Skip to main content

Effects of lower-limb active resistance exercise on mobility, physical function, knee strength and pain intensity in patients with total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) successfully alleviates pain from knee osteoarthritis, but muscle strength and function are reduced for a long period postoperatively. Postoperative active resistance exercise may play a relevant role.

Purpose

To systematically evaluate effects of lower-limb active resistance exercise (ARE) on mobility, physical function, muscle strength and pain intensity in patients with TKA.

Methods

A search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to September 2023. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effects of ARE and no intervention or other rehabilitation program without PRE were included. The outcome variables were mobility (Maximal walking speed [MWS]/6-Minute Walk Test[6MWT]), physical function (Stair Climb Test [SCT]/Timed Up and Go [TUG]), knee extension/ flexion power(KEP/KFP), joint range of motion (ROM) and pain. Standardized Mean Differences (SMD) or Mean Differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated and combined in meta-analyses. The Cochrane Collaboration’s Handbook were used for the methodological quality assessments. GRADE was used to assess the quality of evidence. The meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.4 software.

Results

A total of 14 randomized controlled trials, involving 880 patients, were finally included. The lower-limb ARE exhibited significantly greater improvement in MWS (MD 0.13, 95%CI 0.08–0.18, P < 0.00001), TUG(MD -0.92, 95%CI -1.55– -0.28, P = 0.005), KEP (SMD 0.58, 95%CI 0.20–0.96, P = 0.003), KFP (SMD 0.38, 95%CI 0.13–0.63, P = 0.003), ROM-flexion (MD 2.74, 95%CI 1.82–3.67, P < 0.00001) and VAS (MD − 4.65, 95% CI − 7.86– -1.44, p = 0.005) compared to conventional exercise(CE) immediately post-intervention. However, there were no statistically significant differences between both groups in regard to 6MWT (MD 7.98, 95%CI -4.60–20.56, P = 0.21), SCT (MD -0.79, 95%CI -1.69–0.10, P = 0.08) and ROM-extension (MD -0.60, 95%CI -1.23–0.03, P = 0.06).

Conclusions

According to the results of meta-analysis, patients undergoing TKA who receive the lower extremity ARE show better clinical effects in terms of pain relief, strength recovery and knee ROM. Simultaneously, it may be beneficial to improve mobility and physical function of patients after TKA.

Peer Review reports

Osteoarthritis of the knee is a common chronic and degenerative disease that can cause joint stiffness, pain, swelling and loss of mobility [1]. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment to alleviate pain and disability for end-stage knee osteoarthritis [2]. Although TKA reliably relieves pain and improves self-reported function, patients continue to exhibit the significant reduction in quadriceps strength, hamstring muscle strength and functional performance [3, 4]. Additionally, the loss of lower extremity muscle strength is associated with functional decline [5,6,7]. In a systematic review of controlled trials, Pozzi et al. [8] indicated that lower extremity strength, particularly quadriceps strength, was highly related to functional performance and should certainly be included in any intervention that targets muscular impairments after TKA. Therefore, postoperative rehabilitation is particularly crucial for the achievement of good joint function and high patient satisfaction.

Effort has been devoted to enhancing postoperative rehabilitation, with various interventions ranging from physiotherapy, active and passive exercises, to maximize recovery and reduce post-operative complications [8,9,10]. The conventional rehabilitation strategies commonly focus on functional exercises with no or low resistance. Continuous passive motion (CPM) is often used as a routine form of rehabilitation to improve knee joint range of motion (ROM) during postoperative rehabilitation. However, its effects on physical function of TKA patients are controversially discussed, just as a meta-analysis by Yang X et al. pointed out that neither the ROM nor the functional outcomes could be improved by CPM therapy [11]. In 2018, Schulz M, et al. proposed that the controlled active motion appeared to produce better improvement of flexion, pain and quality of life in comparison to CPM [12]. Besides, some recent related articles showed that the lower-extremity active resistance exercise (ARE) program provided additional benefits over the conventional exercise(CE) to patients with TKA, such as reducing pain, increasing muscle strength and range of motion, and improving physical function and gait [13,14,15,16,17,18]. Considering that the loss of muscle strength was related to functional impairments and biomechanical asymmetries [19, 20], lower-limb ARE should be conducted shortly after surgery.

