Quality of Life Following High-Intensity Rehabilitation Programme After Total Knee Arthroplasties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of disability. In advanced knee OA, the preferred treatment is total knee arthroplasty (TKA) when conservative therapies fail. Although TKA reduces pain, achieving full functional recovery is challenging.Objectives: The aim of this study is to examine the impact of a high-intensity (HI) rehabilitation protocol on quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes in post-TKA patients.Materials and Methods: This prospective, single-centre cohort study included 41 patients undergoing unilateral TKA in a hospital unit. Patients participated in an HI rehabilitation programme involving supervised exercises during hospitalisation and outpatient follow-ups over 12 weeks. Assessments of QoL and function were conducted preoperatively and at 4, 12, and 24 weeks postoperatively using the Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) and Barthel Index.Results: Significant improvements were observed in pain, stiffness, physical function, and overall QoL at all post-intervention time points (p<0.05). Regarding the percentage of change, the median in total WOMAC was 96 (80.92-98.48), in total SF 12, it reached 167.65 (79.57-295.65), and in total Barthel index, the value was 25 (17.65-42.86). QoL gains were consistent regardless of demographic factors such as age, body mass index (BMI) or prior TKA history; however, mental health composite scores correlated positively with age and inversely with BMI. No correlation was found between preoperative measures and patient variables such as age, duration of illness or BMI (p≥0.05).Conclusion: HI rehabilitation post-TKA effectively enhances QoL and functional outcomes, supporting its role in postoperative care. Given the observed benefits, implementing structured rehabilitation protocols can optimise recovery for TKA patients. Future research should focus on identifying optimal rehabilitation strategies for certain subgroups, exploring how adjustments to protocol parameters (e.g., exercise type, intensity, progression) based on individual patient characteristics to optimize recovery
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".