Effect of adjunctive range-of-motion therapy after primary total knee arthroplasty on the use of health services after hospital discharge.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is controversy as to whether continuous passive motion (CPM) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), which is the standard treatment, confers significant benefit with respect to outcome. The primary purpose of this study was to determine if CPM or slider-board (SB) therapy, used as adjuncts to standardized exercises (SEs) during the acute-care hospital stay, resulted in a reduced total length of hospitalization and post-discharge rehabilitation in patients who underwent primary TKA. METHODS: We carried out a randomized, clinical trial on 120 patients who received a TKA at the University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, a tertiary care institution. The study horizon began at the point of discharge from the hospital and continued up to 6 months after operation. Postoperatively, patients (40 in each group) received CPM and SEs, SB therapy and SEs or SEs alone while in the tertiary Health service use was compared using transfer institution length of stay(LOS), post-discharge rehabilitation, readmission and complication rates and their associated costs. RESULTS: There were no differences in health service use or costs among the 3 groups over the 6-month study. The rates of postoperative complications and readmissions also were similar among the groups. Increased health service use associated with knee flexion that was less than 60 degrees at discharge, but similar proportions of patients with poor knee range of movement (ROM) at discharge were found in each group. CONCLUSIONS: This finding suggests that adjunctive ROM therapy, as used in this study, does not reduce health service use. Further research is required to determine if adjunctive ROM therapy after discharge from the surgical hospital decreases health service utilization in those patients who have poor knee ROM at the time of discharge.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".