Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients Undergoing Palmar Fasciectomy for Dupuytren’s Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present study was undertaken to assess the health-related quality of life in patients with Dupuytren's disease who undergo palmar fasciectomy. METHODS: A prospective cohort of patients with Dupuytren's disease undergoing palmar and/or digital fasciectomy was recruited from the practice of three plastic surgeons in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. After written informed consent was obtained, participants were asked to complete three health-related quality-of-life questionnaires (i.e., Short Form-36, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, and Health Utility Index Mark 3) at five time points: at 1 week and 1 day preoperatively, and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Ranges of motion and grip strength measurement were also recorded. RESULTS: For the 26 patients in the study, the multiattribute scores of the Health Utility Index Mark 3 improved from 0.80 before surgery to 0.83 at 12 months postoperatively (p > 0.05). There was no difference in the Short Form-36 scores, but the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire scores improved from 74 at 1 week preoperatively to 90 at the 12-month postoperative visit (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who undergo palmar fasciectomy for Dupuytren's disease experience a substantial improvement in their health-related quality of life 12 months after surgery. In the authors' study population, a benefit of 0.85 quality-adjusted life-year within 12 months was observed. This can be translated as follows: the average patient who undergoes palmar fasciectomy gains the equivalent of approximately 14.4 days (0.48 months) in perfect health by undergoing palmar fasciectomy. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".