Return to Running after Knee Arthroplasty: A Case Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals who have undergone knee arthroplasty may still want to run, but no study has reported a progression to guide patients and clinicians. The objective of this case report is to document the process of returning to running after total knee arthroplasty with a 1-year follow-up. The client was a 55-year-old woman, former triathlete, who underwent unilateral knee arthroplasty 1 year prior to consultation. She alternated slow running with walking and increased based on symptoms. She also performed a lower limb exercise programme. The client was a low-impact forefoot striker, ran with a high step rate and wore minimalist shoes. During the 1-year follow-up, she reported no knee pain but experienced minor episodes of calf strains. Towards the end, her comfort level was best when alternating running and walking for 3-4 km, three to four times per week. The client reached her objective of finishing an olympic distance triathlon. The exercise programme also helped to increase lower limb strength and improve physical performance. This case report suggests that it is possible to return to running up to 1 year after total knee arthroplasty. Future research should study bigger samples and monitor implant wear to provide better guidance to patients and physiotherapists.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".