6 months following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The secondary purpose was to compare health-related quality of life among these 3 groups. SUBJECTS: The subjects were 120 patients (n=40/group) who received a TEA at a teaching hospital between June 1997 and July 1998 and who agreed to participate in the study. METHODS: Subjects were examined preoperatively, at discharge, and at 3 and 6 months after surgery. The examination consisted of measurement of knee ROM and completion of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: The 3 treatment groups were similar with respect to age, sex, and diagnosis at the start of the study. There were no differences in knee ROM or in WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index or SF-36 scores at any of the measurement intervals. The rate of postoperative complications also was not different among the groups. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: When postoperative rehabilitation regimens that focus on early mobilization of the patient are used, adjunct ROM therapies (CPM and SB) that are added to daily SE sessions are not required. Six months after TEA, patients attain a satisfactory level of knee ROM and function.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".