Does preoperative physiotherapy improve outcomes in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty? A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the scientific literature and to investigate the effectiveness of preoperative rehabilitation on subjective and objective outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) when compared with patients in a control group. DATA SOURCES: A search was conducted in PubMed, PubMed Central, Embase, Cochrane Library and Physiotherapy Evidence Database databases in May 2021. STUDY SELECTION: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were reviewed if they compared a preoperative physiotherapy exercise intervention with no intervention group for patients undergoing TKA for severe Osteoarthritis (OA). A total of 24 RCTs were included at the end of the evaluation process. By the end of the evaluation process, a total of 24 RCTs were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies. The outcomes were knee extension, knee flexion, pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), overall Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index, 6 min walking test, and Timed Up and Go test. RESULTS: The majority of the studies included in this systemic review demonstrated a comparable trend of long-term postoperative improvement of knee extension strength, VAS, range of movement and functional scores, and those of quality of life between two groups. Many studies showed a significant improvement in terms of preoperative pain, length of hospital stay and functional performance shortly after the operation, but all studies failed to show a prolonged effect on knee motion or patient function between 3 and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Low to moderate evidence from mostly small RCTs demonstrated that preoperative physiotherapy interventions reduce pain and improve functional performance for patients with knee OA prior shortly after the 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 | 0.011 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".