MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412554335 · doi:10.7759/cureus.88501

Comparing Intensive and Conventional Therapy: A Meta-Analysis of Postoperative Physical Outcomes After Total Knee Replacement

2025· review· en· W4412554335 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohamed Zahed, Alzahraa Faris Alesawy, Ziad Samir Zahed, Mahmoud Eleisawy

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisTotal knee replacementPhysical therapySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common degenerative joint disease causing cartilage damage, bone erosion, and chronic pain, often leading to disability. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is frequently performed to relieve OA symptoms. Conventional therapy training (CTT) is the standard intervention, whether preoperative or postoperative. We assume that intensive therapy training (ITT) may have higher effects in some aspects. The study aims to evaluate the impact of postoperative CTT versus ITT on various physical measures and questionnaires over different follow-up periods. Our systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines, searching until June 2024. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (ROB 2) tool. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK), with mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and heterogeneity was assessed via P-value and I2 tests. The study consisted of 1087 patients. In the first month of follow-up, ITT did not significantly reduce pain on the visual analog scale (VAS) compared to CTT, with similar results at three and 12 months (overall MD = -0.38, 95% CI = -1.56 to 0.8, P = 0.53). For Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, ITT showed significant improvement within the first week and at one month (MD = -14.60 and MD = -3.11, respectively), but not at later follow-ups. In range of motion (ROM) flexion, ITT significantly improved outcomes in the first week (MD = 8.60, P = 0.001), but showed no significant differences at one and three months. No other outcomes showed any significant difference, and both results in ITT and CTT were similar. In TKA rehabilitation, ITT provides early benefits, particularly in improving ROM flexion and WOMAC scores during the initial postoperative week. However, ITT does not show significant advantages over CTT in terms of walking distance, quadriceps strength, ROM extension, or pain reduction throughout various follow-up periods. While ITT offers slight early gains, it does not present long-term benefits over CTT. Incorporating preoperative training into the postoperative regimen may be beneficial. We recommend that high-intensity exercises may not be necessary, as they yield similar results to conventional methods. However, further research is needed to explore both early and long-term outcomes that are not fully addressed in current studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.061
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureus→Same topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes→French-language works237,207→