MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408929355 · doi:10.3390/prosthesis7020034

Home-Based vs. Conventional Rehabilitation Following Total Knee Arthroplasty

2025· article· en· W4408929355 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lorenzo Massimo Oldrini, Alessandro Sangiorgio, Sebastiano Nutarelli, Marco Delcogliano, Alessandro Bensa, Giuseppe Filardo

Bibliographic record

VenueProsthesis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal knee arthroplastyRehabilitationArthroplastyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate whether home-based physical therapy (HPT) is as safe and effective as the conventional inpatient/outpatient physical therapy (CPT) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: Three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane) were systematically searched on 8 January 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HPT with CPT following TKA were included. The outcomes included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), 6 min walking test, range of motion (ROM), 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), and visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, and were analyzed at short-term (≤12 weeks) and mid/long-term follow-ups (>12 weeks). Results: Twenty RCTs (3706 patients) were included. Both groups experienced significant improvements, but no differences emerged when comparing all analyzed outcomes. WOMAC improvement was 36.2 points with HPT (p < 0.0001) vs. 39.2 with CPT (p < 0.0001); KOOS increased by 24.8 points with HPT (p < 0.0001) vs. 25.2 points with CPT (p < 0.0001); OKS improved by 16.1 points with HPT (p < 0.0001) vs. 16.3 points with CPT (p < 0.0001); ROM improved by 6.3° with HPT (p = n.s.) vs. 7.7° with CPT (p = 0.029); SF-36 improved by 3.3 points with HPT (p = n.s) vs. 7.4 points with CPT (p = n.s.); and VAS pain decreased by 2.5 points with HPT (p < 0.0001) vs. 3.0 points with CPT (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: HPT is a valid option for the post-operative rehabilitation of patients undergoing TKA, leading to results similar to CPT. This questions the need for a more complex and expensive management of these patients, considering the additional HPT benefits of healthcare cost reductions, early patient discharge, and less in-person physical therapy sessions, with equal patient final satisfaction. While this review offers a comprehensive representation of numerous studies, the research underlines significant heterogeneity in the reported data, thereby diminishing the overall robustness of the analysis, and future studies are needed to confirm the study results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProsthesisSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207