Effects of a tele-prehabilitation program or an in-person prehabilitation program in surgical candidates awaiting total hip or knee arthroplasty: Protocol of a pilot single blind randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The accessibility for total joint arthroplasty often comes up against long wait lists, and may lead to deleterious effects for the awaiting patients. This pilot single blind randomized controlled trial aims to evaluate the impact of a telerehabilitation prehabilitation program before a hip or knee arthroplasty compared to in-person prehabilitation or to usual wait for surgery. METHODS/DESIGN: Thirty-six patients on a wait list for a total hip or knee arthroplasty will be recruited and randomly assigned to one of three groups. The in-person prehabilitation group (n = 12) will receive a 12-week rehabilitation program (2 sessions/week) including education, exercises of the lower limb and cardiovascular training. Patients in the tele-prehabilitation group (n = 12) will receive the same intervention using a telecommunication software. The control group (n = 12) will be provided with the hospital's usual documentation before surgery. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) will be the primary outcome measure taken at baseline and at 12 weeks. Secondary measures will include self-reported function and quality of life as well as performance tests. A mixed-model, 2-way repeated-measure ANOVA will be used to analyse the effects of the rehabilitation programs. DISCUSSION: This pilot study is the first to evaluate the feasibility and the impact of a telerehabilitation prehabilitation program for patients awaiting a total joint arthroplasty. The results of this pilot-RCT will set the foundations for further research in the fields of rehabilitation and tele-medicine for patients suffering from lower limb osteoarthritis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02636751.
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 | 0.025 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.006 |
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".