Central Sensitization and Neuropathic Pain Cumulatively Affect Patients Reporting Inferior Outcomes Following Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Update This article was updated on November 17, 2023, because of previous errors, which were discovered after the preliminary version of the article was posted online. On page 102, the text that had read “In a post hoc analysis of the preoperative results, Group 1 showed significantly inferior WOMAC pain, function, and total scores compared with Group 4 (p < 0.05 for all). Groups 2 and 3 showed worse preoperative WOMAC pain, function, and total subscores compared with Group 4 (p < 0.05 for all). These results remained the same at 2 years after surgery.” now reads “In a post hoc analysis of the preoperative results, Groups 1, 2, and 3 showed significantly inferior WOMAC pain, function, and total scores compared with Group 4 (p < 0.05 for all). At 2 years postoperatively, Group 1 showed inferior WOMAC pain, function, and total scores compared with the other groups (p < 0.05 for all). Also, Groups 2 and 3 had worse WOMAC pain, function and total scores compared with Group 4 (p < 0.05 for all).” Also, on page 106, the title of Table IV, which had previously read “Inter-Group Comparison of Preoperative Scores (Post Hoc Analysis)” now reads “Inter-Group Comparison of Postoperative Scores (Post Hoc Analysis).” Background: Available studies on the relationship between central sensitization and neuropathic pain, and on their association with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are insufficient. The purpose of the present study was to investigate this association. Methods: A total of 316 patients who underwent primary unilateral TKA for the treatment of end-stage osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee were enrolled. Central sensitization was defined as a score of ≥40 on the Central Sensitization Inventory. Neuropathic pain was defined as a score of ≥19 on the painDETECT Questionnaire (PDQ). PROMs were also evaluated on the basis of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score preoperatively and at 2 years postoperatively. The patients were divided into 4 groups: Group 1 had both central sensitization and neuropathic pain, Group 2 had central sensitization only, Group 3 had neuropathic pain only, and Group 4 had neither central sensitization nor neuropathic pain. Preoperative and postoperative PROMs were compared among the groups. Results: All individuals who participated in the study were Asian, especially Korean. Fifty-five patients (17.4%) had both central sensitization and neuropathic pain, 68 (21.5%) had central sensitization only, 35 (11.1%) had neuropathic pain only, and 158 (50.0%) had neither condition. All WOMAC subscores showed significant differences among the 4 groups before and after surgery (p < 0.05 for all). In a post hoc analysis of the preoperative results, Groups 1, 2, and 3 showed significantly inferior WOMAC pain, function, and total scores compared with Group 4 (p < 0.05 for all). At 2 years postoperatively, Group 1 showed inferior WOMAC pain, function, and total scores compared with the other groups (p < 0.05 for all). Also, Groups 2 and 3 had worse WOMAC pain, function and total scores compared with Group 4 (p < 0.05 for all). Conclusions: Each condition, central sensitization and neuropathic pain, was associated with inferior PROMs following TKA. Furthermore, patients with both central sensitization and neuropathic pain showed worse PROMs compared with patients with either condition alone or without either condition. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".