Use of Wearable Devices to Augment Traditional Measurements of Postoperative Outcomes Following Total Joint Arthroplasty: Systematic Review.
Robert Raymond Hall Iii, Alexander P Hamel, Pamela A Chan and 2 others
PMID 41996659WHAT IT FOUND
Wearable step counts often fail to match patient-reported pain and function scores after hip or knee replacement.
Correlations exist but are inconsistent, with no standardized metric yet guiding clinical intervention or predicting poor recovery reliably.
Key findings
01Step count data frequently shows no correlation with patient-reported outcomes like pain and function, despite improvements in both.
02There is no consensus on which wearable metrics are most valuable, and no specific data point currently necessitates clinical intervention.
03Industry-funded studies suggest patient-reported outcomes may improve faster than wearable-measured activity levels.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 5 of the 35 studies were randomized trials, limiting the strength of evidence. Huge variability in devices, placement (wrist vs ankle), and timing of data collection makes comparison difficult. Wrist-based devices may record falsely low activity if patients use walkers or canes. Participants were likely more tech-savvy and socioeconomically advantaged, limiting generalizability. Several included studies were funded by device manufacturers.
Declared interests
The review authors declared no conflicts of interest. However, 5 of the 35 included studies were funded by Zimmer Biomet, one used a device supplied by 360 Knee Systems, and one involved an application created by the lead author.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the lack of correlation between step counts and patient-reported outcomes as evidence that wearables are useless. The data is inconsistent because studies used different devices, metrics, and time points. Wearables may still provide valuable continuous monitoring, but current evidence does not support using specific step goals to dictate clinical interventions.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →