Recovery of Physical Functioning After Total Hip Arthroplasty: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: After total hip arthroplasty (THA), patients today (who tend to be younger and more active than those who previously underwent this surgical procedure) have high expectations regarding functional outcome. Therefore, patients need to be well informed about recovery of physical functioning after THA. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to review publications on recovery of physical functioning after THA and examine the degree of recovery with regard to 3 aspects of functioning (ie, perceived physical functioning, functional capacity to perform activities, and actual daily activity in the home situation). DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained from the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from inception to July 2009, and references in identified articles were tracked. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective studies with a before-after design were included. Patients included in the analysis had to have primary THA for osteoarthritis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently checked the inclusion criteria, conducted the risk of bias assessment, and extracted the results. Data were pooled in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies were included. For perceived physical functioning, patients recovered from less than 50% preoperatively to about 80% of that of controls (individuals who were healthy) 6 to 8 months postsurgery. On functional capacity, patients recovered from 70% preoperatively to about 80% of that of controls 6 to 8 months postsurgery. For actual daily activity, patients recovered from 80% preoperatively to 84% of that of controls at 6 months postsurgery. LIMITATIONS: Only a few studies were retrieved that investigated the recovery of physical functioning longer than 8 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the preoperative situation, the 3 aspects of physical functioning showed varying degrees of recovery after surgery. At 6 to 8 months postoperatively, physical functioning had generally recovered to about 80% of that of controls.
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 | 0.017 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".