Effect of Nationwide Postoperative Rehabilitation at Home Program after Lower Extremity Surgeries in Older and Younger People

Article information

Ann Geriatr Med Res. 2025;29(1):119-130
Publication date (electronic) : 2025 January 22
doi : https://doi.org/10.4235/agmr.24.0094
1Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University School of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea
2Department and Research Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
3Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea
4Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
5Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju National University, School of Medicine, Jeju, Korea
6Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Korea University Anam Hospital, Seoul, Korea
7Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea
Corresponding Author: Jae-Young Lim, MD, PhD Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 82 Gumi-ro 173 Beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam 13620, Korea E-mail: drlim1@snu.ac.kr
This study was presented at the 51st Annual Meeting and International Conference of the Korean Academy of Rehabilitation Medicine on October 27, 2023.
Received 2024 April 22; Revised 2024 October 1; Accepted 2025 January 20.

Abstract

Background

A nationwide Rehabilitation at Home Care Pilot Program for patients undergoing lower extremity orthopedic surgeries has been ongoing since 2020. The program was designed to improve clinical outcomes through early mobilization and rehabilitation after discharge. This study aimed to analyze the interim data to assess its effectiveness and suggest improvements, particularly for older patients who are more vulnerable compared to younger patients.

Methods

We analyzed the data of 872 patients from seven hospitals. Patients were divided into an older-age group (OG; ≥60 years) and younger-age group (YG; <60 years). The Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores for pain were the main outcomes.

Results

Participants were categorized into OG (n=801) and YG (n=71). The most common surgeries were knee joint replacement (63.7%) in OG and hip joint replacement in YG (77.5%). It took more days to enroll in the pilot program in OG (4.4 days) than YG (3.2 days). OG showed less improvement in BBS than YG for all surgeries (23.3 vs. 31.9) and hip joint surgery (19.8 vs. 33.5). In patients with hip joint replacement in OG, those with a higher number of comorbidities (≥3) showed less BBS improvement than those with fewer comorbidities (<3). In the pain domain, NRS scores decreased in both groups.

Conclusion

The postoperative rehabilitation education program appeared to be effective in improving physical function and reducing pain severity, though the improvement was less obvious in older patients who may require a more comprehensive approach compared to younger patients.

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative rehabilitation for patients who have undergone lower extremity surgeries has become a major concern in healthcare systems.1) Functional decline during the postoperative period, associated with a lack of comprehensive rehabilitation is a representative area of unmet medical needs. Hip fractures are common in older people and associated with high morbidity and mortality.2) The global incidence of hip fracture was 681.35 per 100,000 population aged 55 years and older in 2019, and this is expected to increase with an aging population.3) Knee arthritis is also prevalent among older adults with a 37% prevalence in the United States.4) Surgical treatments are often required for most hip fractures and advanced knee arthritis in older people.4,5) Among lower extremity surgeries, total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) are considered as most successful operations and are increasingly performed worldwide due to the aging population.6-8) In Korea, the numbers of THA and TKA increased by 47% from 2010 to 2018 and by 400% from 2001 to 2010, respectively.9,10) With the rise in lower extremity surgeries, postoperative rehabilitation after lower extremity surgery has become increasingly emphasized to improve physical outcomes and functional recovery.8) Exercise-based multidisciplinary interventions are highly recommended after hip fracture surgeries or major lower extremity joint replacements in clinical practice guidelines.11-14) Multidisciplinary management in the acute phase is essential, followed by subacute rehabilitation through continuous care after discharge. In Europe, postoperative management for fragility fracture is implemented through appropriate care and quality assessment systems, utilizing registries and audits.15) The International Osteoporosis Foundation and Fragility Fracture Network are making significant efforts to promote this standard worldwide.16,17)

Since December 2020, Korea has been implementing the nationwide Rehabilitation at Home Care Pilot Program for patients who have undergone lower extremity surgeries, to facilitate early mobilization and promote continued home-based exercise after discharge.18) The home-based rehabilitation program is a combined effort involving multidisciplinary rehabilitation to facilitate early mobilization after surgeries, as well as tele-rehabilitation to support continued community-based exercise.13,19) The Korean healthcare system has been developed based on the policy of universal health coverage by the National Health Insurance (NHI) system, and the Rehabilitation at Home Care Pilot Program after lower extremity surgeries was launched by the NHI and Ministry of Health and Welfare. The Health Insurance Review and Assessment (HIRA) Agency, an independent governmental organization responsible for reviewing medical claims, plans to conduct an effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis of this pilot program after 3 years in 2023.

This study serves as an interim analysis of the program and aims to compare function and pain severity after program participation of patients who required postoperative rehabilitation after lower extremity surgeries. This finding will provide insights into areas requiring improvement within the pilot program and offer recommendations for enhancing postoperative recovery, particularly for older patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants

We collected data from seven teaching hospitals that agreed to share data among the hospitals participating in the pilot program between December 2020 and July 2022. The inclusion criteria were patients who agreed to participate in this pilot education program after undergoing lower extremity surgery and were 19 years of age or older. Exclusion criteria were incomplete demographic or surgery information and inappropriate data. As age is one of the primary prognostic factor of post-orthopedic surgery in lower extremity,20-22) patients were divided into an older-age group (OG; ≥60 years) and a younger-age group (YG; <60 years).23) Data of OG were primarily analyzed with comparison to those of YG. The burden of comorbidities might also affect the recovery process during the postsurgical period.24) Therefore, subgroup analyses were conducted based on the major surgical areas between two groups and the number of comorbidities within each group.

