Effect of combined hip and knee exercises on rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: A prospective randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: To explore the clinical effect of combined hip–knee joint exercise compared with traditional postoperative rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).Methods: In a prospective, single-blind randomized controlled trial, 60 female patients with osteoarthritis who underwent unilateral TKA were randomly divided into three groups: a resistive intervention group, a nonresistive intervention group and a control group. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) values, Forgotten Joint Score (FJS)-12 values, isokinetic muscle strength, and gait test results were measured and recorded preoperatively, two weeks postoperatively and three months postoperatively.Results: With the preoperative evaluation as baseline, the resistive hip–knee joint exercise group had lower functional scores and stronger quadriceps femoris and hip abductor muscles than the nonresistive group (p<0.05 for both). Both hip–knee exercise groups had stronger quadriceps femoris, hip abductor and hip rotator muscles than the control group (p<0.05). Two weeks postoperatively, both hip–knee strength training groups had lower functional scores than the control group (p<0.05) but stronger quadriceps femoris and external hip rotator muscles (p<0.05). Preoperative and 2-week postoperative gait analysis revealed that combined hip–knee strengthening could increase step length (p<0.05) and the ability to stand on the affected limb (p<0.05).Conclusion: A 12-week regimen of combined hip–knee exercises could improve the function of the affected limb after TKA, the movement patterns of the knee joint during gait, and the therapeutic effect of TKA and accelerate patients’ rehabilitation. The effect of combined hip–knee exercises positively correlated with increases in exercise load.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 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".