Effect of Low-Level Laser Therapy on Knee Range of Motion and Functional Abilities After Total Knee Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of combined low-level laser therapy (LLL) and rehabilitation in patients following recent total knee replacement (TKR). Methods: A double-blind randomized controlled study was conducted at the Orthopedic Department of Mansoura University Hospital. Forty-four patients were chosen from a total of 58 patients who met the inclusion criteria and were assigned randomly into control and experimental groups of equal size. Ultimately, 40 patients completed the study (20 from each group). Both groups participated in an intensive functional rehabilitation program, and the experimental group also received LLL therapy around the knee at the incisional line, the medial and lateral intra-articular space, above and below the patella, and at the popliteal fossa at low fluence (6 J/cm2, 650 nm continuous wave) and 60 s per point with a total dose of 48 J per session over 12 treatment sessions for six weeks. Knee range of motion (ROM) was measured with a digital goniometer, and functional abilities were assessed with the Arabic version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index. Results: There were significant differences in all variables pre- and post-treatment within each group. Before treatment, there was no significant difference in any of the measured variables between the groups (P>0.05). After treatment, there were significant differences in knee flexion ROM and WOMAC index (P<0.05) but no significant difference in knee extension ROM between the groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: The addition of low-level laser therapy to a rehabilitation program post-TKR resulted in substantial enhancements in knee flexion range of motion and the WOMAC index.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".