Effects of telerehabilitation-implemented core stability exercises on patient-reported and performance-based outcomes in total knee arthroplasty patients: randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Face-to-face access to exercise programs, including standard exercises (SE) and core stability exercises (CSE), can be challenging for many total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients.Objectives To investigate the effects of adding CSE to SE on patient-reported and performance-based outcomes in TKA patients using telerehabilitation (TR).Methods Group 1 (SE, n = 21) and Group 2 (SE+CSE, n = 21). Follow-up included videoconferences (1–8 weeks) and telephone calls (9–12 weeks). Assessments (preoperatively and at 1st, 2nd, and 3rd postoperative months) included; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): functional level, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS): pain intensity, Copenhagen Knee Range of Motion (ROM) Scale (CKRS): knee ROM, Short Form-12 (SF-12) and World Health Organization Quality of Life Brief Version (WHOQOL-BREF): quality of life, 30-s Chair-Stand Test: muscle strength, and Stair Climb Test: locomotor performance.Results All assessments showed a significant improvement after treatment in group 1 (p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.315 to 0.959) and group 2 (p < .001, d = 0.445 to 0.901). There was no significant difference between groups in knee flexion ROM (p > .05). Group 2 achieved better results in functional level (p = .001 to 0.003,d = −0.334 to 1.207), pain intensity (p = .030,d = −0.334), knee extension ROM (p = .015,d = −0.374), quality of life (p = .001 to 0.046,d = −0.308 to −1.366), muscle strength (p = .002 to 0.016,d = −0.779 to −1.030), and locomotor performance (p = .004 to 0.009, d = 0.404 to 0.954).Conclusion SE and SE+CSE via TR enhance patient-reported and performance-based outcomes in post-operative TKA patients, with CSE providing additional benefits. These results support using CSE in TR programs for TKA and encourage further research on TR.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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".