Patients Undergoing Manipulation under Anesthesia following Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: Are Their Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Inferior?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Stiffness after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can lead to decreased function and patient dissatisfaction. Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) is often performed to improve range of motion (ROM); however, there is no consensus on indications or timing. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical results and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between patients who underwent MUA versus those with an uncomplicated postoperative course following primary TKA. This was an institutional review board-approved retrospective review of 116 consecutive patients who underwent MUA from 2013 to 2019 following primary TKA due to stiffness. Indication for MUA was failure to achieve 105 degrees of knee flexion at 6 weeks following surgery. Five patients underwent revision surgery and 15 patients from the MUA group were excluded: 12 lost to follow-up and 3 deaths. The remaining 96 MUA patients were matched to 288 TKAs who did not require MUA or revision, all with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients who underwent MUA were younger (60.7 vs. 66.3 years, p < 0.001) and had less preoperative knee flexion (105.4 vs. 110.7 degrees, p < 0.001). There were five (4.9%) revisions in the MUA group: two instability, two chronic pain, and one arthrofibrosis. There were no differences between the groups with respect to postoperative Knee Society Knee Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement, Forgotten Joint Score-12, satisfaction, or complications. Satisfaction rates were 88.5% among MUA patients and 89.6% among non-MUA patients (p = 1.0). Patients undergoing MUA following TKA, using the criteria of failure to achieve 105 degrees of flexion by 6 weeks postoperatively, were able to achieve similar PROMs and satisfaction compared with a control group with a low incidence of revision due to persistent arthrofibrosis.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".