Long-term Outcome of Replantation of Proximal-third Amputated Arm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report a successful replantation of a proximal-third avulsed left arm in a 26-year-old female with maintenance of good functional, clinical, Short Form 36, and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand outcomes results at 10 years. An organized approach combining staged surgical reconstruction and intense hand therapy allowed for both successful replantation and outcome. There exist no clear guidelines in making the decision between replantation and revision amputation. Controversy regarding the value of upper limb replantation seems to increase with ascending levels of amputation. A case report cannot provide guidelines, but several points can be made that may be of help to hand surgeons confronting this uncommon situation. In a highly motivated patient with realistic expectation, a preoperatively intact functioning shoulder should be considered an indication for attempt at replantation. With further staged reconstruction, a helper arm can still be achieved even in an avulsion-type amputation. Current operative and perioperative aspects of microsurgical replantation and subsequent reconstruction are discussed.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".