Rehabilitation at Home Care Pilot Program

The pilot program18) was designed to enroll patients who underwent three major joint replacements (hip, knee, or ankle) or surgeries for lower extremity fractures for 90 days postoperatively. This program provides education and counseling regarding postoperative rehabilitation and exercise. Designated hospitals should have home-based rehabilitation teams (HBRTs) consisting of physiatrists, physical therapists, and nurses. Education and counseling sessions were provided to the patients by HBRT while the patients were admitted for surgical treatment and recovery. Further education sessions and monitoring by means of non-face-to-face communication between patients and the HBRT were continued after discharge. The patients should be enrolled within 90 days following lower extremity surgery. Once registered in the project, patients are eligible to receive services offered by the program for 90 days (Fig. 1A). The education is conducted in a hospital by one of the HBRT and covers various topics including the goals of postoperative rehabilitation, how to perform strengthening, flexibility and aerobic exercise, walking and stair-climbing methods, the use of gait aids such as axillary crutches, canes or walkers, fall prevention, pain management, when to seek medical attention. Education counseling can be provided by a physiatrist or other HBRT members. The physiatrist explains the condition, discusses the treatment approach and provides specialized education and counseling for patients and their caregivers. The education service is limited to two sessions within 90 days after program participation. Other HBRT members, such as physical therapists or nurses, also provide health information to them with this service similarly limited to three sessions within the same period. After discharge, non-face-to-face communication was conducted via messaging on a smartphone app or phone calls (Fig. 1B).

Fig. 1.

Overview of the postoperative rehabilitation education program following lower extremity surgeries. (A) Time frame of the pilot program. (B) Concise description of the pilot program. ETC, education and training charge; PMC, patient monitoring charge; POD, postoperative day.

Rehabilitation at Home Care Pilot Program has three subcategories within the medical fee system: education and training charge 1 and 2 (ETC1 and ETC2), and patient monitoring charge (PMC). These subcategories are priced according to the services the patients receive and the medical professionals or providers who deliver those services (Table 1, Supplement A). ETC1 is the fee for service reimbursed when a physiatrist of the HBRT provides educational services to patients and oversees the education program. ETC2 and PMC are the fees reimbursed if those services are provided to the patients by any member of the HBRT. The PMC is designed for coordinator nurses in charge of patient education and monitoring to monitor the conditions and activities of patients and provide further education on call or online after hospital discharge.

Subcategories of rehabilitation at home care pilot program

Outcomes

The Berg Balance Scale (BBS) score, weight-bearing status (1, full weight; 2, partial weight; 3, toe-touch; and 4, no weight bearing), walking aids for physical function (1, independent walking; 2, cane; 3, axillary crutch; 4, walker; and 5, etc.), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for pain intensity (0–10), and the level of understanding of the education (1, very high; 2, high; 3, average; 4, low; and 5, very low) were collected to assess the outcomes after surgery based on data from ETC1. The BBS is used to assess balance function and fall risk, with a higher score indicating better balance function (range 0–56) (Supplement B).25) These assessment tools were selected as outcome variables to assess physical function and pain following surgical treatment by the HIRA through discussions with medical experts in the field of musculoskeletal medicine.

A greater number of comorbidities was associated with poorer outcomes in lower extremity surgeries such as THA, hip fracture surgery or TKA.20,26,27) The number of comorbidities were collected from the ETC1 document. HBRT team members should verify whether the patient has concurrent conditions affecting cardiovascular, endocrinologic, respiratory, nephrological, neurologic or musculoskeletal systems and record this information in the ETC1 document (Supplement A).

Ethics Statement

All patients provided informed consent prior to participation in the service. To register patients who participated in this government pilot program, patient education and monitoring documents were submitted to the HIRA website, which is responsible for managing Korean healthcare resources. These documents were developed by HBRT based on medical records, and an independent ethics committee approved this retrospective chart review (Approval No. 2022-08-046).

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using MedCalc (version 20.211; MedCalc Software Ltd., Ostend, Belgium). A paired t-test was used to test the significance of differences between two time points. The two groups were compared using an independent t-test. Categorical variables were analyzed using the chi-squared test. Quantitative results are presented as mean±standard error. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05.

RESULTS

Study Cohort and Overall Information on Lower Extremity Surgeries

We collected data from 890 patients in seven tertiary hospitals (Fig. 2, Table 2, Supplement C). The total sample was categorized into OG (n=801; mean age, 73.9 years) and YG (n=71; mean age, 49.6 years) after exclusion (n=18). In the OG, the number of female patients was four times greater than that of male patients (female 648, male 153) and there was no significant difference in age between the sexes (female 74.1 years, male 73.4 years). The YG had similar numbers of female (n=37) and male (n=34) patients (Table 3).

Fig. 2.

Study flow. BBS, Berg Balance Scale; NRS, Numerical Rating Scale; OG, older-age group; YG, younger-age group; F/U, follow-up. F/U rate (%) = Post (n) / Pre (n) × 100, F/U days = mean (95% confidence interval).

Sample sizes for outcome analysis, F/U rate during F/U days

Subcategories of rehabilitation at home care pilot program

The OG received most knee joint surgery (63.7%), followed by hip joint (28.3%) and femur surgery (7.9%). Meanwhile, in the YG, hip joint (77.5%) surgery was the most common surgery, followed by knee joint (18.3%) and femur (4.2%) surgery.

The duration between the date of surgery and enrollment in the pilot program differed between the OG and YG as 4.4 days and 3.2 days, respectively. In dominant surgeries such as the hip and knee joints, it took more days for patients who had undergone hip joint surgery to begin the program in the OG than YG (4.3 days vs. 2.7 days). For knee joint surgery it took the OG 3.4 days to begin the program compared to the 2.2 days it took for the YG.

In OG, hip and knee joint replacements comprised majority of surgical procedures. Among these two, total knee replacement was the most common surgical treatment (63.0%) performed. In terms of hip joint replacements, the proportions of total hip replacement and hemiarthroplasty accounted for 17.6% and 10.7% of all lower extremity surgeries, respectively. In the YG, the primary surgical procedures were also hip and knee joint replacements (94.3%). Among which hip joint replacement was the most common surgery overall (70.4%), followed by knee joint replacement (23.9%).

