Association between Neuropathic Pain and Reported Disability after Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether reporting neuropathic pain (NP) at an average of 5 years after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was related to patient age, sex, preoperative comorbidity, arthritis self-efficacy, or disability before surgery and at 1 year after surgery. The estimate of NP prevalence and cross-sectional group differences were explored at 5 years after surgery. METHODS: A subsample of participants in a formal research study was contacted via mail approximately 5 years after undergoing surgery and were sent four questionnaires: the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, the Patient Health Questionnaire, the Self-Administered Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Signs and Symptoms (S-LANSS), and a satisfaction questionnaire. NP was defined as an S-LANSS score of 12 or more. RESULTS: Of 89 patients who met the inclusion criteria, data for 63 (71%) patients (47 women; mean age 67 [SD 8] y) were used for analysis. Of these 63, 9 (14%) were identified as having NP. None had a report of failure of prosthesis or other surgical complications according to most recent medical records. There was no relationship between preoperative patient characteristics and development of NP. However, the NP group on average had a higher report of stiffness (p=0.020), physical dysfunction (p=0.019), and pain (p=0.050) at 1 year after surgery. Cross-sectional comparisons showed higher levels of pain (p=0.001), stiffness (p=0.008), physical dysfunction (p=0.003), and depression (p=0.005) and lower satisfaction (p=0.018) at the time of the survey than the patients without NP. CONCLUSION: The estimated prevalence of NP was 14%. Patients with NP reported higher levels of disability as early as 1 year after surgery. They remained more disabled, with a higher level of depression and less satisfaction, at an average of 5 years after surgery.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".