The effect of exercise to increase lower extremity power may be important for postoperative functional rehabilitation. Most pilot randomized controlled trials (RCTs)had shown that all kinds of ARE had a superior effect on knee functional recovery, when compared to CE [12,13,14,15,16, 21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Nonetheless, previous studies had advocated that ARE seems to provide similar improvement of functional rehabilitation in comparison to CE [29, 30]. Moreover, the clinical effects of ARE or CE have not been researched in a larger scale by a randomized controlled study. This evidence-based study, therefore, set out to identify the effectiveness of the lower extremity ARE on the available clinical outcomes, such as mobility, physical function, knee extension/flexion power, ROM and pain, based on evidence from published high-quality RCTs.

Methods

Protocol and registration

The review was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis statement [31]. It was registered on the PROSPERO (CRD42024498809).

Search strategy

A comprehensive search strategy involved a literature search of published articles in the English language through the medical databases of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane’s Library up to September 2023. The following key words were used for the database research: “total knee arthroplasty”, “total knee replacement”, “rehabilitation”, “strengthening”, “resistance”, “training”, “exercise”, “active” and “progressive”. Additionally, the reference lists of the included studies were also assessed for eligible articles to expand search results. The detailed search strategy could be found in supplementary file 1. Two investigators (WG and SZH) independently searched all the titles and abstracts related to inclusion criteria. The potentially relevant articles underwent full-text retrieval independently and repeatedly by two independent investigators (WG and SZH). Any divergence was resolved through discussion or consultation with a third author (LYP).

Inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria

The screening of the potential eligible records was based on the following inclusion criteria: 1) participants (P): patients operated with TKA; 2) intervention (I): active resistance exercise of the lower limbs. There were no restrictions on the manner, frequency, duration, and intensity of resistance exercise; 3) comparison (C): no intervention or other rehabilitation programs without ARE, such as CPM, a home-based functional non-ARE exercise, or functional exercises with low resistance(body weight exercises); 4) outcomes (O): Maximal walking speed (MWS), 6-Minute Walk Test(6MWT), Stair Climb Test(SCT), Timed Up and Go(TUG), knee extension power(KEP), knee flexion power(KFP), Knee range of motion(KROM) flexion or extension and Visual Analogue Scale(VAS); 5) study (S): only RCTs, which were published in English, were eligible for the inclusion in this study.The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1) review articles, abstracts, letters and case report; 2) absence of any available outcome; 3) studies reporting measurement data with median values or not providing measures of dispersion in the form of standard deviation;4) ongoing clinical trials not published in full.

Data extraction

Two investigators independently extracted data from the studies meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion or consultation with a third reviewer.The following data were independently extracted from each eligible study: first author, publication year, study design, number of patients, demographic information, follow-up durations, intervention characteristics and all the outcome parameters which consisted of the power of mobility, function, knee extension/ flexion power, ROM, and pain. The primary outcomes of the study were mobility, knee function and knee strength, presented as MWS, 6MWT, TUG, SCT and knee extension/ flexion power among included studies [32, 33]. The secondary outcomes included ROM and pain derived from the pain visual analogue scale (VAS).

Risk of bias assessment and assessment of certainty of evidence

Two investigators independently evaluated the Risk of bias of the included studies and the quality of evidence. If there were any disagreements to reach the final assessment, a third author was consulted. The qualities of the included studies were assessed strictly according to the Cochrane risk of bias assessment criteria (Cochrane RoB 2 tool) [34]. To assess confidence in the combined estimates of effect, we applied the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach using the following criteria: risk of bias, consistency, directness, precision, and reporting bias [35]. We considered the five standard domains for downgrading evidence in GRADE to inform an overall assessment of certainty for each outcome, which was judged to be high, moderate, low and very low.

Statistical analysis

Meta-analysis was performed separately using Review Manager 5.4 software, when there were available data that could be combined. Our outcome was the score at the last follow-up period rather than the change in score as this maximized the number of comparable studies. For continuous results, the mean and standard deviation (SD) were used to calculate the mean difference (MD)or standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). MD was used when the data units are the same, and SMD was used when the data units were different. When SDs were not provided, the authors calculated them for meta-analysis purposes. The heterogeneity between studies was tested by using the I2 statistic and the χ2 test. If I2 statistic < 50% and P > 0.05, the heterogeneity was suggested to be small, and a Fixed Effect model was used. If I2 statistic > 50%or P < 0.05, the data was considered to have substantial heterogeneity and a random-effect model was selected. When heterogeneity existed, a sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate the influence of the individual study on the pooled results by omitting every single study per iteration. If it was possible to check various factors affecting ARE, a subgroup analysis might be performed according to the time point and duration for starting ARE after surgery. Publication bias tests were performed for those outcome indicators with included studies more than 10. A value of P < 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.

