Contribution of Hip Abductor Strength to Physical Function in Patients With Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Investigating modifiable factors that contribute to functional limitations in patients with total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may guide changes in rehabilitation protocols and improve functional outcomes. Whereas quadriceps muscle weakness has been demonstrated to contribute to functional limitations in TKA, the role of hip abductor weakness has not received attention. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether hip abductor strength (force-generating capacity) contributes to physical function beyond what can be explained by quadriceps muscle strength in patients after a TKA. DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was used in the study. SETTING: The study was conducted in a clinical laboratory at an academic center. PATIENTS: Thirty-one people with TKA (74% female; mean age=68 years, SD=8; mean body mass index=31 kg/m(2), SD=5) participated in the study. MEASUREMENTS: Strength of quadriceps muscles and hip abductors was measured using an isokinetic dynamometer. Performance-based physical function was assessed with 4 measures: self-selected walking speed, the Figure-of-8 Walk Test, the Stair Ascend/Descend Test, and the 5-Chair Rise Test. Self-reported physical function was assessed with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Physical Function Subscale. RESULTS: In hierarchical regression models, after accounting for demographic and anthropometric factors, quadriceps muscle strength was associated with performance on the Stair Ascend/Descend Test. After accounting for demographic, anthropometric, and quadriceps strength, hip abductor strength was associated with performance on the Stair Ascend/Descend Test, the Figure-of-8 Walk Test, and the 5-Chair Rise Test. LIMITATIONS: The study design precluded ascertainment of causal relationships. CONCLUSIONS: After TKA, hip abductor strength influenced physical function in participants more than did demographic or anthropometric measures or quadriceps strength. Longitudinal studies with larger samples are warranted. If findings are replicated, they will justify targeting the hip abductors during rehabilitation after TKA.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".