Isokinetic training of lower extremity during the early stage promote functional restoration in elder patients with disability after Total knee replacement (TKR) - a randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transient progressive weakness and disability of lower limb during the early stage after TKR will increase the risk of fall, but the superior postoperative strength training mode have not been elucidated for functional restoration. This study aimed to compare whether the isokinetic lower limb training is superior to either isotonic or home isometric exercise during early stage after TKR in older people. METHODS: A total of 43 recruited old participants (mean age, 68.40 years old) receiving TKR were divided randomly based on the different four-week training modes into three groups including isokinetic, isotonic, and home isometric exercise (control group). The primary outcome was set as functional performance in terms of Timed Up and Go (TUG) test and the secondary outcomes include the peak torque of knee at 60 and 120 degree/ second, Short-Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis index (WOMAC). RESULTS: All of the peak torque measurements of the knee improved significantly in both the isokinetic and the isotonic group, but not in the control group. Although isotonic training resulted in more strength gains, a significant enhancement in TUG test was observed in the isokinetic group only (p = 0.003). However, there were no significantly improvement of TUG test after training in other two groups. SF-36 and WOMAC improved after training in all three groups, with no significant difference in the degree of improvement between groups. CONCLUSION: Isokinetic training for 4 weeks following TKR effectively improved all the outcome parameters in this study, including the TUG test, lower limb strength, and functional scores. However, both isokinetic and isotonic training modes could be recommended after TKR because of no significant difference in the degree of improvement between these two groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration number: NCT02938416. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".