ArticleCureus2026
Mobilisation After Total Knee Replacement Within an Enhanced Recovery Pathway: A Two-Cycle Clinical Audit.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly mobilisation following total knee replacement (TKR) is a key component of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways and is associated with improved functional recovery and reduced length of stay. An initial local audit (MAKE1) identified delays in mobilisation related to postoperative pain and lack of physiotherapy input on postoperative day (POD) 0.
aimTo assess compliance with early mobilisation standards following implementation of audit recommendations and to identify factors associated with delayed mobilisation and discharge after TKR.
methodsA retrospective two-cycle clinical audit was conducted in the Orthopaedic Department at James Paget University Hospital. Patients undergoing primary TKR between June and July 2025 were included. Outcomes included time to first mobilisation, length of stay, documented barriers to mobilisation, timing of physiotherapy assessment, and recorded anaesthetic technique. Findings were compared with the initial audit cycle. The audit was registered with the hospital audit department.
resultsA total of 64 patients underwent TKR, and 63 were included in the final analysis due to incomplete documentation for one patient. Mobilisation within 24 hours was achieved in 57/63 patients (90.5%), compared with 35/53 (66%) in the first audit cycle. The median length of stay remained two days. Postoperative pain was the most frequently documented barrier to early mobilisation and was associated with prolonged admission (mean = 5.2 days). Other barriers included delirium, deep vein thrombosis or cellulitis, vasovagal episodes, and fatigue (mean = 4.8 days). No POD 0 physiotherapy assessments were documented; early mobilisation was supported by ward-based staff, with routine physiotherapy review occurring from POD 1. No clear differences in mobilisation timing or discharge were observed between spinal and general anaesthesia.
conclusionThe descriptive data show higher compliance with mobilisation within 24 hours in MAKE2 compared with MAKE1 following implementation of audit recommendations. Persistent barriers related to pain management and lack of POD 0 physiotherapy input remain key targets for ongoing quality improvement within ERAS pathways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.