Transfer of Either Index Finger Extensor Tendon to the Extensor Pollicis Longus Tendon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extensor pollicis longus (EPL) tendon ruptures have been treated succesfully with the transfer of the extensor indicis proprius (EIP) tendon. Situations exist in which, due to intraoperative observations, another tendon transfer may be considered preferable to the standard EIP transfer method. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether transfer of the extensor digitorum communis II (EDC II) tendon from the index finger to the EPL tendon, leaving the EIP tendon to the index finger intact, would serve as an equally efficient transfer and not adversely affect the function of the hand. METHODS: Two patients who had the EDC II tendon transferred to the ruptured EPL tendon, and two patients who had the EIP tendon transferred, were retrospectively reviewed. In each transfer type, one patient had suffered an EPL tendon rupture after a Colles' fracture, and the other had rheumatoid arthritis. The rupture occurred on the non-dominant side in one patient in each transfer type. Each patient was examined and subjected to range of motion and power testing at least one year following surgery. RESULTS: All four patients showed a minimal extension lag with the lift off test, but there was no noticeable difference in range of motion, pinch grip and hand grip strength between the transfer types. Both EDC II transfer patients demonstrated an 8° to 15° loss of thumb interphalangeal joint flexion compared with the unoperated side; EIP transfer patients demonstrated less than a 5° loss. Three patients demonstrated a minor extension lag in the index finger and middle finger. Extension power of the thumb and index finger in all patients varied with wrist flexion and extension and ranged from 50% to 150% of the unoperated side. CONCLUSIONS: These case reports suggest that either index finger tendon may be successfully transferred in EPL tendon ruptures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".