Efficacy and safety of a self-developed home-based enhanced knee flexion exercise program compared with standard supervised physiotherapy to improve mobility and quality of life after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This randomized controlled study compared standard supervised physiotherapy (SPT) with a self-developed, home-based, enhanced knee flexion exercise program involving a low stool (KFEH) in patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: Patients were recruited from July 2014 to December 2015 and randomly assigned to one of two groups: KFEH (n = 60) and SPT (n = 59). Outcomes (joint function) were evaluated according to the Knee Society Score (KSS), visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, and range of motion (ROM) assessment at selected time points (preoperatively; 1 week; 1, 3, and 6 months; and 1 year after surgery). RESULTS: Pain and functional improvement were observed in both groups. Non-inferiority of KFEH was evident 12 months postoperatively; however, patients in the KFEH group exhibited better ROM at 1 month (P < 0.01). Absolute WOMAC and KSS scores were slightly better in the KFEH group, although the difference was not statistically significant. There was no difference in VAS scores and complication rates between the two groups. Additionally, the home program would save patient time and decrease the economic burden associated with in-hospital SPT. CONCLUSION: Considering rehabilitation and economic efficiency as well as the COVID pandemic, a home-based enhanced knee flexion exercise program for TKA rehabilitation is recommended.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".