The effectiveness of telerehabilitation in patients after total knee replacement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background: Total knee replacement is a commonly adopted surgical intervention to reduce physical limitations and pain in advanced-stage knee osteoarthritis. However, these patients may experience physical dysfunction to limit their access during conventional rehabilitation after total knee replacement. The use of telemedicine may be the promising solution. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of telerehabilitation with conventional in-person rehabilitation in patients who underwent a total knee replacement. Methods: For this systematic review on randomized controlled trials, PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect and CINAHL databases were searched for eligible articles published between 1 January 2003 and 28 February 2022. The eligibility criteria were patients who underwent total knee replacement, randomized controlled trials and publications in English. The main outcome measures were focused on pain and physical function. Reference lists of relevant studies were also manually checked to find additional studies. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection separately. PEDro scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included randomized controlled trials. A meta-analysis was performed on the collected data. Review Manager (RevMan, version 5.3) was used for all analyses. Results: A total of 11 studies met the eligibility criteria and included 1825 participants in the systematic review. Overall, the results revealed that the effectiveness of telerehabilitation is comparable to conventional in-person rehabilitation in improving various pain and functional outcomes in patients who underwent a total knee replacement. In the meta-analysis with the fixed-effects model, no significant difference was found in the improvement of pain and physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis compared with conventional rehabilitation (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) –0.15, 95% CI −0.47 to 0.16, P = 0.34 and SMD –0.04, 95% CI −0.19 to 0.12, P = 0.62, respectively). In addition, the utilization of hospital resources and costs were significantly lower in telerehabilitation when compared with in-person rehabilitation. Conclusion: Telerehabilitation was comparable to conventional in-person rehabilitation in improving clinical outcomes following total knee replacement. However, it might be a more preferable alternative rehabilitation intervention for patients following total knee replacement given the significantly lower cost of telerehabilitation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]