Results

Literature search results and study characteristics

The process of literature selection was summarized in Fig. 1. The baseline information of these studies is listed in Table 1. The primary literature search identified 1393 potentially relevant titles from the databases. After discarding the duplicate studies and reading the titles and abstracts of the articles, 1369 publications were excluded. The remaining articles were further assessed for eligibility based on the full text articles. Table 2 presented a detailed list of excluded studies. Eventually, 14 RCTs [12, 13, 15, 16, 21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]were identified for data collection and critical assessment. All included studies consisted of a intervention group and a control(CON) training group. The 14 studies involved 443 participants who received ARE and 437 who received a CON intervention.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow diagram of the literature search

Table 1 Characteristics of the included RCTs
Table 2 Studies excluded from the review

Assessment of risk of bias and certainty in the body of evidence

The quality of the included studies was assessed according to the cochrane risk of bias assessment criteria (Cochrane RoB 2 tool) (supplementary file 2) and the results were shown in Fig. 2. In general, most of the studies (79%;n = 11) were judged as ‘some concern” whereas three studies (21%) were considered to have “low risk of bias”. The quality of evidence from our meta-analysis was low(supplementary file 3). We downgraded the evidence because of risk of bias in studies, heterogeneity and imprecision.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Risk of bias graph and summary

Primary outcomes

Mobility (MWS and 6MWT)

Ten studies reported a knee mobility outcome using the MWS [13, 15, 21, 24, 26, 27, 30] or 6MWT [13, 24, 25, 28, 29]. The outcome from the pooled analysis of seven studies with 408 patients showed that patients in the ARE group had a significantly improved MWS compared to those in the CON group (MD 0.13, 95%CI 0.08–0.18, P < 0.00001; Fig. 3A), and significant heterogeneity was not observed (P = 0.88, I2 = 0%). Moreover, pooled estimates from five studies with 318 patients suggested there was little or no difference between the two groups for 6MWT (MD 7.98, 95%CI -4.60–20.56, P = 0.21; Fig. 3B), and no statistical heterogeneity was discovered (P = 0.58, I2 = 0%).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Forest plot of mobility (A MWS and B 6MWT)

Function (TUG and SCT)

The knee joint function was evaluated using TUG and SCT. Seven trials [13, 15, 16, 23,24,25, 27] including 471 patients compared the TUG between the ARE and CON. The random-effects model was used instead of a fixed-effects model due to the high heterogeneity (P = 0.007, I2 = 66%) of the combined TUG. The combined TUG was better in the ARE group than in the CON group, and the difference between the groups reached statistical significance (MD -0.92, 95%CI -1.55– -0.28, P = 0.005; Fig. 4A). Furthermore, SCT involving 381 patients was assessed in seven studies [13, 16, 21, 23,24,25, 30]. The meta-analysis result was heterogeneous (P = 0.004, I2 = 69%), so the random-effects model was used for further analysis. The results showed that the two groups had similar SCT (MD -0.79, 95%CI -1.69–0.10, P = 0.08; Fig. 4B).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Forest plot of function (A TUG and B SCT)

Knee power (KEP and KFP)

The KEP data suitable for meta-analysis were available from six studies [21, 23, 26, 28,29,30] with 334 participants and for KFP from four study [21, 26, 28, 29] with 253 participants. Greater heterogeneity was found across studies reporting KEP(P = 0.02, I2 = 64%), so the random effects model was used for further analysis. The results showed that ARE significantly improved KEP (SMD 0.58, 95%CI 0.20–0.96, P = 0.003; Fig. 5A), but no source of heterogeneity was found. Similarly, Significant higher KFP was identified for patients with ARE after TKA in comparison to those without intervention(SMD 0.38, 95%CI 0.13– 0.63, P = 0.003; Fig. 5B). The between-study heterogeneity was not statistically obvious (P = 0.11, I2 = 50%), and fixed effect model was applied to assess the effect sizes.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Forest plot of knee power (A KEP and B KFP)

