MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414931399 · doi:10.7759/cureus.94102

Telerehabilitation After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Narrative Review of Its Effectiveness, Safety, and Access in the Post-COVID Era

2025· review· en· W4414931399 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Samuelson E. Osifo, Mutaleeb Shobode

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelerehabilitationOsteoarthritisPsychological interventionRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialPopulationNarrative reviewMEDLINERange of motion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of disability worldwide, affecting primarily older adults. With rising rates of obesity and population aging, the global burden of OA is expected to grow substantially. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains the definitive treatment for end-stage knee OA. However, the growing demand for postoperative rehabilitation has intensified the strain on the physical therapy (PT) workforce. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of telerehabilitation, but evidence regarding its effectiveness, safety, cost-efficiency, and equity after TKA remains scattered. A narrative review of English-language, full-text articles published between January 2018 and May 2025 was performed. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar were searched using terms including "telerehabilitation", "virtual physical therapy", and "total knee arthroplasty". Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case series (n ≥ 10), or systematic reviews/meta-analyses that compared telerehabilitation with conventional in-person rehabilitation after TKA. Outcomes included functional metrics, e.g., Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Knee Society Score (KSS), pain (visual analog scale, VAS), patient satisfaction, adherence, cost/utilization data, and equity indicators. Eight studies (six RCTs, two meta-analyses; n ≈ 2,070) met the inclusion criteria. Interventions included AI-driven apps, video-based therapy, and wearable sensors. Most studies found telerehabilitation to be non-inferior to conventional PT in improving pain, range of motion (ROM), and function. Meta-analyses showed comparable gains in KOOS, ROM, and VAS scores. Cost-effectiveness was favorable in bundled care models, though technology costs were inconsistently reported. No increased adverse events were observed. Digital literacy and broadband access emerged as equity challenges. Telerehabilitation is a safe, effective adjunct to in-person PT following TKA, with potential to expand access and reduce system strain. Hybrid models may offer the most sustainable path forward.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designNot applicable
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→