Vascularized proximal fibula epiphyseal transfer for distal radius reconstruction in children: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Reconstruction of the distal radius in children is cumbersome, requiring simultaneous restoration of joint function and axial growth. Vascularized proximal fibular epiphyseal transfers (VFET) have been popularized over non-vascularized transfers and prosthesis. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of VFET and its associated complications. METHODS: Electronic database of PubMed MEDLINE was searched between 1970 and 2014. Studies reporting VFET for distal radius reconstruction in children (<15 years old) with clear reporting of technique (vascular pedicle) and objective outcome measures were included. Outcomes of interest were rate of graft growth, bone union and complications. A one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test was used to compare growth rates between pedicle types. RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, representing 25 patients. Pedicles used were anterior tibial (44%), peroneal (16%), or bi-pedicled (40%) anastomosed in antegrade (64%) or reverse flow (36%) fashion. Among all pedicle types, best results were achieved using anterior tibial artery with reversed flow, yielding average growth rate of 0.83 cm/year (P = 0.01). Recipient complications included four premature epiphyseal plate closures, a flap loss, and six wrist radial deviations. Donor complications included six common peroneal nerve palsies (five temporary, a permanent), and a talocalcaneal instability. Overall complication rates between pedicle types were comparable (P = 0.062). CONCLUSION: VFET may be a surgical option capable of restoring joint function and axial growth potential in select patients. The reverse flow technique based on the anterior tibial artery may result in superior outcomes. However, the overall complication rate is high and permanent peroneal nerve palsy may result. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microsurgery 36:705-711, 2016.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".