Impact of continuous passive motion on rehabilitation following total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is an ongoing controversy in respect of the usage of continuous passive motion (CPM) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We analysed the impact of CPM on the early rehabilitation after TKA and the clinical outcome over the time. METHODS: Forty patients were prospectively randomized to postoperative protocols following TKA. Half of them (n = 20) received the standard manual therapy alone and the others (n = 20) were treated additionally with CPM. Identical implants were used in all patients. Passive range of movement (PROM) was noted. Patient satisfaction and knee function was evaluated using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) as well as the Knee Society Score (KSS) at time of discharge and 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: The patients in the solitary manual therapy group (MT) showed preoperatively a 7.2° greater PROM (p = .03) with 5.4° higher flexion (p = .05). Analogously, the KSS presented with 42.7 points a higher score result compared to the CPM group with 35.9 points (p = .03). Although the preoperative ability with 105.2° for flexion and 97.2° for the PROM were in favour of the group without CPM (99.8° resp. 90.0°), at time of discharge the patients with CPM reached with 111.0° a significant higher flexion and with 109.0° a higher PROM (MT group: 107.0° resp. 103.5°) (p = .04/.02). At 2 years follow-up both scores (WOMAC/KSS) and function (extension, flexion and PROM) were balanced (p > .05). Patella resurfacing showed no impact on the clinical results at discharge or at time of last follow-up (p > .05). DISCUSSION: Although the addition of CPM did significantly improve knee flexion in the early postoperative stage, the difference might not represent a clinical relevance. Further, there were no notable effects on long-term clinical and functional results following TKA, so the routine application of CPM in the above stated setting might be ceased.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".