The effects of preoperative rehabilitation on pain and functional outcome after total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There have been controversial findings for the effectiveness of rehabilitation before operation after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aimed to conduct an updated, comprehensive systematic review. On that basis, the review was to be combined with meta-analysis to measure the effects of rehabilitation before operation on functions and pain after TKA. METHODS: Articles were searched by using Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane, Pubmed, CNKI, Wanfang, Weipu and the Chinese Biomedical Database from the beginning to December 10, 2021. The major outcomes included pain, knee flexion and extension, as well as knee range of motion (ROM). Secondary outcomes included timed-up-and-go (TUG), 6-min walk, and patient-reported functional outcome (the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)). Third outcomes included the length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Nineteen studies recruiting 1008 patients satisfied with the inclusion criteria. Significant difference was identified in knee flexion, TUG, KOOS (knee-associated life quality and functions in sports and recreation), as well as the length of hospital stay (P < 0.05). Insignificant statistical difference was identified in pain, 6-min walk, ROM, knee extension, KOOS (pain, symptoms and function of daily living) after TKA between the two groups. No difference was found between the groups in WOMAC. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative rehabilitation could significantly shorten hospital stay, whereas there is not any conclusive evidence of the improvement of postoperative functions. Accordingly, in-depth high-quality studies should be conducted to confirm the effectiveness of preoperative rehabilitation in patients having received 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 | 0.022 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".