The Effect of Continuous Passive Motion in Patients Treated With Total Knee Arthroplasty for Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to identify the effectiveness of the continuous passive motion application on clinical outcomes after total knee arthroplasty, based on evidence from recently published high-quality randomized controlled trials. DESIGN: Two reviewers retrieved platforms of PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL independently, for identifying eligible randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of continuous passive motion applied after total knee arthroplasty for knee osteoarthritis. Subgroup meta-analyses were performed for all syntheses based on the follow-up intervals. RESULTS: A total of 10 randomized controlled trials, involving 841 patients, were finally included. Data were available for 15 different outcomes (including active/passive knee extension/flexion/full range of motion, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index-pain/physical function/stiffness/total score, visual analogue scale, time up and go, knee girth, Knee Society Scale-function/knee score), at several time points. In general, most of the pools demonstrated similar outcome between continuous passive motion and noncontinuous passive motion groups. Exclusively, the active knee extension at 1 wk (mean difference = 3.00, 95% confidence interval = 0.5-5.5, P = 0.019*), passive knee extension at 1 wk (mean difference = 3.00, 95% confidence interval = 0.28-5.72, P = 0.031*), and 3 mos (mean difference = 3.00, 95% confidence interval = 0.5-5.5, P = 0.019*) were shown to be significantly slightly different between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a limited role of continuous passive motion in patients operated with total knee arthroplasty. Thus, there is at this stage no indication for continuous passive motion procedures in patients operated with total knee arthroplasty as a standard postoperative care.
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 | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".