Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Effectiveness of continuous passive motion after total knee replacement: a randomized controlled trial from North India
Sahni G, Singh S, Singh D, Kavia A
National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology 2022;12(10):1556-1559
clinical trial
3/10 [Eligibility criteria: No; Random allocation: No; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

BACKGROUND: Continuous passive motion (CPM) is a common strategy for early post-operative rehabilitation of patients who have undergone knee surgery. During an early recovery time following primary total knee replacement (TKR), the efficiency of the CPM approach was evaluated in this study. AIM AND OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of using a CPM device for individuals with poor ROM after a TKR as compared with non CPM device users. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four TKR patients were distributed into two groups. CPM and exercises were given to the study group, while exercises were given to the control group only. All individuals were assessed for mean active range of motion (AROM), mean Knee Society Score (KSS), and the Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index before and after surgery (WOMAC). RESULTS: The study group's mean AROM was 81.7 +/- 15.1, while the control group's was 75.4 +/- 21.8. The Study group had a mean KSS score of 135.7 +/- 19.7 points, while the control group had a score of 134.2 +/- 15.7. Between the two groups, there were no statistical differences. The Study group's KSS functional score was 64.6 +/- 8.4, compared to 61.1 +/- 7.5 for the control group, yet there was a statistically significant difference between the groups at hospital discharge (p = 0.008). A statistically significant difference in pain level, joint stiffness, and function was also found between the two groups (37.1 +/- 12.3 points for the CPM group and 23 +/- 14.1 points for the control). CONCLUSIONS: From these findings it suggests that CPM has no effect on improving clinical measures. The subjective assessment of pain level, joint stiffness, and functional ability, on the other hand, showed a substantial positive effect.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help