Secondary outcomes

ROM

Our review found a total of nine relevant studies, including eight studies [12, 13, 15, 16, 22, 23, 25, 27] involving flexion range angle and five studies [13, 16, 22, 25, 29] involving extension range angle. Fixed effect model was used to analyze the pooled data since there was not heterogeneity. As seen from Fig. 6, the difference in extension range angle did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.1, I2 = 49%, MD -0.60, 95%CI -1.23–0.03, P = 0.06; Fig. 6A), but the difference in flexion range angle did (P = 0.22, I2 = 26%, MD 2.74, 95%CI 1.82–3.67, P < 0.00001; Fig. 6B). Furthermore, the ARE group had a higher mean flexion range angle than the CON group (P < 0.00001).

Fig. 6
figure 6

Forest plot of knee ROM (A extension and B flexion)

Pain (VAS)

Data of VAS pain scores were available from six studies [12, 16, 21, 22, 24, 26]. Pooled estimates from six studies indicated that the ARE patients had a significant reduction on VAS (MD − 4.65, 95% CI − 7.86– -1.44, p = 0.005; Fig. 7), and significant heterogeneity was not observed (P = 0.71, I2 = 0%).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Forest plot of pain (VAS)

Sensitivity analysis

A series of sensitivity analysis were conducted to assess the stability of synthesis results and to identify sources of heterogeneity by removing every single study and analyzing the effect on overall results. According to the analysis results, there was not a particularly influential study among all selected studies, apart from the impact of Jakobsen’s study [29] on KFP and Bily’s study [23] on KEP or SCT. When Jakobsen’s study was excluded, the heterogeneity decreased significantly from 50 to 0%. However, there was no significant change in the combined KFP (I2 = 0%, P = 0.69; SMD 0.56, 95%CI 0.26– 0.85, P = 0.0002). After eliminating Bily’s study, the pooled KEP and SCT results changed insignificantly (I2 = 36%, P = 0.18; SMD 0.42, 95%CI 0.18– 0.66, P = 0.0006; and I2 = 0%, P = 0.94; MD -0.35, 95%CI -0.95– 0.24, P = 0.25). Due to the small number of studies included, we did not undertake a publication bias assessment.

Discussion

The current systematic review meta-analytically explored the literature to evaluate the effects of active resistance exercise after total knee arthroplasty. In the pooled study of around 880 participants from 14 randomized controlled trials, we chose 6MWT, MWS, SCT, TUG, ROM, knee extension/ flexion power and VAS to assess mobility, physical function, knee strength and pain intensity of patients post-operatively. The primary finding from our study consistently suggested that the lower-extremity ARE significantly improved knee flexion, knee extension and flexion power compared to conventional exercise.Similarly, significantly greater improvements were shown in mobility(MWS) and physical function(TUG) for the ARE group compared to the CON group, although no between-group significant differences were found for 6MWT and SCT. In terms of pain intensity, the results of this review showed that there was a significant improvement in the ARE group.