Outcomes following Surgeries in OG vs. YG

Physical function

In the OG, there was a significant increase in BBS by 23.3 (14.5→37.7) over a duration of 20.3 days (n=384) (p<0.0001) (Fig. 3A). In the subgroup analysis for the two major surgeries—hip joint replacements (total hip and hemiarthroplasty, n=79) and knee replacements (n=296), BBS increased by 19.7 (9.8→29.5) (p<0.0001) for the hip joint replacement and by 24.5 for knee replacements (16.0→40.5) (p<0.0001). However, patients who underwent femur fixation showed a non-significant increase in BBS by 9.1 (n=9) (Fig. 3A). Similarly, in the YG, BBS also increased by 31.9 (11.6→43.5) (p<0.0001) (Fig. 3B). The OG showed less improvement in BBS scores than the YG for all surgeries (23.3 vs. 31.9; p=0.0148) and hip joint surgery (19.8 vs. 33.5; p=0.0018). There was no significant difference in knee joint surgery between the OG and YG (Fig. 3C). In the analysis of the impact of comorbidity burden on OG, it was observed that patients with a higher number of comorbidities (≥3; n=17) showed less balanced improvements compared to those with fewer comorbidities (<3; n=62) in the hip joint replacement group (p=0.0028). However, these findings were not observed in the knee joint surgery group (Fig. 3D). Weight-bearing status was categorized into four categories based on the level of weight bearing on the affected limb: full weight (FW), partial weight (PW), toe-touch (TT), and no weight (NW) bearing. The use of walking aids, such as walkers, axillary crutches, canes, or no walking aids, was also recorded. The ratios of weight-bearing in OG changed from FW (1.9%→28.8%), PW (57.1%→56.4%), TT (38.8%→13.5%), and NW (2.1%→1.2%). YG also showed higher weight-bearing status: FW (5.4%→43.2%), PW (48.6%→43.2%), TT (45.9%→13.5%), and NW (0%→0%) (p<0.0001). As patients became more independent of walking aids, their weight-bearing status progressively advanced to higher levels of weight-bearing (p<0.0001) (Fig. 4A, 4B). These results were also consistent with those in YG (Fig. 4A, 4B).

Fig. 3.

Changes in Berg Balance Scale (BBS) in older- and younger-age groups (OG and YG). (A) Changes in BBS in OG between two separate measurements (durations: 20.3 days for total surgeries, 14.1 days for hip surgery, 20.1 days for femur surgery, 22.0 days for knee surgery; total number of 384, hip 79, femur 8, knee 296). (B) Changes in BBS in YG between two consecutive measurements (durations: 24.5 days for total surgeries, 23.6 days for hip surgery, 28.2 days for knee surgery; total number of 29, hip 23, knee 6). (C) Comparison of △BBS in OG and YG (number of OG/YG: total 384/29, hip 79/23, knee 296/6). (D) Comparison of △BBS in OG according to the number of comorbidities (Comorb1 <3 and Comorb2 ≥3; number of Comorb1/Comorb2: total 325/59, hip 62/17, femur 0, knee 258/38). The Berg Balance Scale scores range from 0 to 56. A higher score indicates better balance function. A graph shows mean and error bar based on standard error. The statistical analyses are based on the paired t-test for comparison of initial and follow-up measurement in the same group (A, B, D) and the independent t-test for comparison between OG and YG (C). F/U, follow-up. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

Fig. 4.

Changes in weight-bearing status and types of walking aids between two measurements in older- and younger-age groups (OG and YG). (A) Shift in weight bearing status in OG and YG: score 1 (full weight), 2 (partial weight), 3 (toe-touch), and 4 (no weight bearing); changes to each score 11/325/221/12 → 164/321/77/7 in OG and 2/18/17/0 → 16/16/5/0 in YG. (B) Shift in the types of walking aids in OG and YG: score 1 (independent walking), 2 (cane), 3 (axillary crutch), 4 (walker), and 5 (etc.); changes to each score 13/16/5/463/72 → 89/56/5/353/66 in OG and 2/0/3/30/2 → 9/4/3/19/2 in YG. The statistical analysis is based on chi-squared test. F/U, follow-up.

Pain

In OG, pain intensity, measured on the NRS, decreased by 0.96±0.09 for all available patients (n=413) (p<0.0001). In the subgroup analysis of the two major surgeries, pain intensity decreased by 1.02±0.18 for hip joint surgeries (p<0.0001) and by 0.97±0.11 for knee joint surgeries (p<0.0001). Similarly, the YG showed lower pain intensity for total and hip joint surgery. The pain severity did not change in the YG knee joint surgery group (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5.

Changes in pain severity in older- and younger-age groups (OG and YG). (A) OG (duration: 21.6 days for total surgeries; number of total 413, hip 81, femur 8, knee 323). (B) YG (duration: 26.5 days for total surgeries; number of total 30, hip 23, knee 7). The Numerical Rating Scale scores range from 0 to 10. A lower score indicates less pain. A graph shows mean and error bar based on standard error. The statistical analyses are based on the paired t-test. F/U, follow-up.

Education target

The educational services were provided either to the patients alone or to both the patients and their caregivers. In approximately one fifth of the cases (22.9% in OG, 21.1% in YG), these educational services were provided to the caregivers in conjunction with the patients. The most common type of caregiver who received these educational services was the patient’s descendants in OG (49.2%) and spouses in YG (61.5%). In all other cases, only the patients received instruction on exercise and managing their daily activities.

