Multidisciplinary rehabilitation after primary total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled study of its effects on functional capacity and quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether a multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme can improve functional recovery and quality of life and reduce the use of rehabilitation services compared with conventional care one year after total knee arthroplasty. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, non-blinded, controlled trial. SETTING: An outpatient centre-based setting. SUBJECTS: Eighty-six patients who were scheduled for primary total knee arthroplasty due to osteoarthritis of the knee. INTERVENTIONS: A ten-day multidisciplinary rehabilitation programme, which was focused on enhancing functional capacity, was organized 2-4 months after surgery. In both groups, a standard amount of physiotherapy was included in conventional care. MAIN MEASURES: The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the 15D, 15-m walk test, stair test, isometric strength measurement of the knee. Use of rehabilitation services was asked about with a questionnaire. Outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at 2-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups. RESULTS: In both groups, functional capacity and quality of life improved significantly. The mean absolute change in the WOMAC function score was -32.4 mm (SD 26.4) in the rehabilitation group and -32.8 mm (SD 20.1) in the control group (P-time*group = 0.40). No difference was found between groups in any outcome measure or in the use of rehabilitation services during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that for knee osteoarthritis patients treated with primary total knee arthroplasty, a 10-day multidisciplinary outpatient rehabilitation programme 2-4 months after surgery does not yield faster attainment of functional recovery or improvement in quality of life than can be achieved with conventional care.
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 | 0.006 | 0.112 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".