Previous studies have shown that surgery can damage the knee’s musculoskeletal structures and associated muscles, such as the quadriceps and hamstring muscles [41].Therefore, improving muscle strength was of great significance for postoperative rehabilitation. The lower-extremity ARE played an important role in preventing further loss of muscle strength and promoting muscle strength to return to normal after TKA. In recent years, some studies had found that preoperative strength training had multiple positive effects on rehabilitation after TKA, such as reducing pain, increasing muscle strength and range of motion,and promoting joint function recovery [42,43,44]. Furthermore, two systematic review and meta-analyses [38, 45] demonstrated preoperative strength training might be beneficial to early rehabilitation. As for the effect of postoperative resistance training, two systematic review and meta-analyses [46, 47] evaluating the clinical effectiveness of postoperative progressive resistance training for TKA had been published recently. Chen et al. [46]found that progressive resistance training early after THA or TKA did not differ significantly from conventional exercise in terms of functional capacity, muscle strength recovery and incidence of adverse events. What they found was in disagreement with the result of our meta-analysis which showed ARE was clinically significantly superior to CE in terms of knee flexion Angle, knee strength and pain. Our results showed that patients with postoperativeARE tended to present greater improvements, although statistically significant difference was not detected for the pooled extension range angle.The difference might be partially ascribed to small sample size and different score systems in the previous two systematic reviews, which might result in publication bias. Regarding the knee strength outcomes, A previous meta-analysis [47] showed that compared to a regular rehabilitation program, ARE significantly improved knee strength and was safe for TKA patients. This was consistent with our conclusion that knee strength and ROM consistently improved in patients undergoing TKA who were exposed to ARE postoperatively. Through ARE, muscle fibers were stimulated to proliferate and hypertrophy, thereby enhancing the strength and duration of muscle contraction. Resistance exercises effectively elicited strength gains, and both training volume and intensity were strongly associated with the level of physiological adaptations in healthy aging adults [48]. This was crucial for improving the support and motor function of the lower extremities after surgery. Moreover, ARE promoted neuromuscular adaptability. During the training process, the coordination of nerve impulse transmission and muscle response was enhanced, thereby improving the motor control ability and coordination of muscles, increasing the stability of the knee joint and its range of motion [49,50,51]. Considering the loss of muscle strength and muscle mass post-surgery immediately, ARE had been advocated to be initiated shortly following surgery [52]. For another, postoperative pain was one of the most important complications after TKA, which seriously affected the patient’s quality of life. Our study was the first meta-analysis that evaluated effects of PRE on pain intensity, and found significant advantage of ARE in improving pain after TKA. The possible explanation was that active movement and muscle activation during exercise would cause an increase in blood circulation, providing more efficient oxygen flow to the related muscles and joints. It would also stimulate the release of exercise-induced endogenous substances such as endorphins and enkephalins, ultimately reducing pain [53]. What's more, ARE might reduce inflammation period and support the healing process, which in turn might contribute to increased physical function. To sum up, the lower-limb ARE after TKA was through the combined effect of various physiological mechanisms, which required further research and confirmation in the future.

Regarding the mobility and physical function outcomes, there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to the assessment of 6MWT and SCT. Nevertheless, combined measures of mobility (MWS) and physical function (TUG) exhibited significantly greater improvement for individuals undertaking ARE than those that completed CON rehabilitation. In the evidence based meta-analysis of Liu et al. [47], they found that there was significant advantage of ARE on 6MWT, but not on MWS. This might have resulted from the less precise timed-based metric test. Quadriceps strength was the strongest predictor of functional performance in patients following TKA. Higher quadriceps strength might positively impact functional performance of participants in the ARE group [14, 54]. Patients who received postoperative ARE showed better knee strength, ROM and pain relief after TKA.Therefore, it was not surprising that the participants in ARE group achieved the better 6MWT and SCT test compared to the participants in CON group. Similar trends were observed for MWS and TUG tests performance, although there were no statistical differences between the two groups. Although this study found that ARE was the key to restoring the mobility and improving physical function of TKA patients, considering that this effect was too small, the long-term evaluations were not conducted, and some other vital results (adverse event, length of hospital stay and medical expenses) had not been assessed, the clinical significance of the results might need to be interpreted more carefully.More attention should be given to the design of (unilateral) ARE interventions in terms of choice of exercises (optimizing the symmetry between the legs), intensity (as intensive as possible) and duration and frequency to optimise the effectiveness. Finally,future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to evaluate the influence of ARE on mobility and physical function in TKA patients.

Limitations

We included only high-level studies in which treatment assignments were randomized, enhancing the strength of the conclusions that could be drawn from the findings. However, a number of potential limitations should be taken into account when interpreting our results. First of all, the program content, intensity and frequency of ARE and the follow-up period were not uniform across all studies, which might lead to the possibility of bias and heterogeneity. The authors have attempted to address this by assessing the I2 in every forest plot to ensure minimal heterogeneity affecting the study, which was found to not be statistically significant. Besides the clinical heterogeneity in exercise protocols, there was also a wide range of outcome measures used to evaluate function and knee power, further contributing to the high heterogeneity. Second, When extracting data, some literature were excluded due to lack of data and other reasons, leading to the defect of fewer included literatures. Moreover, the relatively limited quantity of included studies did not allow the evaluation of publication bias for the outcomes evaluated in the meta-analysis. Thirdly, the general lack of blinded assessors or participants may increase the risk of overestimation of the effects of the ARE interventions. Fourthly, the long-term outcomes for evaluation of ARE were lacking. Finally,we have not assessed the possibility of unpublished as well as non-English studies, so a publication bias may exist. For us, English reports are more likely to have better methodological quality than reports written in other languages [55]. Besides, Acquiring, translating and evaluating a large amount of non-English literature requires a significant investment of manpower, material resources and time, which may exceed the practical feasibility of the research. For grey literature, it may lack a rigorous peer review process, and the accuracy of the data and the scientific nature of the methods are difficult to guarantee, which may have an impact on the reliability of the analysis results.. Although the evidence may be imperfect, the results of this meta-analysis have implications for clinical practice, which can guide physicians and patients to make the appropriate choice for enhancing recovery after TKA.

