Post‐Acute Rehabilitation After Total Knee Replacement: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Long‐Term Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term benefit of providing a post-acute, outpatient group exercise program for patients following primary total knee replacement (TKR) surgery for osteoarthritis. METHODS: A multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted in 12 Australian public and private hospital centers. A total of 422 participants, ages 45-75 years, were randomly allocated prior to hospital discharge to the post-acute group exercise program or to usual care and were assessed at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after surgery. The main outcomes were operated knee pain and activity limitations at 12 months using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (Short Form 12 health survey), knee extension and flexion strength, stair-climb power, 50-foot walk speed, and active knee range of motion. RESULTS: While both allocation groups achieved significant improvements in knee pain and activity limitations over the 12-month followup period, there were no significant differences in these main outcomes, or in the secondary physical performance measures, between the 2 treatment allocations. Twelve months after TKR, 69% and 72% of participants allocated to post-acute exercise and usual acute care, respectively, were considered to be treatment-responders. While population normative values for self-report measures of pain, activity limitation, and health-related quality of life were attained 12 months after TKR, marked deficits in physical performance measures remained. CONCLUSION: Providing access to a post-acute group exercise program did not result in greater reductions in long-term knee pain or activity limitations than usual care. Patients undergoing primary TKR retain marked physical performance deficits 12 months 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".