Effectiveness of continuous passive motion after total knee replacement: A randomized controlled trial from North India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Continuous passive motion (CPM) is a common strategy for early post-operative rehabilitation of patients who have undergone knee surgery. During an early recovery time following primary total knee replacement (TKR), the efficiency of the CPM approach was evaluated in this study. Aim and Objective: To determine the effectiveness of using a CPM device for individuals with poor ROM after a TKR as compared with non CPM device users. Materials and Methods: Fifty-four TKR patients were distributed into two groups. CPM and exercises were given to the study group, while exercises were given to the control group only. All individuals were assessed for mean active range of motion (AROM), mean Knee Society Score (KSS), and the Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index before and after surgery (WOMAC). Results: The study groups mean AROM was 81.7 ± 15.1, while the control groups was 75.4 ± 21.8. The Study group had a mean KSS score of 135.7 ± 19.7 points, while the control group had a score of 134.2 ± 15.7. Between the two groups, there were no statistical differences. The Study groups KSS functional score was 64.6 ± 8.4, compared to 61.1 ± 7.5 for the control group, yet there was a statistically significant difference between the groups at hospital discharge (P = 0.008). A statistically significant difference in pain level, joint stiffness, and function was also found between the two groups (37.1 ± 12.3 points for the CPM group and 23 ± 14.1 points for the control). Conclusions: From these findings it suggests that CPM has no effect on improving clinical measures. The subjective assessment of pain level, joint stiffness, and functional ability, on the other hand, showed a substantial positive effect. [Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol 2022; 12(10.000): 1556-1559]
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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".