Effect of continuous passive motion on the early recovery outcomes after total knee arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Continuous passive motion (CPM) is a frequently used method in the early post-operative rehabilitation of patients after knee surgery. In this study, the effectiveness of the CPM method was evaluated after primary total knee arthroplasty during an early recovery period. METHODS: Eighty patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty were assigned into two groups. The experimental group received CPM and active exercises, while the control group active exercises only. All subjects were evaluated once before the surgery and at a discharge, in terms of mean active range of motion (AROM), mean Knee Society Score (KSS), and Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). RESULTS: The mean AROM for the experimental group was 82.3° ± 14.3° and 76.1° ± 22.2° for the control. The mean KSS score was 136.4 ± 19.3 points for the experimental group, and 135.7 ± 15.1 for the control. There were no statistical differences between the two groups. The KSS functional score was 66.4 ± 8.1 points for the experimental group compared to 62.2 ± 7.3 points for the control, but there was a statistically significant difference between the groups at discharge from the hospital (p = 0.009). A subjective estimation of the pain level, joint stiffness and function also showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (38.6 ± 14.3 points for the CPM group and 21.2 ± 15.7 for the control). CONCLUSION: These findings show that there is no significant effect of CPM in terms of improving clinical measurements. However, there was a significant beneficial effect on the subjective assessment of pain level, joint stiffness, and functional ability.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".