Degree of Education Understanding with the Pilot Program

The substantial proportions of program understanding after educational services on postoperative rehabilitation were provided as “very high” or “high” for the 1st ETC program (73.1%) and for the 2nd ETC program (70.6%) in the OG. The same categories of “very high” or “high” were also higher in YG (80.0%, 76.7%) (Supplement D).

DISCUSSION

This interim analysis of the Rehabilitation at Home Care Pilot Program, conducted as part of a multicenter trial for patients who underwent lower extremity surgeries, showed significant improvements in mobility function and pain reduction. The program provides patients or their caregivers with early education on postoperative rehabilitation. Additionally, HBRT provides guidance for patients and caregivers to continue exercising after discharge in a home-based setting and dealing with possible postoperative complications under the observation of the HBRT.28)

Early rehabilitation is strongly recommended to commence within 48 hours following hip surgeries.29,30) The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines recommend initiating rehabilitation on the same day for hip or knee replacement surgeries to enhance recovery.31) A more organized multidisciplinary approach can facilitate earlier intervention in the rehabilitation process.32) This can be achieved through integrated orthogeriatric care.33,34) Models of orthogeriatric services can be categorized into various forms by the contribution of orthopedists and geriatricians. Integrated care, where orthopedic surgeons and geriatricians manage patients from admission with multiple professionals, is recognized as the most sophisticated model.34,35) In our data, the average time interval between the first education and surgery was 4.4 days in the OG, longer than in the YG (3.2 days). Delayed enrollment in this pilot program compared to the global standard might indicate less structured orthogeriatric care.

In the current study, we focused on OG, patients who are 60 years and older (n=801) compared to YG (<60 years; n=71). Older patients showed less improvement in BBS (23.2 vs. 31.9) than younger patients. Age is inversely related to functional improvement in hip and knee joint replacements.20,26) Multiple preoperative comorbidities, 3 or more were associated with increased mortality in older patients with hip fracture.36) After total knee arthroplasty, comorbidities were also one of risk factor for 1-year mortality with old age.20) Old patients with more comorbidities (≥3) showed less mobility improvement for hip surgeries. This finding supports the notion that postoperative care is particularly crucial for older people undergoing hip surgeries as they are more likely to experience frailty and prolonged medical instability.37)

The operating area also differed between the two age groups. In older patient group, knee was the most common surgical area for replacement, consistent with the epidemiologic study of Korea and the United States.20,38) Total knee arthroplasty is considered as the most successful orthopedic surgery and the number has been growing substantially in people with end-stage degenerative knee arthritis.39) Hip was the most prevalent surgical area in frequency in YG. YG represented middle-aged patients (mean age, 49.6 years) and hip fracture increased substantially after 50 years in Korea.40)

In this program, HBRT members should use common documents of ETC1, ETC2, and PMC regarding surgical information and report what they provide to patients. These documents serve as a type of common dataset. A common dataset is required to establish a registry and a form of real-world evidence.41) They provide the ability to compare with compatibility and generalize each hospital’s practice for health care improvements.42)

This nationwide program for rehabilitation at home after lower extremity surgery is in progress because of a lack of rehabilitation support after discharge. Patients undergoing lower extremity surgeries who need medical services for functional recovery can receive early and proper rehabilitation according to their medical conditions during admission and after discharge under the guidance of HBRT. By improving recovery and reducing comorbidities, hospital stay would decrease, and patients would be provided with education to continue their exercise after discharge. These positive effects can contribute to the formation of organized medical care links among hospitalization, discharge, and home care. To achieve an organized multidisciplinary approach, non-surgeons must learn more about surgeries, surgeons should cooperate with other professionals for more organized communication.5) The government should pay attention to the reimbursement and policy supporting integrated acute and long-term care from hospitals to home-based settings that are essential for patients.43) Postoperative rehabilitation is essential from early post-surgery and is highly recommended as home-based exercise after discharge.44) The Rehabilitation at Home Care Pilot Program can also be an initiative to pay attention to the Fracture Liaison Service (FLS) program. FLS provides a multidisciplinary approach to manage bone health after fragility fractures and includes case finding, patient assessment, osteoporosis treatment, falls prevention, education and exercise.45)

The interim analysis of this pilot program showed positive effects. However, the present study has some limitations. First, the improvement in physical function shown in our analysis could not be solely attributed to this educational program. The results specifically highlighted changes in BBS and pain severity just among patients who participated in post-operational rehabilitation education. When considering the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for BBS in older adults with hip fractures, which was 11.5 point, our data (19.7 in OG hip subgroup in Fig. 2A) surpassed the MCID.46) However, many confounding factors might have influenced the results. Second, we defined the older people who are aged 60 or above to include more older patients of our data into OG. In this study, we classified patients by age at 60 rather than the threshold of 65 years, as the cause of lower extremity surgeries is likely to be closely associated with accelerated degenerative changes. The age cutoff for older people can vary as 65 or 75.47) When our data were reanalyzed after dividing into OG and YG by age of 65 or 75, the general trend were similar to the current results comparing OG and YG by age of 60: less improvement of BBS in OG than YG and OG with more comorbidities (Supplements E, F, G). Third, the data did not include information on the reasons why the patients underwent lower extremity surgeries and whether the surgeries were primary or revision surgeries. We postulate that most knee arthroplasties may be elective surgeries. However, the outcomes of hip surgeries can vary according to the underlying etiologies, such as hip fracture or hip arthritis. Hip fracture surgery is associated with less favorable outcomes than elective surgery.48) Prognosis also differs between primary and revision surgeries, with revision surgeries generally having less favorable outcomes.7) Fourth, although the sample size was not small, the data did not cover the full scope of the nationwide pilot program, in which 66 hospitals participated, nor did it represent all surgical trends. In our study, for hip area surgeries, total hip replacement was more prevalent than hemiarthroplasty in both OG and YG. However, hemiarthroplasty is the most commonly performed hip surgery in Korea.49) It could be a potential bias due to the different cohort characteristics of a single hospital (Supplement A). In addition, changes in physical function and pain were calculated only for patients who were evaluated at two timepoints, depending on their motivation. The discrepancy between the initial sample sizes of the OG and YG and the number of patients with recorded outcome results indicate low adherence, as shown in the sample size table (Fig. 2). This high rate of missing follow-up evaluations may be due to insufficient monitoring to ensure patients continue their learned exercise and postoperative management. Inconsistent follow-up intervals between assessments should also be considered a potential source of bias. Since the OG and YG differ in terms of sex ration, age, registration duration after surgery and surgery types, it is important to account for these differences when interpreting combined data (Table 2). Fifth, the lack of programs to educate and train physicians, physical therapists, or coordinators in HBRT in each hospital is also an important issue to be considered when implementing this pilot program in clinical settings across the country.

