Effectiveness and safety of outpatient rehabilitation versus home-based rehabilitation after knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rehabilitation post-knee arthroplasty is integral to regaining knee function and ensuring patients' overall well-being. The debate over the relative effectiveness and safety of outpatient versus home-based rehabilitation persists. METHODS: A thorough literature review was conducted adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines across four databases. Two researchers independently identified eligible studies centering on knee arthroplasty patients undergoing either outpatient or home-based rehabilitation. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool, while continuous outcomes were subject to meta-analyses using Stata 17 software. RESULTS: Our analysis identified no significant differences in primary outcomes, including Range of Motion, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Oxford Knee Score, and the Knee Society Score, between home-based and outpatient rehabilitation across different follow-up points. Adverse reactions, readmission rates, the need for manipulation under anesthesia, reoperation rate, and post-surgery complications were also similar between both groups. Home-based rehabilitation demonstrated cost-effectiveness, resulting in substantial annual savings. Furthermore, quality of life and patient satisfaction were found to be comparable in both rehabilitation methods. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based rehabilitation post-knee arthroplasty appears as an effective, safe, and cost-efficient alternative to outpatient rehabilitation. Despite these findings, further multicenter, long-term randomized controlled trials are required to validate these findings and provide robust evidence to inform early rehabilitation choices post-knee arthroplasty.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".