MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991467935 · doi:10.1007/s11552-012-9410-8

Re: End-of-Skin Grafts in Syndactyly Release: Description of a New Flap for Web Space Resurfacing and Primary Closure of Finger Defects

2012· article· en· W1991467935 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Krešimir Bulić

Bibliographic record

VenueHand · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyndactylyMedicineSurgeryPlastic surgeryContractureAnatomyNail (fastener)Deformity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sir, I read with great interest the article “End-of-skin grafts in syndactyly release; description of a new flap for web space resurfacing and primary closure of finger defects” by Sharma et al. published in Hand in 2009 [7]. The method of using an islanded dorsal flap without additional skin grafts for syndactyly release was first described by Sherif et al. in 1998 [8], being subsequently reported and modified by many authors [1, 3, 5, 9, 11]. While they all agree that this method of web space reconstruction provides an excellent basis for a long-lasting good result, most of them also admit that it is not suitable for all syndactyly types, and that releasing complete and complex syndactylies most often still requires the use of skin grafts and local flaps [3, 5, 9, 11]. The authors described a method of closing the middle and distal phalangeal defects that result from syndactyly release through direct closure or secondary intention healing following defatting of skin flaps. This technique produces a linear scar in the mid-lateral line of the digit, which will, with time, lead to contracture and finger and nail deformity. Although the authors reported one patient in their series having had complex syndactyly, they did not report any additional procedures performed to reconstruct the fingertip in this patient. The reconstruction of the lateral nail fold in complex syndactyly release usually requires some form of pulp flap method to cover exposed bone, of which the technique described by Buck-Gramcko is probably the best known [2]. Previously used methods of nail plate, matrix and pulp fat reduction to achieve the direct closure have failed the test of time, very often resulting in cosmetically unacceptable fingertips with deformed nails and absent or deformed lateral nail folds [4]. Indeed, taking a closer look at the follow-up photograph of one of the released digits in the article (Fig. 1), it is clearly visible that there is extensive scarring and notching of the lateral nail fold and deformation of the nail plate, which the authors did not consider as a problem. Fig. 1 Close-up of the follow-up photographs of one of the released digits (with kind permission from Springer Science+Business Media [7]) Considering the relatively small number of patients reported, various syndactyly types included in the study group and relatively short follow-up time, it is difficult to accept conclusions about the long-term outcomes. Unfortunately the authors also failed to quantify their results using parameters traditionally used in syndactyly release outcome reports [6], such as joint ROM, web creep, as described by Withey [10], and scar evaluation by the Vancouver Scar Scale or some other scar score. A normal sensation is reported, although it is admitted that sensory testing can be challenging in this age group (10 months to 3 years plus 1–3 years follow-up). Although many reports provide ample evidence that dorsal island flap techniques can provide long-lasting good result in incomplete syndactylies, thus avoiding the need to use skin grafts and shortening the operation time, complete and especially complex syndactylies necessitate the use of skin grafts and local flaps if a cosmetically pleasing fingertip is to be achieved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHandSame topicReconstructive Surgery and Microvascular TechniquesFrench-language works237,207