Range of Extension Correlates with Posterior Capsule Length after Knee Remobilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Knee injuries are common in sports, and postinjury immobilization is often required to protect healing tissues and alleviate pain, but both the injury and the immobilization can lead to a knee contracture. Knee flexion contractures limit performance. Previous research has identified posterior knee capsule fibrosis as a contributor to immobility-induced knee flexion contractures. This study aims to measure posterior knee capsule length at various durations of remobilization after knee immobilization and to correlate with the recovery of knee range of motion. METHODS: Two hundred fifty-nine male Sprague-Dawley rats had one knee extra-articularly immobilized in flexion with a Delrin® plate at a 45° angle for one of six durations: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 32 wk, followed by spontaneous remobilization after plate removal, which lasted zero, one, two, and four times the duration of immobilization. The contralateral knees served as controls. The posterior knee capsule length was measured by histomorphometry. These measures were correlated with previously published range of motion data from the same cohort of specimens. RESULTS: Knees immobilized for 1 and 2 wk partially recovered posterior capsule length (P > 0.05). Knees immobilized beyond 2 wk failed to recover posterior capsule length, irrespective of the duration of remobilization (P < 0.05). The residual posterior capsule shortening correlated with the lack of knee extension (P < 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: For knee injuries requiring more than 2 wk of immobilization, unassisted remobilization will not restore posterior knee capsule shortening and the reduction in knee extension. These results support the role of the posterior capsule in knee joint contracture and the need to minimize the duration of immobility and to assist the recovery of the range of knee extension after a sport injury.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".