Pediatric flexor tendon injuries: A 10-year outcome analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Primary flexor tendon repair was first introduced in the 1960s. Since then, major advances in the understanding of flexor tendon anatomy and biology have led to improved outcomes following repair. Relative to the adult population, sparse knowledge exists as to which operative and postoperative treatments are most successful in children. This is due, in part, to the rarity of pediatric tendon lacerations compared with the adult population, but also related to challenges when working with smaller anatomy and the decreased compliance in children with respect to rehabilitation protocols. Published reports indicate that the incidence of 'good' flexor tendon repair outcomes is as low as 53%. OBJECTIVE: To determine the injury pattern and demographics of pediatric flexor tendon injuries involving zones I, II and III over the past decade, and to report results and identify treatment paradigms that are associated with optimal outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all flexor tendon injuries involving zones I, II and III between April 2001 and December 2010 was performed. Parameters reviewed included demographics, injury mechanism, repair technique, outcomes and complications. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients with a median age of eight years experienced 100 tendon injuries. The most common cause of injury was glass (n=22), with the most common digit injured being the small finger (n=30). Tendon injuries included the following: flexor digitorum superficialis (n=46); flexor digitorum profundus (n=45), flexor pollicis longus (n=8); and adductor pollicis longus (n=1). Zone III had the highest number of injuries (n=47), followed by zone II (n=39). Ninety tendons were repaired using polyester suture, the most common size being 4-0. The modified Kessler technique was used in the majority of cases (n=62). Only 22 tendons underwent an epitendinous repair. Splint immobilization was used in 30 patients and a full cast in 17. The median duration of immobilization was four weeks. Forty-two patients underwent postoperative hand therapy. Using the American Society for Surgery of the Hand Total Active Motion (TAM) score, 40 of 47 patients experienced 100% recovery with no functional limitations. Two patients had a score <100%, not necessitating further surgery. A second operation was required for five patients. All patients in this group demonstrated 100% TAM at one year. CONCLUSION: Pediatric flexor tendon injuries remain rare and usually involve the dominant hand holding or manipulating an object. An excellent outcome was found in 95.9% of patients assessed by TAM scores. Repair technique was chosen according to the size of tendon involved. Patients not treated with hand therapy and not immobilized in a cast were often too young to participate in rehabilitation. Based on the results, immobilization of young children for four weeks is safe and does not worsen functional outcomes. Of the patients requiring a second procedure, no predictive variables for poorer outcomes were found on analysis of age, outcome, cause, location, repair technique, rehabilitation protocol or zone of injury.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».