The Best of Tendon and Nerve Transfers in the Upper Extremity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LEARNING OBJECTIVES: After reading this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Identify the prerequisite conditions to perform a tendon or a nerve transfer. 2. Detail some of the current nerve and tendon transfer options in upper extremity peripheral nerve injuries. 3. Understand the advantages and disadvantages of tendon and nerve transfers used in isolation and in combination. 4. Appreciate the controversies that surround the nerve/tendon transfers. 5. Realize the treatment outcomes of peripheral nerve injuries. SUMMARY: Traditional treatment of a Sunderland fourth- or fifth-degree peripheral nerve injury has been direct neurorrhaphy, nerve grafting, or tendon transfers. With increasing knowledge of nerve pathophysiology, additional treatment options such as nerve transfers have become increasingly popular. With an array of choices for treating peripheral nerve injuries, there is debate as to whether tendon transfers and/or nerve transfers should be performed to restore upper extremity function. Often, tendon and nerve transfers are used in combination as opposed to one in isolation to obtain the most normal functioning extremity without unacceptable donor deficits. The authors tend to prefer reconstructive techniques that have proven long-term efficacy to restore function. Nerve transfers are becoming more common practice, with excellent results; however, the authors are wary of using nerve transfers that sacrifice possible secondary tendon reconstruction should the nerve transfer fail.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".