Conclusion

The present review and meta-analysis showed that patients undergoing TKA who received the lower extremity ARE showed better clinical effects in terms of pain relief, strength recovery, and knee ROM. Simultaneously, it might be beneficial to improve mobility and physical function of patients after TKA.Therefore, ARE is one of the options for rapid rehabilitation after TKA. Given these limitations, Sufficient, high-quality, prospective RCT with large samples are required to further elucidate the relationship between postoperative lower-limb ARE protocols and outcomes after TKA.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

RCT:

Randomized controlled trial

ARE:

Active resistance exercise

MWS:

Maximal walking speed

TKA:

Total knee arthroplasty

HWS:

Habitual walking speed

SMD:

Standardized Mean Differences

KEP:

Knee extension power

MD:

Mean Differences

KFP:

Knee flexion power

CE:

Conventional exercise

6MWT:

6-Minute Walk Test

CI:

Confidence intervals

SCT:

Stair Climb Test

CPM:

Continuous passive motion

TUG:

Timed Up and Go

CON:

Control

VAS:

Visual Analogue Scale

ROM:

Range of motion

References

  1. Hunter DJ, Bierma-Zeinstra S. Osteoarthritis. Lancet. 2019;393(10182):1745–59.

  2. Price AJ, Alvand A, Troelsen A, Katz JN, Hooper G, Gray A, Carr A, Beard D. Knee replacement. Lancet (London, England). 2018;392(10158):1672–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Moffet H, Collet JP, Shapiro SH, Paradis G, Marquis F, Roy L. Effectiveness of intensive rehabilitation on functional ability and quality of life after first total knee arthroplasty: A single-blind randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(4):546–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Walsh M, Woodhouse LJ, Thomas SG, Finch E. Physical impairments and functional limitations: a comparison of individuals 1 year after total knee arthroplasty with control subjects. Phys Ther. 1998;78(3):248–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mizner RL, Petterson SC, Snyder-Mackler L. Quadriceps strength and the time course of functional recovery after total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2005;35(7):424–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mizner RL, Petterson SC, Stevens JE, Vandenborne K, Snyder-Mackler L. Early quadriceps strength loss after total knee arthroplasty. The contributions of muscle atrophy and failure of voluntary muscle activation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(5):1047–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Mizner RL, Snyder-Mackler L. Altered loading during walking and sit-to-stand is affected by quadriceps weakness after total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2005;23(5):1083–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pozzi F, Snyder-Mackler L, Zeni J. Physical exercise after knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of controlled trials. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2013;49(6):877–92.

  9. Hsu WH, Hsu WB, Shen WJ, Lin ZR, Chang SH, Hsu RW. Twenty-four-week hospital-based progressive resistance training on functional recovery in female patients post total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2019;26(3):729–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Minns Lowe CJ, Barker KL, Dewey M, Sackley CM. Effectiveness of physiotherapy exercise after knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2007;335(7624):812.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yang X, Li GH, Wang HJ, Wang CY. Continuous passive motion after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of associated effects on clinical outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019;100(9):1763–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schulz M, Krohne B, Röder W, Sander K. Randomized, prospective, monocentric study to compare the outcome of continuous passive motion and controlled active motion after total knee arthroplasty. Technol Health Care. 2018;26(3):499–506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Do K, Yim J. Effects of muscle strengthening around the hip on pain, physical function, and gait in elderly patients with total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland). 2020;8(4):489.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pozzi F, White DK, Snyder-Mackler L, Zeni JA. Restoring physical function after knee replacement: a cross sectional comparison of progressive strengthening vs standard physical therapy. Physiother Theory Pract. 2020;36(1):122–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Eymir M, Erduran M, Ünver B. Active heel-slide exercise therapy facilitates the functional and proprioceptive enhancement following total knee arthroplasty compared to continuous passive motion. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(10):3352–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jacksteit R, Stöckel T, Behrens M, Feldhege F, Bergschmidt P, Bader R, Mittelmeier W, Skripitz R, Mau-Moeller A. Low-load unilateral and bilateral resistance training to restore lower limb function in the early rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized active-controlled clinical trial. Front Med. 2021;8:628021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kang Y-O, Song R. Development and evaluation of progressive lower-extremity exercise program for patients with total knee replacement arthroplasty. Korean J Adult Nurs. 2020;32(6):653–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sanzo P, Niccoli S, Droll K, Puskas D, Cullinan C, Lees SJ. The effects of exercise and active assisted cycle ergometry in post-operative total knee arthroplasty patients - a randomized controlled trial. J Exp Orthop. 2021;8(1):41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Mizner RL, Snyder-Mackler L. Altered loading during walking and sit-to-stand is affected by quadriceps weakness after total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2005;23(5):1083-90.

