Fast track versus standard rehabilitation protocol after total knee replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Total knee replacement (TKR) is a widely performed procedure for individuals suffering from end-stage knee osteoarthritis. Two primary rehabilitation approaches are employed, Fast Track Rehabilitation Protocol (FTRP) and Standard Rehabilitation Protocol (SRP). Objective: This study aimed to compare effects of FTRP versus SRP on gait spatiotemporal parameters, functional outcomes, and knee scoring systems in patients having total knee replacement. Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted involving 60 patients undergoing primary unilateral TKR. Patients were randomized into either the Fast Track Rehabilitation Group (n=30) or the Standard Rehabilitation Group (n=30). Functional and gait outcomes were assessed using gait spatiotemporal parameters (velocity, cadence, stride length, step length, swing time, and stance time) measured via Kinovea software, Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) as well as Knee Society Score (KSS) for objective functional assessment. Assessments were conducted preoperatively, at 3 months, 6 months, in addition to 12 months postoperatively. Results: At three months, Fast Track group showed significantly greater stride length (p=0.000) and gait velocity (p=0.002) than Standard group. The Fast Track group demonstrated significantly lower WOMAC scores, indicating better function, at three and six months (p=0.008, p=0.000). Both groups exhibited progressive improvement in Knee Society Score (KSS) over time, with no significant differences among groups at any time point (p > 0.05). At twelve months, both groups showed similar improvements, confirming that SRP achieved comparable outcomes over time. Conclusion: While both Fast Track and Standard Rehabilitation Protocols effectively improve gait, functional capacity, and knee function within twelve months post-TKR, Fast Track Rehabilitation provides earlier improvements in mobility, pain reduction, and gait efficiency within the first three to six months. However, by one year postoperatively, both approaches result in comparable functional outcomes, suggesting that rehabilitation strategies should be tailored based on individual patient needs, tolerance, and preferences.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".