Rehabilitation protocols after ankle surgeries: A narrative literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction This narrative review explores the findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in terms of timing and the components of ankle rehabilitation. Method We reviewed RCTs since 1986 and categorized them by the timing and the components of the intervention. The timing of intervention was classified as immediate, early and delayed ankle rehabilitation. The component of intervention was categorized based on whether ankle motion or weight bearing was assessed individually against “no intervention” or as an additional component compared to the control arm. Results A total of 20 RCTs were included. Four evaluated immediate/early ankle motion against immobilization and five assessed the efficacy of immediate/early weight bearing versus delayed weight bearing. Six RCTs assessed the additional benefit of immediate/early ankle motion programs on weight bearing and four evaluated the additional benefit of immediate/early weight bearing on ankle motion programs. One RCT compared combined “early ankle motion and early weight bearing” with delayed rehabilitation. Conclusion This review suggests that both ankle motion and weight bearing lead to improved function and faster return to work compared with no intervention. Adding ankle motion to weight bearing programs did not show significant functional benefit, while adding weight bearing to ankle motion programs significantly improved function and lead to earlier return to work. Immediate/early rehabilitation programs appear safe regarding the risk of reduction loss and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) except in syndesmotic fractures. However, they were associated with a higher incidence of superficial wound complications compared with delayed rehabilitation.
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 | 0.010 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".