Efficacy of Post-Operative Logbook-Based Quadriceps Exercises on Functional Outcome after Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Most patients who undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are elderly. Some patients have recognition impairments and cannot correctly perform home-based rehabilitation effectively. This study aimed to compare the functional outcomes between logbook- and non-logbook-based quadricep exercises. Methods: In this prospective cohort study with retrospective case controls scheduled for unilateral primary/bilateral TKA, we compared 57 patients who received post-operative home-based rehabilitation and seated knee extension exercises (non-logbook group) with 60 patients who received the same protocol but were provided a logbook with paper handouts containing the schedule, date, time, and record form (logbook group). The modified Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores and data pertaining to range of motion (ROM) were collected pre-operatively and at 6, 12, and 24 weeks post-operatively. Results: The logbook group showed a significant improvement in the mean difference in function and total WOMAC scores at 6-weeks post-operatively (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the pre- and post-operative ROM at any follow-up time point between the groups. Conclusions: Logbook-based quadriceps exercises resulted in significant early improvement in the functional outcomes. Logbooks may help patients who have undergone TKA to perform their home-based exercise regimens accurately.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".