Subungual Exostosis of the Toes: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subungual exostosis is a relatively common benign bone tumor that occurs in the distal phalanges of the toes and can be a source of pain and nail deformity. There is controversy about the treatment of these lesions and there are few studies that have synthesized what is known and provided meaningful information on treatment. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed a systematic review to address the following questions: (1) What is the best surgical approach for excising these lesions? (2) What is the age range, sex distribution, and presenting symptoms of subungual exostoses and which toe is most frequently affected? (3) What complications arise from treatment? METHODS: Two authors independently searched multiple databases (Medline, 1950-May 2013; Cochrane EBM database, and EMBASE, 1980-May 2013 provided by OVID; ACP Journal Club, 2003-May 2013; CINAHL by EBSCO, 1937-May 2013; and PubMed by NLM, 1940-May 2013), and key words were chosen to achieve a broad search strategy. We included studies on the management of toe exostoses with > 10 cases and we excluded studies that reported on upper extremity exostoses or osteochondromas. Demographic and treatment data were collected from each article by two independent authors and collated. A total of 124 abstracts were screened, and 116 articles were reviewed in full, of which 13 met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Complete marginal excision through a fish mouth incision protecting the nail led to a recurrence rate of 4% and satisfactory clinical results, defined as no requirement for postoperative intervention and a satisfactory clinical appearance in 73%. Most studies provided incomplete descriptions of specific surgical techniques used. Fifty-five percent of the patients were younger than 18 years of age. A history of toe trauma before diagnosis was present in approximately 30% of the cases. Delayed diagnosis occurred in approximately 10% of the cases and onychodystrophy occurred in more than 10%. CONCLUSIONS: There is weak evidence to guide management of subungual exostosis. Adequate wound management postexcision aiming to minimize disruption to the nail bed and matrix may prevent onychodystrophy, which is a common complication of treatment.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".