Based on the identification of the limitations of our study, we propose the following suggestions. First, although the pilot program might play a role when compared with the MCID, a more well-designed study is necessary to substantiate its effects, while controlling for confounding factors such as internal determinants (age, sex, personality, comorbidities, etiologies, severity, etc.) and external determinants (surgical technique, type of implant, etc.).50) Second, the documents of this program should be revised to include more detailed information about the etiologies of lower extremity injuries, such as low-energy trauma (e.g., slipping down), high-energy trauma (e.g., accident, falling down), or degenerative change (e.g., advanced arthritis). Additionally, information regarding comorbidities should be more specific, including the disease diagnosis as the current documents only describe the affected organ systems such as cardiovascular, endocrine, pulmonary, renal, neurological, and musculoskeletal systems (Supplement A). Third, future efforts should prioritize the development of structured programs that incorporate ongoing support and communication among healthcare providers, enabling better monitoring of patient adherence and expanding support beyond initial education. Lastly, after discharge, the patients are currently monitored only via telephone or online messaging. Integrating a more efficient practice of tele-rehabilitation would be beneficial.

In conclusion, we analyzed the data from seven hospitals participating in a nationwide Rehabilitation at Home Care Pilot Program for patients undergoing lower extremity orthopedic surgeries. The postoperative rehabilitation education program appeared to be effective in improving physical function and reducing pain severity, though the improvement was less obvious in older patients who may require a more comprehensive approach compared to younger patients.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The researchers claim no conflicts of interest.

FUNDING

This study was supported by a 2021 research grant from the Korean Academy of Geriatric Rehabilitation Medicine (KAGRM).

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Conceptualization, JYL; Data curation, KM, JMK, SL, KK, SK, JHP, BRK, JHC; Funding acquisition, KM; Investigation, KM, JYL; Methodology, KM, JYL; Validation, KM, JYL; Visualization, KM, JYL; Writing–original draft, KM; Writing–review and editing, KM, JYL. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS

Supplementary materials can be found via https://doi.org/10.4235/agmr.24.0094.

Supplement A.

The common dataset documents for reporting to National Health Insurance system

agmr-24-0094-Supplement-A.pdf
Supplement B.

Berg Balance Scale

agmr-24-0094-Supplement-B.pdf
Supplement C.

Participant numbers of seven tertiary hospitals in older- and younger-age group

agmr-24-0094-Supplement-C.pdf
Supplement D.

Degrees of understanding in older- and younger-age groups (OG and YG)

agmr-24-0094-Supplement-D.pdf
Supplement E.

The number of older and younger groups by definition of older people (n=872)

agmr-24-0094-Supplement-E.pdf
Supplement F.

Demographic characteristics of older and younger patients

agmr-24-0094-Supplement-F.pdf
Supplement G.

