A Comparative Study of Risk Factors for Falls in Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Patients and Community‐Dwelling Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Falls in older adults are a public health concern, yet little is known about falls in adults with hip or knee total joint arthroplasty (TJA) who may be at a higher risk than the general population. The study objectives were to compare the number of fallers and fear of falling in TJA patients to age and sex matched community controls, and determine whether the type of risk factors for falls reported in TJA differed from the community group. METHODS: A cross sectional comparative study was conducted with patients waiting or recovering from TJA and age and sex matched comparison group of older adults residing in the community. Reported falls and risk factors for falling were compared to age and sex matched controls from the community. Fear of falling was measured using the Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. Logistic regression was used to determine risk factors associated with falls in TJA and community participants. RESULTS: Of the 198 TJA participants, 29% (n = 57) reported falls within the past 12 months compared to 24% (n = 24) of 100 participants in the control group (p = 0.36). Of those who fell, 25 (44%) were recurrent fallers in the TJA cohort compared with 6 (25%) in the community cohort. Eleven participants reported falls after TJA surgery. Fear of falling was greater in the TJA group (ABC score, mean ± SD: 67.1 ± 24.4) than in the community group (88.1 ± 14.9) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although the number of participants who reported falls was comparable in both groups, the TJA group had more recurrent falls, different risk factors for falls, and more fear of falling. Fall prevention programs should be embedded in pre-operative programs for patients undergoing surgery for TJA.
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) | 0.001 | 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".