[Reasons why musicians consult hand surgeons].
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Musicians occasionally consult orthopedic surgeons, particularly upper limb specialists. We wanted to learn more about the reasons why musicians attend orthopedic clinics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We analyzed retrospectively 227 case files of musicians who consulted our center between 1994 and 2001. We noted patient related factors (age, gender, musical experience, level of performance, daily practice schedule) and their reasons for consulting (pain, discomfort, advice). We studied the medical history of the patients and searched for predisposing or triggering elements. We also recorded therapeutic options proposed. RESULTS: Our series included 119 men (52%) and 108 women, mean age 35 years with 27 years of musical experience on the average. Instruments played were mainly the piano (41%), the violin (19%), and the guitar (15%). Patients playing wind instruments, who consult more often for ENT problems, were exceptional. On the average, the patients played their instrument 4 hours daily. One-third of the patients were high-level amateurs, one-third were professionals, and one-quarter were lower-level amateurs. There was a small proportion of soloists or professors. Two-thirds of the musicians presented disorders of the musculoskeletal system, particularly trauma sequelae. Signs of overuse were present in 18% of the patients, mainly women, signs of misuse due to inappropriate or defective technique in 8.8%, and dystonia in 5.7%. Psychological problems were noted in 4 patients. More than one half of the patients had obtained medical advice prior to consulting an orthopedic surgeon and the very large majority had been referred by specialized physical therapists. A surgical procedure was proposed for only 19% of the patients presenting an orthopedic disorder. DISCUSSION: This study presents a diversified panel of musicians consulting orthopedic surgery clinics. Practicing schedules varied in the study population from one to five hours daily. More than half the patients complained of pain but 18% consulted because they perceived a problem when playing and 17% consulted simply for advice. Our findings recall that musicians comprise a sensitive population requiring careful overall management. Unlike series published to date, we had a majority of men. Problems involving an orthopedic disorder or trauma and trauma sequelae predominated. In the literature, diagnosis has been oriented by the specialty of the consulting physician. We found that our patients who suffered from overuse had often recently changed their habitual practicing methods or conditions. The diagnosis of misuse was facilitated when the patient was examined with his/her instrument. The low rate of dystonic disorders was probably related to the fact that nearly half of our patients were followed regularly by a physical therapist. We did not observe any case of excessive laxity or Linburg Comstock syndrome which exceptionally have functional impact. The very large majority of our patients were referred by physical therapists and when surgery was necessary, the procedure was performed in accordance with accepted rules concerning the therapeutic management of musicians.
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 | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,017 | 0,003 |
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 ».