Changes in Berg Balance Scale (BBS) in older- and younger-age groups

agmr-24-0094-Supplement-G.pdf

References

1. Aprisunadi , Nursalam N, Mustikasari M, Ifadah E, Hapsari ED. Effect of early mobilization on hip and lower extremity postoperative: a literature review. SAGE Open Nurs 2023;9:23779608231167825. 10.1177/23779608231167825. 37077286.
2. Lim JW, Hutchison P, Riemen AH, Hutchison JD. The multidisciplinary management of hip fractures in older patients: an update. Orthop Trauma 2024;38:85–8. 10.1016/j.mporth.2024.01.003.
3. Feng JN, Zhang CG, Li BH, Zhan SY, Wang SF, Song CL. Global burden of hip fracture: the Global Burden of Disease Study. Osteoporos Int 2024;35:41–52. 10.1007/s00198-023-06907-3. 37704919.
4. Sharma L. Osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med 2021;384:51–9. 10.1056/nejmcp1903768. 33406330.
5. Mears SC. Classification and surgical approaches to hip fractures for nonsurgeons. Clin Geriatr Med 2014;30:229–41. 10.1016/j.cger.2014.01.004. 24721363.
6. Culliford D, Maskell J, Judge A, Cooper C, Prieto-Alhambra D, Arden NK, et al. Future projections of total hip and knee arthroplasty in the UK: results from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2015;23:594–600. 10.1016/j.joca.2014.12.022. 25579802.
7. Schwartz AM, Farley KX, Guild GN, Bradbury TL Jr. Projections and epidemiology of revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States to 2030. J Arthroplasty 2020;35(6S):S79–85. 10.1016/j.arth.2020.02.030. 32151524.
8. Bandholm T, Wainwright TW, Kehlet H. Rehabilitation strategies for optimisation of functional recovery after major joint replacement. J Exp Orthop 2018;5:44. 10.1186/s40634-018-0156-2. 30306337.
9. Koh IJ, Kim TK, Chang CB, Cho HJ, In Y. Trends in use of total knee arthroplasty in Korea from 2001 to 2010. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013;471:1441–50. 10.1007/s11999-012-2622-y. 23054516.
10. Park JW, Won SH, Moon SY, Lee YK, Ha YC, Koo KH. Burden and future projection of revision total hip arthroplasty in South Korea. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021;22:375. 10.1186/s12891-021-04235-3. 33888097.
11. Jette DU, Hunter SJ, Burkett L, Langham B, Logerstedt DS, Piuzzi NS, et al. Physical therapist management of total knee arthroplasty. Phys Ther 2020;100:1603–31. 10.1093/ptj/pzaa099. 32542403.
12. McDonough CM, Harris-Hayes M, Kristensen MT, Overgaard JA, Herring TB, Kenny AM, et al. Physical therapy management of older adults with hip fracture. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51:CPG1–81. 10.2519/jospt.2021.0301. 33522384.
13. Min K, Beom J, Kim BR, Lee SY, Lee GJ, Lee JH, et al. Clinical practice guideline for postoperative rehabilitation in older patients with hip fractures. Ann Rehabil Med 2021;45:225–59. 10.5535/arm.21110. 34233406.
14. Prusinowska A, Krogulec Z, Turski P, Przepiorski E, Maldyk P, Ksiezopolska-Orlowska K. Total ankle replacement: surgical treatment and rehabilitation. Reumatologia 2015;53:34–9. 10.5114/reum.2015.50555. 27407223.
15. Tan AC, Armstrong E, Close J, Harris IA. Data quality audit of a clinical quality registry: a generic framework and case study of the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry. BMJ Open Qual 2019;8e000490. 10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000490. 31414056.
16. Pinto D, Alshahrani M, Chapurlat R, Chevalley T, Dennison E, Camargos BM, et al. The global approach to rehabilitation following an osteoporotic fragility fracture: a review of the rehabilitation working group of the International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) committee of scientific advisors. Osteoporos Int 2022;33:527–40. 10.1007/s00198-021-06240-7. 35048200.
17. Dreinhofer KE, Mitchell PJ, Begue T, Cooper C, Costa ML, Falaschi P, et al. A global call to action to improve the care of people with fragility fractures. Injury 2018;49:1393–7. 10.1016/j.injury.2018.06.032. 29983172.
18. Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. Guidance on Revised Guidelines for Rehabilitation at Home Care Pilot Program [Internet]. Wonju, Korea: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2022. [cited 2023 May 12]. Available from: https://www.hira.or.kr/bbsDummy.do?pgmid=HIRAA020002000100&brdScnBltNo=4&brdBltNo=10053.
19. van Egmond MA, van der Schaaf M, Vredeveld T, Vollenbroek-Hutten MM, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Klinkenbijl JH, et al. Effectiveness of physiotherapy with telerehabilitation in surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Physiotherapy 2018;104:277–98. 10.1016/j.physio.2018.04.004. 30030037.
20. Choi HJ, Yoon HK, Oh HC, Yoo JH, Choi CH, Lee JH, et al. Incidence and risk factors analysis for mortality after total knee arthroplasty based on a large national database in Korea. Sci Rep 2021;11:15772. 10.1038/s41598-021-95346-3. 34349179.
21. Hewlett-Smith NA, Pope RP, Hing WA, Simas VP, Furness JW. Patient and surgical prognostic factors for inpatient functional recovery following THA and TKA: a prospective cohort study. J Orthop Surg Res 2020;15:360. 10.1186/s13018-020-01854-9. 32854732.
22. Zarringam D, Saris DB, Bekkers JE. Identification of early prognostic factors for knee and hip arthroplasty; a long-term follow-up of the CHECK cohort. J Orthop 2019;19:41–5. 10.1016/j.jor.2019.10.020. 32021034.
23. World Health Organization. Ageing and health [Internet]. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2024. [cited 2025 Jan 15]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health.
24. Ho VP, Schiltz NK, Reimer AP, Madigan EA, Koroukian SM. High-risk comorbidity combinations in older patients undergoing emergency general surgery. J Am Geriatr Soc 2019;67:503–10. 10.1111/jgs.15682. 30506953.
25. Jung HY, Park JH, Shim JJ, Kim MJ, Hwang MR, Kim SH. Reliability test of Korean version of Berg Balance Scale. J Korean Acad Rehabil Med 2006;30:611–8.
26. Lan P, Chen X, Fang Z, Zhang J, Liu S, Liu Y. Effects of comorbidities on pain and function after total hip arthroplasty. Front Surg 2022;9:829303. 10.3389/fsurg.2022.829303. 35647007.
27. Yoon SH, Kim BR, Lee SY, Beom J, Choi JH, Lim JY. Influence of comorbidities on functional outcomes in patients with surgically treated fragility hip fractures: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Geriatr 2021;21:283. 10.1186/s12877-021-02227-5. 33910513.
28. Chu CH, Paquin K, Puts M, McGilton KS, Babineau J, van Wyk PM. Community-based hip fracture rehabilitation interventions for older adults with cognitive impairment: a systematic review. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 2016;3e3. 10.2196/rehab.5102. 28582255.
29. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Hip fracture: management [Internet]. Manchester, UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2023. [cited 2025 Jan 15]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg124/chapter/Recommendations#mobilisation-strategies.
30. Chilov MN, Cameron ID, ; March LM; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Evidence-based guidelines for fixing broken hips: an update. Med J Aust 2003;179:489–93. 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05653.x. 14583081.
31. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Joint replacement (primary): hip, knee and shoulder [Internet]. Manchester, UK: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2020. [cited 2025 Jan 15]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng157.
32. Riemen AH, Hutchison JD. The multidisciplinary management of hip fractures in older patients. Orthop Trauma 2016;30:117–22. 10.1016/j.mporth.2016.03.006. 27418950.
33. Prestmo A, Hagen G, Sletvold O, Helbostad JL, Thingstad P, Taraldsen K, et al. Comprehensive geriatric care for patients with hip fractures: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2015;385:1623–33. 10.1016/s0140-6736(14)62409-0. 25662415.
34. Heyzer L, Ramason R, De Castro Molina JA, Lim Chan WW, Loong CY, Kee Kwek EB. Integrated hip fracture care pathway (IHFCP): reducing complications and improving outcomes. Singapore Med J 2022;63:439–44. 10.11622/smedj.2021041. 33866715.
35. Kammerlander C, Roth T, Friedman SM, Suhm N, Luger TJ, Kammerlander-Knauer U, et al. Ortho-geriatric service: a literature review comparing different models. Osteoporos Int 2010;21(Suppl 4):S637–46. 10.1007/s00198-010-1396-x. 21058004.
36. Roche JJ, Wenn RT, Sahota O, Moran CG. Effect of comorbidities and postoperative complications on mortality after hip fracture in elderly people: prospective observational cohort study. BMJ 2005;331:1374. 10.1136/bmj.38643.663843.55. 16299013.
37. Pioli G, Bendini C, Pignedoli P, Giusti A, Marsh D. Orthogeriatric co-management: managing frailty as well as fragility. Injury 2018;49:1398–402. 10.1016/j.injury.2018.04.014. 29921533.
38. Maradit Kremers H, Larson DR, Crowson CS, Kremers WK, Washington RE, Steiner CA, et al. Prevalence of total hip and knee replacement in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015;97:1386–97. 10.2106/jbjs.n.01141. 26333733.
39. Feng JE, Novikov D, Anoushiravani AA, Schwarzkopf R. Total knee arthroplasty: improving outcomes with a multidisciplinary approach. J Multidiscip Healthc 2018;11:63–73. 10.2147/jmdh.s140550. 29416347.
40. Ha YC, Park YG, Nam KW, Kim SR. Trend in hip fracture incidence and mortality in Korea: a prospective cohort study from 2002 to 2011. J Korean Med Sci 2015;30:483–8. 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.483. 25829818.
41. Katkade VB, Sanders KN, Zou KH. Real world data: an opportunity to supplement existing evidence for the use of long-established medicines in health care decision making. J Multidiscip Healthc 2018;11:295–304. 10.2147/jmdh.s160029. 29997436.
42. Johansen A, Ojeda-Thies C, Poacher AT, Hall AJ, Brent L, Ahern EC, et al. Developing a minimum common dataset for hip fracture audit to help countries set up national audits that can support international comparisons. Bone Joint J 2022;104-B:721–8. 10.1302/0301-620x.104b6.bjj-2022-0080.r1. 35638208.
43. Mitchell PJ, Magaziner J, Costa M, Seymour H, Marsh D, Falaschi P, et al. FFN Clinical Toolkit [Internet]. Zurich, Switzerland: Fragility Fracture Network; 2020. [cited 2025 Jan 15]. Available from: https://fragilityfracturenetwork.org/resources_list/clinical-toolkit/.
44. Donohue K, Hoevenaars R, McEachern J, Zeman E, Mehta S. Home-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation following hip fracture surgery: what is the evidence? Rehabil Res Pract 2013;2013:875968. 10.1155/2013/875968. 24455275.
45. Kates SL, Miclau T. The fracture liaison service: its history, current state, how it works, and future directions. OTA Int 2022;5(3 Suppl):e192. 10.1097/oi9.0000000000000192. 35949499.
46. Tamura S, Miyata K, Kobayashi S, Takeda R, Iwamoto H. Minimal clinically important difference of the Berg Balance Scale score in older adults with hip fractures. Disabil Rehabil 2022;44:6432–7. 10.1080/09638288.2021.1962993. 34410873.
47. Singh S, Bajorek B. Defining ‘elderly’ in clinical practice guidelines for pharmacotherapy. Pharm Pract (Granada) 2014;12:489. 10.4321/s1886-36552014000400007. 25580172.
48. Le Manach Y, Collins G, Bhandari M, Bessissow A, Boddaert J, Khiami F, et al. Outcomes after hip fracture surgery compared with elective total hip replacement. JAMA 2015;314:1159–66. 10.1001/jama.2015.10842. 26372585.
49. Kim BS, Lim JY, Ha YC. Recent epidemiology of hip fractures in South Korea. Hip Pelvis 2020;32:119–24. 10.5371/hp.2020.32.3.119. 32953703.
50. Choi YJ, Ra HJ. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2016;28:1–15. 10.5792/ksrr.2016.28.1.1. 26955608.

