Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41908994›Full record

ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2026

Continuous Active Motion Versus Continuous Passive Motion for Rehabilitation of Patients After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Claudia Sasse, Jonathan Lettner, Nikolai Ramadanov, Aleksandra Królikowska, Roland Becker, Robert Prill

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Claudia SasseCenter of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, University Hospital Brandenburg, Brandenburg/Havel, Germany.
Jonathan LettnerCenter of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, University Hospital Brandenburg, Brandenburg/Havel, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-9969-6189
Nikolai RamadanovCenter of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, University Hospital Brandenburg, Brandenburg/Havel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4669-8187
Aleksandra KrólikowskaPhysiotherapy Research Laboratory, Faculty of Physiotherapy, University Centre of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.ORCID 0009-0007-2939-7370
Roland BeckerCenter of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, University Hospital Brandenburg, Brandenburg/Havel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1833-7608
Robert PrillCenter of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, University Hospital Brandenburg, Brandenburg/Havel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4916-1206

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Rehabilitation following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) includes various therapeutic interventions, such as continuous active motion (CAM) and continuous passive motion (CPM). This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of CAM and CPM on pain, function, and range of motion post-TKA, focusing on the early postoperative period. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in databases including Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CINAHL to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CAM and CPM post-TKA. Studies were required to include at least two postoperative measurements and combine the interventions with standard physiotherapy. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the JBI appraisal tool, and statistical analysis was performed on suitable studies. Results: Seven RCTs involving 501 patients were included. Meta-analysis indicated significant pain reduction and improved functional outcomes with CAM compared to CPM, particularly in postoperative pain assessments. CAM showed advantages in functional tests, including the Sit-to-Stand and Timed-Up-and-Go tests. However, no significant differences were found for active and passive range of motion (ROM). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) showed high heterogeneity, limiting clear conclusions. Conclusions: CAM demonstrates significant benefits in pain reduction and functional recovery compared to CPM following TKA. However, variability in outcome measures and intervention protocols limits comparability across studies and therefore generalizability. CAM's requirement for active patient engagement may present practical challenges, while CPM's standardization allows for easier integration into routine postoperative care.

Indexed as

CAMCPMKnee replacementPhysical therapyRange of motionTKR

Identifiers

PMID41908994
PMCPMC13031591

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.