  20. Petterson SC, Mizner RL, Stevens JE, Raisis L, Bodenstab A, Newcomb W, Snyder-Mackler L. Improved function from progressive strengthening interventions after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial with an imbedded prospective cohort. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61(2):174–83.

  21. Valtonen A, Pöyhönen T, Sipilä S, Heinonen A. Effects of aquatic resistance training on mobility limitation and lower-limb impairments after knee replacement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91(6):833–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mau-Moeller A, Behrens M, Finze S, Bruhn S, Bader R, Mittelmeier W. The effect of continuous passive motion and sling exercise training on clinical and functional outcomes following total knee arthroplasty: a randomized active-controlled clinical study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:68.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Bily W, Franz C, Trimmel L, Loefler S, Cvecka J, Zampieri S, Kasche W, Sarabon N, Zenz P, Kern H. Effects of leg-press training with moderate vibration on muscle strength, pain, and function after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(6):857–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kelly MA, Finley M, Lichtman SW, Hyland MR, Edeer AO: Comparative Analysis of High-Velocity Versus Low-Velocity Exercise on Outcomes After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Geriatric Phys Therapy (2001) 2016;39(4):178–189.

  25. Bade MJ, Struessel T, Dayton M, Foran J, Kim RH, Miner T, Wolfe P, Kohrt WM, Dennis D, Stevens-Lapsley JE. Early high-intensity versus low-intensity rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res. 2017;69(9):1360–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Heikkilä A, Sevander-Kreus N, Häkkinen A, Vuorenmaa M, Salo P, Konsta P, Ylinen J. Effect of total knee replacement surgery and postoperative 12 month home exercise program on gait parameters. Gait Posture. 2017;53:92–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hardt S, Schulz MRG. Improved early outcome after TKA through an app-based active muscle training programme-a randomized-controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthroscopy. 2018;26(11):3429–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Husby VS, Foss OA, Husby OS, Winther SB. Randomized controlled trial of maximal strength training vs. standard rehabilitation following total knee arthroplasty. Eur J Phys RehabilMed. 2018;54(3):371–9.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jakobsen TL, Kehlet H, Husted H, Petersen J, Bandholm T. Early progressive strength training to enhance recovery after fast-track total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Arthritis Care Res. 2014;66(12):1856–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Christiansen CL, Bade MJ, Davidson BS, Dayton MR, Stevens-Lapsley JE. Effects of weight-bearing biofeedback training on functional movement patterns following total knee arthroplasty: A randomized controlled trial. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45(9):647–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

  32. Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM: Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res 2011;63 Suppl 11(0 11):S208–228.

  33. Bennell K, Dobson F, Hinman R. Measures of physical performance assessments: Self-Paced Walk Test (SPWT), Stair Climb Test (SCT), Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Chair Stand Test (CST), Timed Up & Go (TUG), Sock Test, Lift and Carry Test (LCT), and Car Task. Arthritis Care Res. 2011;63(Suppl 11):S350-370.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sterne JA-O, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng HY, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.

  35. Hultcrantz M, Rind D, Akl EA, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Iorio A, Alper BS, Meerpohl JJ, Murad MH, Ansari MT, et al. The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;87:4-13.