Article information Continued

Fig. 1.

Overview of the postoperative rehabilitation education program following lower extremity surgeries. (A) Time frame of the pilot program. (B) Concise description of the pilot program. ETC, education and training charge; PMC, patient monitoring charge; POD, postoperative day.

Fig. 2.

Study flow. BBS, Berg Balance Scale; NRS, Numerical Rating Scale; OG, older-age group; YG, younger-age group; F/U, follow-up. F/U rate (%) = Post (n) / Pre (n) × 100, F/U days = mean (95% confidence interval).

Fig. 3.

Changes in Berg Balance Scale (BBS) in older- and younger-age groups (OG and YG). (A) Changes in BBS in OG between two separate measurements (durations: 20.3 days for total surgeries, 14.1 days for hip surgery, 20.1 days for femur surgery, 22.0 days for knee surgery; total number of 384, hip 79, femur 8, knee 296). (B) Changes in BBS in YG between two consecutive measurements (durations: 24.5 days for total surgeries, 23.6 days for hip surgery, 28.2 days for knee surgery; total number of 29, hip 23, knee 6). (C) Comparison of △BBS in OG and YG (number of OG/YG: total 384/29, hip 79/23, knee 296/6). (D) Comparison of △BBS in OG according to the number of comorbidities (Comorb1 <3 and Comorb2 ≥3; number of Comorb1/Comorb2: total 325/59, hip 62/17, femur 0, knee 258/38). The Berg Balance Scale scores range from 0 to 56. A higher score indicates better balance function. A graph shows mean and error bar based on standard error. The statistical analyses are based on the paired t-test for comparison of initial and follow-up measurement in the same group (A, B, D) and the independent t-test for comparison between OG and YG (C). F/U, follow-up. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

Fig. 4.

