Effects of Phased Rehabilitation Programs after Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This multi-center, single-blinded, randomized controlled study assessed the efficacy of phased exercise rehabilitation programs in patients who underwent a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and investigated suitable exercise types, intensities, and frequencies for patients undergoing postoperative rehabilitation. Between January and March 2018, 494 patients who had undergone TKA were treated at two medical centers. Patients were randomized and allocated to the rehabilitation group (n=330) or the control group (n=164; treated with postoperative care). The 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), range of motion, and Short-Form 36 (SF-36) scores were assessed and compared between the two groups. The average WOMAC score was 84.40±15.20 in the rehabilitation group and 108.30±3.90 in the control group (p=0.009). The mean VAS score was 2.54±0.16 in the rehabilitation group and 2.87±0.31 in the control group (p=0.024). Furthermore, the range of motion was 125.02±6.20 in the rehabilitation group and 116.40±1.40 in the control group (p=0.017). The mean SF-36 score was 105.40±21.50 in the rehabilitation group and 83.70±5.01 in the control group (p=0.043). This study suggests that the phase rehabilitation program could be more effective at improving pain, knee function, and quality of life than condition postoperative care after TKA.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".