  36. Bäcker HC, Wu CH, Schulz MRG, Weber-Spickschen TS, Perka C, Hardt S. App-based rehabilitation program after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2021;141(9):1575–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Bade MJ, Kohrt WM, Stevens-Lapsley JE. Outcomes before and after total knee arthroplasty compared to healthy adults. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2010;40(9):559–67.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Wu Z, Wang Y, Li C, Li J, Chen W, Ye Z, Zeng Z, Hong K, Zhu Y, Jiang T, et al. Preoperative Strength Training for Clinical Outcomes Before and After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Front Surg. 2022;9:879593.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Blasco JM, Paravlic AH, Pisot R, Marusic U. Specific and general adaptations following motor imagery practice focused on muscle strength in total knee arthroplasty rehabilitation: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(8):e0221089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Schache MB, McClelland JA, Webster KE: Does the addition of hip strengthening exercises improve outcomes following total knee arthroplasty? A study protocol for a randomized trial. BMC Musculoskeletal Disord 2016, 17(1).

  41. Stevens-Lapsley JE, Balter JE, Kohrt WM, Eckhoff DG. Quadriceps and hamstrings muscle dysfunction after total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(9):2460–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Calatayud J, Casaña J, Ezzatvar Y, Jakobsen MD, Sundstrup E, Andersen LL. High-intensity preoperative training improves physical and functional recovery in the early post-operative periods after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthroscopy. 2017;25(9):2864–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Domínguez-Navarro F, Silvestre-Muñoz A, Igual-Camacho C, Díaz-Díaz B, Torrella JV, Rodrigo J, Payá-Rubio A, Roig-Casasús S, Blasco JM. A randomized controlled trial assessing the effects of preoperative strengthening plus balance training on balance and functional outcome up to 1 year following total knee replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(3):838–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Skoffer B, Maribo T, Mechlenburg I, Korsgaard CG, Søballe K, Dalgas U. Efficacy of preoperative progressive resistance training in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: 12-month follow-up data from a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2020;34(1):82–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Skoffer B, Dalgas U, Mechlenburg I. Progressive resistance training before and after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2015;29(1):14–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Chen X, Li X, Zhu Z, Wang H, Yu Z, Bai X. Effects of progressive resistance training for early postoperative fast-track total hip or knee arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Surg. 2021;44(10):1245–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Liu H, Cong H, Chen L, Wu H, Yang X, Cao Y. Efficacy and safety of lower limb progressive resistance exercise for patients with total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2021;102(3):488–501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Peterson MD, Gordon PM. Resistance exercise for the aging adult: clinical implications and prescription guidelines. Am J Med. 2011;124(3):194–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Konrad A, Tilp M. Increased range of motion after static stretching is not due to changes in muscle and tendon structures. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2014;29(6):636–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Matsuzaki T, Yoshida S, Kojima S, Watanabe M, Hoso M. Influence of ROM Exercise on the Joint Components during Immobilization. J Phys Ther Sci. 2013;25(12):1547–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Suetta C, Andersen JL, Dalgas U, Berget J, Koskinen S, Aagaard P, Magnusson SP, Kjaer M. Resistance training induces qualitative changes in muscle morphology, muscle architecture, and muscle function in elderly postoperative patients. J Appl Phys (Bethesda, Md : 1985). 2008;105(1):180–6.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ardali G. A daily adjustable progressive resistance exercise protocol and functional training to increase quadriceps muscle strength and functional performance in an elderly homebound patient following a total knee arthroplasty. Physiother Theory Pract. 2014;30(4):287–97.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Nijs J, Kosek E, Van Oosterwijck J, Meeus M. Dysfunctional endogenous analgesia during exercise in patients with chronic pain: to exercise or not to exercise? Pain Physician. 2012;15(3 Suppl):ES205–13.

  54. Petterson SC, Mizner RL, Stevens JE, Raisis L, Bodenstab A, Newcomb W, Snyder-Mackler L. Improved function from progressive strengthening interventions after total knee arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial with an imbedded prospective cohort. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61(2):174–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Shiwa SR, Moseley AM, Maher CG, Pena Costa LO. Language of publication has a small influence on the quality of reports of controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(1):78–84.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Protocol registered at PROSPERO

CRD42024498809

Clinical trial number

Not applicable.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design, material preparation, and data collection. The analysis was performed by Guo Wei and Zhenghui Shang. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Guo Wei and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guo Wei.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wei, G., Shang, Z., Li, Y. et al. Effects of lower-limb active resistance exercise on mobility, physical function, knee strength and pain intensity in patients with total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 25, 730 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07845-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-024-07845-9

Keywords