Changes in weight-bearing status and types of walking aids between two measurements in older- and younger-age groups (OG and YG). (A) Shift in weight bearing status in OG and YG: score 1 (full weight), 2 (partial weight), 3 (toe-touch), and 4 (no weight bearing); changes to each score 11/325/221/12 → 164/321/77/7 in OG and 2/18/17/0 → 16/16/5/0 in YG. (B) Shift in the types of walking aids in OG and YG: score 1 (independent walking), 2 (cane), 3 (axillary crutch), 4 (walker), and 5 (etc.); changes to each score 13/16/5/463/72 → 89/56/5/353/66 in OG and 2/0/3/30/2 → 9/4/3/19/2 in YG. The statistical analysis is based on chi-squared test. F/U, follow-up.

Fig. 5.

Changes in pain severity in older- and younger-age groups (OG and YG). (A) OG (duration: 21.6 days for total surgeries; number of total 413, hip 81, femur 8, knee 323). (B) YG (duration: 26.5 days for total surgeries; number of total 30, hip 23, knee 7). The Numerical Rating Scale scores range from 0 to 10. A lower score indicates less pain. A graph shows mean and error bar based on standard error. The statistical analyses are based on the paired t-test. F/U, follow-up.

Table 1.

Subcategories of rehabilitation at home care pilot program

Person in charge of the service Minimum time / number of allowed sessions The content of the service Face-to-face or not
Education and training charge 1 Physiatrist 15 min / 2 sessions -Goals and needs of rehabilitation Face-to-face
-Strengthening exercises
-Aerobic exercise
-Range of motion exercises
-Ambulation (level ground/stairs/slope)
-How to use gait aids
-Fall prevention
-Pain management
-Postoperative complication management
Education and training charge 2 HBRT (mainly a physical therapist) 20 min / 3 sessions -Precautions for exercise (weight-bearing control) Face-to-face
Patient monitoring charge HBRT (mainly a nurse) Required time (NA) / 1 session per month -Range of motion exercises Mobile-based messenger apps or on call
-Strengthening exercises
-Safe ambulation
-Pain management
-Postoperative complication management
-Fall prevention

HBRT, home-based rehabilitation team.

Table 2.

Sample sizes for outcome analysis, F/U rate during F/U days

Scale Group Pre (n) Post (n) F/U rate F/U Days
BBS OG Total 801 384 48% 20.3 (18.7–21.9)
 • Hip 227 79 35% 14.1 (10.8–17.5)
 • Femur 62 8 13% 20.1 (-0.6–40.8)
 • Knee 510 296 58% 22.0 (20.2–23.8)
 • Ankle 1 0 - -
BBS YG Total 71 29 41% 24.5 (19.7–29.3)
 • Hip 55 23 42% 23.6 (18.2–28.9)
 • Femur 3 0 - -
 • Knee 13 6 46% 28.2 (12.7–43.6)
NRS OG Total 801 413 52% 21.6 (20.0–23.2)
 • Hip 227 81 36% 15.3 (11.9–18.7)
 • Femur 63 8 13% 17.3 (-0.8–35.3)
 • Knee 510 323 63% 23.4 (21.6–25.1)
 • Ankle 1 0 - -
NRS YG Total 71 30 42% 26.5 (21.4–31.6)
 • Hip 55 23 42% 25.4 (19.6–31.2)
 • Femur 3 0 0 -
 • Knee 13 7 54% 30.1 (16.8–43.5)

Table 3.

Subcategories of rehabilitation at home care pilot program

Older age group (n=801) Younger age group (n=71) p-value
Demographics
 Sex <0.0001
  Male 153 (19.1) 34 (47.9)
  Female 648 (80.9) 37 (52.1)
 Age (y) 73.9±0.3 49.6±1.2 0.001
Registration duration (day)
 All surgeries 4.4±0.3 3.2±0.7 0.001
 Hip surgery 4.3±0.4 2.7±0.6 0.009
 Knee surgery 3.4±0.3 2.2±1.0 >0.05
Surgery information
 Surgery area <0.0001
  Hip 227 (28.3) 55 (77.5)
  Femur 63 (7.9) 3 (4.2)
  Knee 510 (63.7) 13 (18.3)
  Ankle 1 (0.1) 0
 Surgery side >0.05
  Right 289 (36.1) 31 (43.7)
  Left 298 (37.2) 28 (39.4)
  Both 214 (26.7) 12 (16.9)
 Surgery types <0.0001
  Total hip replacement 141 (17.6) 47 (66.2)
  Hemiarthroplasty 86 (10.7) 3 (4.2)
  Screw fixation: femur head 7 (0.9) 1 (1.4)
  Sliding hip screw 5 (0.6) 0
  Intramedullary device: femur 51 (6.4) 2 (2.8)
  Total knee replacement 505 (63.0) 17 (23.9)
  Unicompartmental knee replacement 5 (0.6) 1 (1.4)
  Intramedullary device for tibia 1 (0.1) 0 (0)
Baseline outcome measures
 Berg Balance Scale 17.1±0.6 14.4±2.1 >0.05
 Numerical Rating Scale 4.5±0.1 4.3±0.2 >0.05

Values are presented as number (%) or mean±standard error.