Home-Based vs. Clinic-Based Rehabilitation After Joint Arthroplasty: A Prospective Matched Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Post-operative rehabilitation after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a crucial phase in the recovery process. The choice between clinic-based rehabilitation (CBR) and home-based rehabilitation (HBR) depends on the patient’s specific needs, available resources, and individual preferences. This study aimed to compare CBR and HBR in terms of short-term post-operative functionality in patients who underwent THA and TKA. Methods: A prospective matched cohort study was performed on 120 patients who underwent primary THA and TKA; 60 patients underwent HBR, and 60 underwent CBR. Data gathered included instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs), as well as visual analogue scale (VAS), Vail Hip Score (VHS), and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) questionnaire results. Results: Statistically significant recovery was found in terms of VAS, VHS, and WOMAC in the HBR and CBR groups (all p < 0.001) after THA and TKA. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that higher values of VHS and WOMAC at 1 month were associated with better values of VAS, VHS, and WOMAC preoperatively (r = 0.095, p = 0.021). Conclusion: HBR showed similar short-term postoperative outcomes when compared with CBR for patients who underwent total joint arthroplasty. Greater preoperative joint functionality, a lower level of pain, and a female gender predicted better functional outcomes at 1 month after surgery in both groups.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".