The association between chronic pain and central sensitization following total knee replacement: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Pain still persists in 20% of patients who have had total knee replacement (TKR) surgery. It is important to investigate the reason for the persistent pain after surgery and related factors. This study aimed to elucidate any connection between central sensitization and ongoing pain after knee replacement surgery and other associated factors. Methods: The population was composed of 182 patients who had undergone TKR, and in follow-up visits from 1 mo to 2 yr after the operation, they were evaluated using the Pressure Pain Threshold (PPTs), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI), the Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (LANSS), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the painDETECT test. Results: The mean follow-up period was 6.84±4.10 (1-24) months. According to the postoperative LANSS score, neuropathic mechanisms were responsible for pain in 48.4% (88/182) of the patients. CSI showed central sensitization in 41.2% (75/182) of the patients (CSI score ≥40). Patients whose pain was not associated with neuropathic mechanisms (LANSS score <12 or painDETECT score<19) saw more benefit from surgery (P<0.001). Additionally, pain relief after TKR was more prevalent in patients whose CSI score was <40 points (P<0.001). Conclusions: This study showed that neuropathic mechanisms and central sensitization are important sources of persistent pain in patients who have had total knee replacement. Evaluation of central sensitization and neuropathic mechanisms may play an important role in management of pain. Level of Evidence: Level III.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".